Welcome to another episode of Facts.
I'm your host Steven Boyce, joined by my Co host Pat May.
Good evening, Steven. Good evening.
All right, well, we chose the topic to spend a little bit of
time on the next few episodes dealing with Paul's epistles,
writings, and really how Protestants have misunderstood.
And we are throwing ourselves into that category because we
had a lot of situations where we were teaching a certain way and
sometimes we did things maybe ignorantly in an unbelief.
I think Paul said that as well. But one of the things that we
want to kind of dissect today, particularly as we're going to
spend some time between Romans one and three, and we're going
to look at the subject of Paul and how he dealt with the
subject of sin, how we understood condemnation.
Also kind of talk about looking at Paul from a new lens in a way
where humanity needs to be looked at differently too.
Not just sin, but humanity in the state of sin.
Because I think in our Protestant backgrounds, that's
been altered a little bit. Very much so, yeah.
We'll get into that. But that's going to be a good
thing to discuss. Well, let's establish some
boundaries here, because history tells us as well as Scripture
with history, that this isn't a new situation that's never been
heard of before. We're going to bring up on the
screen for you the letter second Peter chapter #3 and we're going
to see what he says about this here specifically.
So go ahead and read for us in our passage.
Second Peter chapter 3, verses 15 really, and 16, but
particularly what he says about Paul's writings and what people
were doing with them. Yeah, I guess I'll read from the
RSV edition, but here's what Peter says.
And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation.
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the
wisdom given him. Speaking of this as he does in
all his letters. There are some things in them,
hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to
their own destruction as they do the other scriptures.
As they do the other scriptures. Meaning one of the things that's
going on is that there are people in in the time of Peter
and Paul who had Paul's letters, which tells us there's already a
Pauline corpus, and Peter had already believed that the
Pauline corpus was scripture. Yeah, it's graffe.
The Greek word is graffe, but he he basically aligns that with
the rest of the scriptures, probably meaning in his mind the
Old Testament. Maybe.
I would think so. You know something else?
But yeah, most likely the Old Testament and or at least his
view of whatever, whatever the Canon might be and Peter's mind
of the Old Testament, we've had that discussion.
Before, but he quotes from Enoch.
I'm just saying I'm not saying he believed that was scripture.
I'm I'm not saying that. In fact, I would argue that he
didn't believe. That, but yeah.
That their their categories were a little bit different.
Is what I'm trying to say. And that's the point.
Yeah. But he does equate Paul's
writings with all the scripture. And again, this is something we
need to hold in context, right? Historically, Peter writes this
while Paul is still alive, and this is most likely written
maybe in the early to mid 60s. Yeah, they're probably close to
death. They're He's speaking about
death earlier in the book. Yeah, and, and and this is like
you said, this is happening in their time, in real time.
He is already seeing Saint Peter, is already seeing
evidence of those who are misinterpreting and misreading
Paul's letters. That's crazy.
So if they're going to do that when the Prince of the apostles
is alive and Paul himself, who's able to correct them, is alive
or very close to death, it may be at worse.
Paul had died before Peter. Doesn't seem to be the way it
seems to be. Peter, Paul.
Yeah. Who?
They died probably around the same time, right?
Regardless of how you date. And under the same Nero.
Or John. John is probably still alive.
Some of these other apostles or even some of their successors
like Jude, probably, we don't know.
But at the end of the day, they do seem to have Apostolic voices
still on the planet that can do exactly what Peter just did,
say, hey, be careful. There's people twisting,
manipulating and using it for their own destruction while they
think they're using it for their own advantage.
And so he had a high value of Paul's letters.
And when we look at the Protestant Reformation and we
deal with some of the, the, the subjects that came into play
from whether it's Luther or Calvin or later reformers, the
typical debates, the typical fights theologically end up
coming from Romans, Galatians and 1st Corinthians and some of
these other. Paulines too.
There's a major climactical approach to the debate when it
came to the theology in Paul. Definitely.
I mean. This, this was, you know, the
whole solo FIDE argument from Luther stem from his supposed
studies between Romans and Galatians.
Yeah, especially Romans 328, which is how he interpreted
Romans 3 and and other passages. Of course.
But if scripture can be twisted and and the consequences are
destruction, then scripture requires authoritative
interpretation, which I think is what you were alluding to.
Peter and Paul had to correct how others were miss were
mishandling Paul's letters. And it also notes that Peter
confesses some of these things are hard to understand.
So there's the doctrine, the so-called reformed doctrine of
perspicuity come into play. You know that everything is
clear. Well, obviously in in Saint
Peter's mind, that's not true at all.
Like these things are hard and difficult to understand.
And if Peter can say that, then we shouldn't have a problem
admitting that. That's ourselves.
That's right. That's a.
Tough saying, I mean and and the apostles had no problem showing
that kind of struggle at times even in Jesus ministry.
Jesus is hard. Yeah.
Like John chapter 6. Yeah, like Lord, this is hard
but but we know you have the words of life.
And so they knew there was something unique about Jesus
teaching even. If they and his parables were.
But what we see also here is that, like you said, not only is
there a divine scripture that has been proclaimed, the
difficulty of understanding it also shows it needs a divine
voice to affirm, in my opinion. I've argued this by defending
Second Peter's authenticity. By the way, I've done an entire
episode on that. I just did a lecture recently on
that on multiple channels as well, but it is on our channel.
If you want to go back to the archives.
I've defended the authenticity of Second Peter, and I do
believe Peter's behind it. Probably not.
Whether he's dependent or not is is worthy of argument, but I do
see here a petron office operating to affirm a doctrinal
belief and a corpus of fellow apostles by him affirming Paul's
letters was almost putting the Roman seas approval on the
letters of Paul to be circulated in the churches while also
recognizing people or abusing them.
So we have a divine authority on earth who is intervening and and
actually clarifying that there are things going on around
Paul's letter that need to be careful.
And so as we look at this, he's calling it scripture.
He's saying it's being twisted. It's very difficult to
understand. And So what we have to be
careful of not only just, you know, while the Protestants, you
know, butchered Paul, well, we can all do it.
We can all do it, yeah. This is why we need the living
and abiding voice of the Lord through the person he has left
on earth in order to give thority and keys to do the very
work that we're talking about. There are guard rails and and
the church, by the way, for those who don't know this, the
church is given a large amount of latitude for disagreement
within interpretation. There's not we talked about.
This. Not everything is dogma.
It's a church about dogmas, but they're not very dogmatic about
their dogmas. And and then I've said that
before, like they have dogmas, but within the dogma, there's a
lot of latitude some time as well.
So, so let's kind of let's jump into that.
Let's talk about Romans, particularly one through 3.
And these are the three main things that we're going to hit
today. Sin, justification and works of
the law. I mean, you can categorize,
categorize that in one way and just put subcategories under it.
But many Protestants pack come to these passages particularly,
and they approach Paul assuming a couple of things.
Fallacy #1 works. When they see the word works of
the law especially, they understand that, and we have
been taught this our whole lives, that works are a act of
obedience or do goods. Anytime we see it.
Any any act of good. Any any place in Scripture,
that's what. That's how we would understand
the word works. And so with that comes grace and
works or obedience are not actually harmonious and that
they can both exist together, but that they are actually rival
to each other. That's right.
Yeah, they are, they are opposing each other.
They're they're not working in harmony with each.
Other now I can hear some Protestants in the comments
section now fighting back saying now wait a minute, hold on.
You know, we we believe faith of that works is dead.
But yeah, but you you do pretzels and backflips and
manipulative moves to come up with some kind of explanation to
harmonize Peter or to harmonize Paul and James because in my I
sat through Paul in the epistles class and I asked a lot of the
tension questions then didn't like the answers I received even
at that point. But here's the thing.
I mean there is a tension there that Protestants deal with that
Catholics and Orthodox don't have to deal with it.
It's it it's not an issue for us as we understand works and grace
1/3 fallacy is that they believe Paul was attacking Sacramento or
covenantal religion itself. Or the word religion.
The word religion and again, yeah, this is where the rivalry
comes in with James. Yeah.
And by the way, for Protestant want to fight us in this.
There's a reason that Luther didn't like the book of James.
There's a reason he had I though he translated it into German.
He didn't care for its canonicity, status and when it
ultimately, I guess you could say, would accept it.
But he didn't accept it theologically because it didn't
preach Christ. And and truly it was ideas like
this that rivaled his understanding of Paul.
So therefore, since he established Paul was right,
James is wrong. And and that's just that's
ironic because James speaks of works, he speaks of true
religion undefiled is to care for the widow and the orphan to
visit him. And so his mind, there is a
religious order within Christianity.
There is religious practice and piety within the order of
Christianity. And it did involve almsgiving
and taking care of people and fasting and and things like
that. I mean, and fasting in a certain
way. So it's interesting that this
sharp edge that has continued against Catholicism and this
sharp edge is consistently gone after the church's teaching on
faith and works. The Protestants have had to deal
with tension that we haven't had to deal with on this side of the
type. Right.
Yeah. So Romans one through 3, though,
that's not what it's like. It's not going to paint these
pictures. We're going to paint it a little
bit better. It's going to demonstrate what
the church has always understood from these passages.
Yes, there's some opportunities to disagree and and maybe have a
slightly different interpretation, but what we're
going to see through Romans one through 3.
In summary, is is is basically this when we get into it that
there's universal sin, Jew and Gentile.
There is, you know, an approach that Paul is condemning any kind
of boasting towards God, that you can achieve something on
your own and that you can obtain favor with God by self work, a
reliance on Torah, specifically the law of Moses, apart from
Christ is is is damnable and that covenant privilege without
faith is worthless. That's a big one, yeah.
So that's a big one. But what he's not doing, he's
not attacking obedience and holiness and spirit filled
living and cooperating with God's grace absolutely.
So yeah. That's something to think about.
So as we jump into this folks, make sure you hit the like and
subscribe. We're glad you've joined us.
Make sure if you have not yet checked out the membership, you
can now do that. We are part of a multi work
going on right now. We started releasing videos just
for members. There's a little series on
catechesis that I'm releasing as I work with St.
Edmund Campion. I've been given permission to
use it for my own channel. Members have access to that
also. We have a Discord group that we
share information, content, memes, all kinds of stuff.
You'll be a part of that. If you are listening on the
podcast, make sure you hit the follow, leave us a five star
review. That'll go a long, long way.
And if you want to be a partner that doesn't have the membership
side on that, of course on the podcast there's a link in the
description that takes you to a timely page.
Any donation you give one time or consistent 2 facts, you will
get an opportunity to join that same Discord.
We get your your e-mail address. I send out newsletters.
You'll be able to receive updates, news, links and
information about what's going on here at Fax.
So we're glad you joined us again, Hit the like and
subscribe. Hit the follow, hit the joins,
hit the links. Check us out.
See what we're doing as we continue to grow this channel.
All right, Pat, let's get right into the discussion here.
In Romans 1, the Gentiles are in a state of sin.
They're not excluded just simply off of ignorance, and that's
what Paul has established in chapter 1 and verse 18, we see
this. For the wrath of God is revealed
from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of
men, who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
For what can be known of God is plain to them, because God has
shown it to them ever since the creation of the world.
The invisible nature, namely His eternal power and deity, has
been clearly perceived in things that He has made, so that they
are without excuse. For although they knew God, they
did not honor Him as God or give Him thanks, But they became
futile in their thinking, and senseless in their minds were in
the senseless minds given over to darkness.
Now what is Paul concluding about the Pagan Gentile world?
That they first all of us are obligated to respond to the
light and revelation of creation.
The heavens declared this is a psalms.
The heavens declared the glory of God right?
And that God's divine attributes can be even seen in the created.
Nature and order, correct? That's natural revelation, or
what we call natural theology. Man is responsible to God in
what has been revealed to him. God isn't going to judge the man
without the law with the law. Right, that's correct.
He's going to judge us based on what revelation we didn't have
and did understand and rejected. Correct.
And and of course, here he demonstrates that from the
creation of the world these things could be seen by multiple
generations. It's not a generational
revelation either. From the beginning of creation,
God has revealed himself through these means, Yes.
And of course he he demonstrates that man in his state is without
excuse. There's no excuse.
Man is known and has the ability to know God known by and has the
ability to know God through the creation and, and and the
understanding of divine institution.
So that's that's the main point there.
But Paul through this whole entire chapter is going to
attack idolatry, pagans, people that have truth and have chosen
to. Suppress it.
Suppress that truth. Moral corruption, which we'll
get into in two in a minute. More sexual immorality.
Disordered worship, taking the truth and choosing a lie
instead, willingly. That's it.
These are willing things. These aren't like, yeah, like
people that just didn't know better.
Yeah, this is what we would call like mortal sin.
And the idea of the Catholic Church, like mortal grave sin,
is something that you do willingly, You know what you're
doing, and you do it with the intent of, you know, break of
transgressing against God. So, you know, I thought was
interesting when, you know, you read that selection of verses in
Romans 1, it's interesting how that kind of correlates with the
story of Israel. You know, obviously you have the
story of creation. But as you continue reading
through Romans 1, you, you start to see where, where so much of
this wraps around Israel's story, Israel's story of
captivity, Israel's story of exile, Israel's story of the
nations always plundering them, the, the Egyptians, the
Assyrians, the Babylonians. When you, when you read Romans
one, I would encourage the reader think through what's
happening. At least as Paul was thinking
about this, you can tell he's, he's literally, he's really
thinking about the story of Israel and, and all the Pagan
gods that came that were surrounding Israel.
He's actually including all of them within that story and say
none of them are without excuse. They've all been given God's
revelation. I just thought that was kind of
an interesting. They've been given God's
revelation, and in this case, Paul's focus on those who have
suppressed it, changed it, manipulated it, started
worshipping the creature more than the.
Creator who? Who did that?
Egypt did that? Babylon did that?
I. Guess all the Pagan nations and
so his concern for them is particularly.
So why is Paul's bringing this into the equation at all?
Like what was his whole important point that he's trying
to pass into this writing? Well, he's drawing that the
self-righteous Jews who who look at the gentiles have one way of
saying, oh, they're they're evil, they're condemned.
I think he's actually trying to show him a mirror a little bit
and demonstrate that because how many times in Israel go after
the same gods? Yes, they're sacrificing the
same. God, the story of Israel falls
into play here and. And so their, their point was
is, oh, we're better than them. We're God's chosen.
We're ethnically. God's we're covenantal.
And he's like, well, they've been revealed through this
revelation. And yes, they've suppressed.
Yes, they have corrupted, but you, who had the divine law of.
God and the promises and oracles of God.
Went into the same sins that they did with more, right?
They had less. Yes.
No, he's not excusing the Gentiles saying Oh well then.
No, no, no. You know, Yeah, He's not.
He's not trying to say that. Well, you know, you, the Jewish
people, we had it. We had more revelation given to
us. The Gentiles, they're in a
better spot. No, he's not saying that.
Nobody is without excuse in Paul's mind.
Again, one is judged according to the light or the revelation
that God has revealed to them. Yep.
And so here's John Chrysostom on this.
It is Homilies of Romans homily 5 and I did share it on the
screen for those that are able to see it.
He says, for it is the Jews that he is chiefly opposing somewhat
Romans 1. For in as much as they were
somewhat captiously disposed, first of their haughtiness, not
dying to the reckon among along with the Gentiles, and secondly,
thinking it ridiculous that the faith is to do away with all
sins. That's interesting himself for
this 'cause he accused the Gentiles first, and whose behalf
he is speaking, that without suspicion and with boldness of
speech he may attack the Jews. And then having come to the
inquiry concerning the punishment, he shows that the
Jews is so far from being at all profited by the law that he is
even weighed down by it. And this was his drift some way
back. So according to Chrysostom, he
believes that this was being done to actually turn it on the
Jews. Like he's building an argument
like Romans. One's not the end of the
argument it's leading him to. Romans 2 and 3 and it's it's
showing that the Jews were a people given much privilege.
Yeah. It reminds me of the parables
that Jesus tells about talents and gifts.
And you know who who used those talents and who didn't use those
talents, and the one that didn't use their talents was often
taken away from them. This kind of reminds me like of
Jesus's teaching in the parables there.
But you go back to the reality of, you know, Paul getting into
this discussion. He is a Jew.
Yeah. Oh yeah.
He's not a gentile, so he's speaking as someone with who's
got skin in the game. He tells them later.
I'm your countryman. Yeah, I exactly.
So he's, he's not, he's not condemning Jews as a Gentile.
He is opposing Jews, as Chrysostom puts it.
He is opposing them as one who was, who is them?
He is one of them, but he has come to receive the truth of the
faith of the Messiah in Christ Jesus, where those who have not
have rejected that and they've put themselves in greater
condemnation because of doing so.
And so he he uses creation to condemn the Gentiles while
reflecting on the Jewish narratives and demonstrating
creation. Then he moves to chapter 2 and
deals with those without the law, yet have a moral law
compass in their heart. If you would the moral compass
of conscience and that everybody is condemned off of that
meaning. And we see this even in ancient
laws, like whether you're looking at the Egyptian laws or
you're looking at the Babylonian laws, we now have their their
law codes and a lot of their law codes are things like you
shouldn't steal your neighbor's animals.
You shouldn't commit these sexual acts.
You you shouldn't do some sort of murder or some relevance of
stealing or cheating. Like these things are actually
demonstrated in Pagan Canon laws of their land.
Which have a moral code. That demonstrates that we're all
made in the image of God and we all reflect some sort of
morality. And so everybody's condemned on
creation and conscience and and then for the Jews, they were
according to their Canon laws, if you would, were condemned off
of the written law of God. Yeah, they had the cyanatic
code. They had the code itself.
So either either condemned particularly by creation,
conscience, or code. And then in this dispensation of
time we are either condemned if we know or have been presented
the person of Christ. I'm keeping it all, CS you know,
it's a creation, conscience, code, or Christ.
I mean, you're condemned on these.
Things. So I think Paul's teaching that.
So in Romans 2 he's saying the Jews also stand condemned here
and by possessing the law, that's a good thing.
It it's divine revelation, it's actually getting.
It was a privilege, it was a gift, absolutely.
But he wants them to know that the law wasn't enough.
Right. And neither and neither is being
of the seed of Abraham. Well, they were relying upon
that. And exactly so.
Why are we bringing that up? How's that relevant to
Protestantism? Well, because if we understand
what Paul is building toward when he says works of the law,
we we begin to understand, particularly in his mind or what
he what he is demonstrating to us in his mind is that Torah and
and being covenantly marked by circumcision cannot justify a
person apart from true faithfulness and obedience to
the God who called them. And this is this is the point
the Jews of Paul's day have missed.
This is the reason he is writing the climactical argument that
he's going to make in Romans that Protestants automatically
come to and just say, Oh, good deeds, you know, I, I don't
depend on any good works. It's faith alone.
And it's like, wait a minute, you have completely and
anachronistically pull this out of what Paul was dealing with in
his time to appeal to some post, not even, I would even say
Protestant, more so a radical reformation ideology that is
arisen in most of the evangelical churches of our
country today. What are you saying they
twisted? I'm saying they're twisting this
to today's standard and some kind of sermon teachings that
have been going on for a couple 100 years.
Now, yeah, absolutely. That was not relevant or even in
the mind. Was not even a part of the
discussion. Yeah, it was not a part of the
discussion, is what you're saying.
What? What was a part of the
discussion was what role for the new Messiah who has come?
What role did the law did Torah did circumcision, the, the, the
ceremonial, the purity laws, what role did those play in
terms of being a part of the new covenant?
Let me say that one more time in part of being as a part of being
of the new covenant. So that is where you have to to
travel back in time, put yourself in the time of the 1st
century context. And again, Paul's not saying
anything different than our Lord Jesus said, because O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, if only you would have known the time as a hen
gathers her chicks, you would have been gathered into me.
But see to your house. See now that your house is left
unto you desolate. That's Matthew 24.
So again, it's it's understanding what has happened
in the crisis of the Jewish people rejecting their Messiah
and not understanding that the works of the law and how Paul
understood that phrase not as being morally good or upright or
obedience or spirit filled life, but trying to participate in
these old covenant ceremonial rituals as if they could be
salvific for you now. And he says.
Hebrews by the. Way it's it's all of Hebrews
especially, and even Paul alludes to that here in our
passage, right Romans chapter #2 verse 13.
He explicitly says for not the hearers of the law are just
before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
So having the law is not enough. Having having the system isn't
enough to save you. And by the way, I I, you know,
let's just pause here and and have some real conversations
about many Catholics and and those that attend the true and
fullness of the faith. There are a lot of people who
think why, you know, I've already been, I did first
Eucharist, I've been confirmed all this stuff.
And yet they regularly don't attend Mass.
They're not participating in the sacraments.
They're not going to confession you're in danger.
Absolutely. You are in danger.
You have endangered yourself to come into the fullness of the
faith and to experience the true and fullness of the Church and
to experience these things. And then to not participate in
those graces that have been easily accessed to us in our
time and our world and our ability to be at Mass and our
ability to be a part of these these sacraments of grace.
That's why they're called mortal sins.
And yes, it is if you intentionally and willfully miss
Mass and on, on a, on a Sunday, not, not not Christmas and
Easter on a Sunday, you have committed mortal sin by church's
teaching. I mean, if you're in bed sick,
stay there. I mean, there are dispensation,
right? I mean the church.
The church is not that rigorous about that.
Circle But there are people that say, you know, you know, I'm I'm
just not practicing my faith like I used to or I'm I'm, you
know, yeah, I did all those things.
But you haven't been to church in five years.
I mean, folks, you're, you're not a part.
You are in a greater state of danger in so many ways.
Well, this is, this is what the New Testament authors called
falling away, right? This was a, this is the idea of
falling away or apostasy. When you partake of the the good
gifts of God, the heavenly gifts, when you partake of them
and then you walk away or you fall away from them by not
participating in them, you've essentially you're essentially
doing in some respects to what Judas of Iscariot did he partake
of the he partake of the heavenly gift and what did he
do? He walked away and he betrayed
his Lord. Yep.
So it's that's yeah, I. Can say more, but but doers of
the law are justified just being hears of it or not.
So we have a major interpretive problem for Protestants here.
Paul believed that. Well, here's the thing.
If Paul believed that you had to do something.
Right. Yeah, yeah.
You're not just going to be able to sit there, open your arms and
take something in. You had to cooperate.
Like that there actually is a movement.
You had to. Cooperate so if.
If you had to participate. If Protestants are right, Paul
believed that you know all obedience and doing is
worthless, then he would have never said things like those who
do the law are justified and they also believe that he had
this concept. Oh no, Paul taught that works
never matter. Like it's only grace through
faith apart from works. Well then Romans 213 becomes
absolutely incoherent and pointless.
Paul clearly does not oppose obedience and cooperation with
the graces of God. Absolutely.
We do believe grace precedes faith.
Absolutely, yeah. We as Catholics believe that you
don't have faith until God initiates that for you in your
life through his grace. And even faith itself is a gift
from God, and it's given to us by grace, by God's grace.
And what is building up our faith, Stephen?
What is it in the church that builds up our faith?
We believe it's in the sacraments of grace.
Absolutely, because they have, they have divine power that
transform us and conform us to the image of the Son of God.
That's what these sacraments do. They make us into Christ, who is
our head and we are his body. That's how they work.
So this is the beauty of of these sacraments is that we are,
we are saying we can't, we don't and we should but didn't.
That's what we're saying. But when you go to confession,
you're not coming there with your success list.
Well, you know, this week I got this right.
I got this right. You're going to the confessional
booth with where you got it wrong, right?
And you're bringing that and saying I didn't do it, I need
help, I need forgiveness, I need a reset because I absolutely did
not live within the grace that was provided.
And then we are given more. Grace.
Grace upon grace. Grace.
Upon grace forgiven. And then we are now back into
that fullness. And now we can participate
freely in the Eucharist and participate freely in these
other sacraments. And, and now we are being built
in that faith. And then we we're going to mess
up. We go to confession.
There has been given to us grace upon grace.
Absolutely, yeah. That is not something I earn
when I when we go to the table. Lord, I am not worthy that you
should enter my. Roof but.
Say the word of my soul. Shall be healed.
What are we saying? I I don't.
I'm not worthy to do. This like there's nothing I can
do to obtain this. I'm coming with hands open,
heart open. We lift our hearts up to the
Lord. I mean, that's we can't do it.
We need grace. Yeah.
Bring something to me I can't obtain.
Myself. And that's exactly what the Lord
wants from us. He wants us to bring ourselves
to Him so that He can do His powerful work in our lives, His
divine supernatural work, giving us divine supernatural.
Zoe is the Greek word for supernatural eternal life.
That's what God wants from us. He wants us to bring ourselves
and all the problems that we have and bring them to Him.
So as a loving Father, He can cleanse His children, He can
purify His children. He can make His children more
like himself. That's what the that's what
we're doing when we go to the altar.
That is the living sacrifice, by the way.
That's what we're doing in Romans 12.
We're fast forwarding, but that's what we're doing.
But it's not us going and obtaining like, Oh well, you
believe you got to do grace, your faith and the sacraments.
The the sacraments are the grace that brings the faith.
Like you get this so wrong. And why?
Why does grace come so that we have faith that we are His
workmanship created on 2 good works?
So no. Yes, they grace, faith and works
are not inseparable realities. That's the problem that you
have. In they are they are inseparable
realities. They are not separable realities
where it's like, Oh well you got grace category, faith category,
works category, no grace initiates faith, faith produced
works. They when you are In Sync with
these three things, they are one and the same.
They are not in some, you know, rival it.
Oh, I've got this one, but not that one.
Well, you know, Paul talks about what that looks like.
Faith without love, without works or charity, even if it's
the ability to move a mountain, is worthless.
It profits you nothing. James says faith without works
is dead. You can't have faith apart from
grace because grace produces the faith.
So you can't, you can't just sit here and go.
I've got, I've got the grace part, not this and that.
I don't want this. Part Yeah, you, you try, you,
you end up picking it all apart as if it's some kind of
mathematical equation that you can figure it out.
It's not a mathematical equation.
It's the divine life of God that he gives to us so that we can be
like him and be his children. That's what we're called to be.
And in being his children, we're going to do works of mercy.
We're going to do works of charity.
We're going to do those good things because that's what
obedience to the the Son of God and to God the Father looks like
with the Holy Spirit working in and through us.
This is not hard. It's not rocket science.
And yet we have Protestant pastors out there teaching false
teaching, leading children to the end of the pier, tying a
millstone around their neck and throwing themselves off the pier
because they're leading blind people in the pits of hell and
telling people, oh, you don't need to do anything.
You don't have to cooperate with anything.
Loving God is, you know, God's love is unconditional.
I got news for you. It's not unconditional.
It is, it is this God has saved you to make you like himself so
that you can be a light in the world.
That is Jesus's teaching. Salt and light.
Be salt and light. If your righteousness does not
exceed that of the Pharisees, what does he say?
You will never inherit the Kingdom of God.
I don't know how we get all this messed up.
I'm so glad the Church has given us this guide in this teaching
that we can go, oh, this all fits it all.
It all works together. It all harmonizes.
Each other. I think it's an American culture
thing too, especially here the way it's taught in sermons.
Maybe not the earlier reformers, but in in the United States.
I mean we we want everything quick and easy.
We really do, and we want to ease.
So, so if we can just get smacked upside the head with
salvation and I don't have to worry about my future.
I, I mean, we, we treat it like we do a retirement plan or
something. Like, I mean, ticket punched.
I, I said a prayer, I got my stuff done.
I'm good. I, I, yeah, I mean, I'm not a
perfect person, but I, I'm not trying to be bad.
You know, we have this idea that I can just punch a ticket to get
into heaven. I said a prayer.
I, I did all these things. Now I'm saved and that's all
that matter. No matter what happens from the
restaurant, we want that security.
We want that quick and easy path.
This idea of taking up my cross, following me.
Well, what that means is I'm going to have some hard days.
And you know, I'm going to have to, you know, a tough bill is
going to hit me. Or I'm going to screw up.
Yeah, like, like because I'm human.
It's, it's not, it's not even about that.
It's not about that at all. Look what St.
Irena as if Leon says and against.
Which, by the way, what I just said is presumption.
Did y'all catch that? That's presumptuous sin that is
dangerous. It is dangerous.
Ireneis of Leon says now he did not teach us these things as
opposed to the law, but it's fulfilling the law.
You talk about Romans 2, by the way, and implanting in us the
varied righteousness of the law, not only to abstain from things
forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them.
So what I wrote here is Irenaeus explicitly rejects the idea that
Christ supposed obedience or righteousness itself.
We talked. About this before but.
Yeah, absolutely. Well, and then this is part of
our conversation. Instead, Christ fulfills and
deepens the law by transforming the heart and planting true
righteousness within believers. That fits naturally with Paul's
emphasis on inward transformation and quote
obedience of faith rather than modern reception that Paul
opposed all forms of works of obedience.
And infusion of grace in our lives.
Yeah. So this so far, irony of loans,
whether you're talking about some of these other writers in
the early church, like John Chrysostom, they understood
what's going on here. It is not the teaching
currently. This is not the teaching that
we're seeing in Protestantism today.
It doesn't line up with the church's regular teaching on
these things. Yeah, you almost.
I hate that. I will say this because it's
sad, but I heard an Anglican Bishop one say one time say
something one time that really bothered me and he said you're
preaching should come across as if you're Antinomian A.
Bishop. Yeah, you're preaching should
present itself as something that is antinomian.
Let's think about that for a moment.
Yeah, I, I don't know. I don't know where we're getting
our theology anymore. We're pulling that out in left
field. Has anybody and I I would
challenge them, but can you find anybody who believes that pre
1800 even I'm not even sure the match sure reformers would go
that far. I'm not sure anybody in the
early reformed crab would go that far.
But let's talk about what these ideas of the works of the law
right works of the law. Key texts are Romans chapter 3
verse 20 which says for no human being will be justified in his
sight. By works of the law and through
the law comes the knowledge of sin.
Later in verse 27, then what becomes our boasting?
It is excluded. On what principle?
On the principle of works, No, but on the principle of faith.
For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from
the works of the law. There it is.
Or is it God the God of the Jews only?
Is he not the God of the Gentiles?
Now listen, what? What is it so far?
We continually see this line works of the law.
He later reiterates this concept especially in Galatians chapter
2 verse 16. He says the very same things.
There's a lot that can be said here for sure.
Yet who know that knows that a man is not justified by the
works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.
Even we I believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified
by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law.
Chapter 3 verse two. He says these words and and and
again he's repeating a lot of the same principles, but the
Romans and Galatians. Let me ask you this only.
Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by
hearing with faith? Are you so foolish?
Having begun with the Spirit, you are now ending in the flesh.
Did you experience so many things in vain?
If it really is in vain, does he who supplies the Spirit to you
and works miracles among you do so by the works of the law or by
the hearing of faith? So then he uses Abraham as an
example. The continual line that we see,
Pat, is the phrase works of the law like were you justified?
Were you justified with this? Is it faith or so this is where
it's like the fight between. Ergo, nomu is like the Greek
term, right? But this is where everybody gets
confused and this is where I I struggle with this for a lot.
Paul does not just say works, he repeatedly says works of the
law. So ergo Namu is the phrase.
And this is something that he says multiple times.
The phrase work of the law appears in other places.
So let's talk about these other places for a minute.
In the 1st century BC, there's a document in the Dead Sea Scrolls
findings 4 Q MMT and it uses that line, which what makes you
wonder? You know what, what was Paul
meaning? What do you say works for the
law? Does that mean you know?
Oh, I'm depending on how you know?
Oh, I gave my money to the church.
I I did you know this like? Or I helped the poor.
Or that old lady with her grocery cart.
Or I, I took care of, you know, my relative who was sick and
dying and, or hey, I, I, I taught, you know, scripture
study, you know. Whatever we have defined works
as an opposition to faith, works of the law, because again,
that's our understanding of things.
Let's actually go back to the Times, and this is about 100
years before Paul. Yeah, this is BC, Yeah.
This is, this is the issue is we have, we again have taken these
passages and we have isolated them to our times or our
situations and it's a problem. So there's what are some of the
works of the law that 4 QMMT talk about as it relates to
things that would be required? Because remember that you got
the, the Qumran communities who are not very thrilled with the
Jerusalem system, especially the Pharisaical groups.
There's a lot of oppositions to each other here.
Yeah, they feel the temple system is corrupted because it's
not clearly the Levitical priesthood They're.
They're kind of like the SSPX of the Catholic world.
True, that's a great analogy. That's not the real, that is not
the real high priest they've been.
Corrupted. Right.
So the purity of liquids poured from one container to another.
That that that what you said? What?
Wait, what?
Yeah, That's what works of the law.
Yeah, purity regulations about liquid streams and vessels.
These are works of the law like protect and and even Jesus kind
of like used some of that as an exact like who puts old like new
wine and old wine skins. You see a reference to this and
it's just a passing reference. But John too, at the wedding of
Cana, the the water basins were used for purity rituals.
Yeah, for the Jewish people. So that that's not that's not a
uncommon thing. To put common with uncommon,
right? Yeah, another one, issues about
the impurity, about bones and animal hides.
Yeah, hides of unclean and clean animals.
I mean, fair, fair arguments. These are things we're talking
about whether or not dogs can be in Jerusalem.
Yeah. So Fifi and Fofo can't be in.
A big no no but but. Let's be real, like the dogs in
that time are a little bit different than your little pets
today. It's a little different.
Situation. Well, yeah, yeah.
Well, dogs were more vicious. They're more like coyotes or,
or, you know, looking at wolves than particularly like, you
know, your little small Shih tzu or something.
Yeah, but there's, you know, again, there's, there's places
in the scripture where we kind of see where that goes.
Right? Like dogs return to their own.
Vomit. Vomit.
They eat excrement, right? They they do what?
That's what dogs do, right? Well, they defile.
Themselves, they defile themselves.
This is why Jews call Gentiles what dogs?
And and it and it's interesting that when you go to the new city
in Revelation, what do you see? You see this city, right?
And outside the city are dogs, are dogs, sorcerers and
fornicators and murders, etcetera.
So again, these were but these are part of what the works of
the law and and then they start defining what works of the law.
Actually, they do. They do, yeah.
Yeah, skin diseases, so leprosy, things like that would be
considered like how to maintain purities or impurities in those
situations, keeping away from gentiles.
Yeah, you don't touch Gentiles. Yeah, I mean, you don't even.
Yeah. Yeah, you don't use their wheat
in the temple. Yeah, it's like not even their
crops. Are worthy goodness none.
You actually see some of that in the chosen being played out
where they where they deal with that.
But like, Jews didn't want to be in Gentile territory.
They didn't want a Gentile in their home.
Like there was a lot of these ritualistic rules that they
followed because it was about being clean and unclean and that
was about worship. Yes.
Yeah, that was about worship. It centered around being able to
go to the temple and offer sacrifice for your sins.
That's what it really was was centered around.
They also dealt the subject of the deaf and the blind.
You've got to keep the blind and deaf out of the temple.
You know this, this is something Jesus got on to the religious
leaders about and this is something they were upset.
Remember, this is this is accusations against a religious
sect. Like you people have done these
things like you won't accept the weed of Gentiles.
You've mistreated the deaf and the blind people with skin
conditions. I mean, Jesus.
But what is Jesus doing the opposite?
Like he goes to the deaf and the blind.
He he, he heals the leper. He, he lets people who are like
women on their cycles touch his garment.
I mean, like he's doing everything that you could
possibly do to rock the system that is created.
A systematic approach of like, oh, we're doing these things to
obtain righteousness with God and Jesus.
Like, let me tell you why you're not obtaining righteousness.
Because you're not fathering your children the way a father
should, father's children. And and that's what he nails the
Pharisees on. It's what he nails the, the, the
the priesthood and the temple on is instead of instead of making
it possible for sinners to become forgiven and atoned for,
they made it more difficult. Yeah, they made it more
difficult. Well, and this is the thing, you
know, these scenes were like, you know, you can't let these
folks in. And so like you're talking about
purity and liquids, you're talking about cups being used
for wrong things. The law of Moses, you know, very
strict about purity of food, unclean cups, pitchers of water,
like you were talking about pouring water into unclean.
You know, Jesus even said, like you don't take new wine and put
it in old wineskins. I mean like things like this,
These are, these are the kinds of things when we're talking
about the works of the law, half the time people are thinking
like works of mercy, works of charity, being a good person,
having good morals. Being obedient, living in
obedience to God's moral precepts.
That is not what was in the mind of these people that Paul is
writing to it. Was about ritual, cleanness and
purity. So Catholics teach works.
They're not teaching works of the law in the way that that
we're seeing these kinds of things.
It's it's a problem. I cannot.
I want to say something real quick about I was looking at 4
QMMT and I've been looking at it pretty heavily the last few
days. The epilogue is very explosive
in terms of what we might think about, you know, the faith.
It says something like we have written to you some of the works
of the Torah, which we think are good for you and your people,
and it will be reckoned to you as righteousness when you do
what is right and good before him.
Steven, did you hear that? It will be reckoned to you as
righteousness? Where have we heard that phrase
before? Right, Genesis with Abraham,
right? You follow me.
So it's, it's interesting when you read 4 QMMT, which predates
Paul, about 100 years. As you said, Paul has a
different grasp of what works of the law means compared to how we
modern readers think about it and how we've been taught to
think about works. And I like what you just said
there, and I'm going to actually pull it up on the screen as well
for those that are watching, those that are listening.
Of course you'll follow along. Tobit 12 talks about this
concept, right? And in Tobit 12 I I'm always
intrigued by this because the new, the New Testament seems to
imply this, not explicitly say it.
Jesus seems. To alludes to it, yeah.
It definitely Sermon on the Mountain materials, but I will
say this, when I did my dissertational work in critics
H, this verse is cited in the Apostolic Fathers and it blew me
away. It actually bothered me.
Yeah, because of what? Tobit 12/9 for Almsgiving
Almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin.
Those who give alms will enjoy a full life, it says Almsgiving
can save from death and purge sin.
It's atoning now a a Protestant this is by the way, This is why
Protestants absolutely rejected what.
Books didn't didn't Saint Peter say love covers a multitude, A
multitude of sin? Which comes from proverbs, yeah.
So obviously there are acts that do cover or do some level of
atoning to sin. A Protestant has to wrestle with
that. Very.
We don't we, we our, our wrestling done.
We lost. We're we're we're Jacob limping
over here. I mean, we, we wrestled, yeah,
we're done. Like we we just took the L, we
took the L and we limp. Yeah, we took the shot across
the hip. I mean, we, I, there's no point
in fighting it in my mind anymore, Pat.
I mean, from that regard. So here's some of the main
arguments Paul's getting at. He centers on the the system.
Yeah, what like what we're seeing in the.
The Old covenant circumcisionalistic system
rituals. The Old covenant sacrament.
Steven, The Old Covenant Sacraments.
The Old Covenant sacraments that were only meant to point to the
greater fulfillment. And the greater.
And so for for for Christians or people that are debating between
staying in one system or going to the other, this is Hebrews
all over. Again, it is.
It sure is. It's going it's like here, why
would you go back to the lesser thing that can't save you?
That was only pointing. You to the greater thing they
can see when you're in the fullness, yeah.
So where? Where's Paul's struggle here?
That they are boasting about their Jewish ethnicity and
associations, that they're circumcised, that they have the
law, that they have these rules. But the problem is they never
lived within the realities that they were given, and they didn't
follow their full end, which was the fullness of Christ.
So this does not mean that Paul opposed all ceremonial law.
Like in general, like Oh well, you can't have any rules.
That's not what. He's he's not saying that.
Or or moral obedience to God is irrelevant because it gains you
nothing. That's not what he said either.
Definitely not saying that. Rather, this is what Paul is
saying, that reliance on the Mosaic covenant of the law of
works, that is in the Torah and then beyond it, because
obviously the religious institutions had built all these
extra systems within it. Both Pharisees and the scenes.
But to do all of that apart from Christ and grace is empty, vain,
worthless. So his his struggle is not like
oh, rules and regulations, rules and regulations apart from
Christ and grace is worthless. And that's what they kept
missing if if they would have tithed men, curcumin and all
these other things that he said the law did not say like you had
to do each individual item just here's the 10th Jesus wasn't mad
that they were doing that is that they neglected the.
Way your matters law. Which were love the Lord your
God and love your neighbor. Yeah, and honor your mother and
your father and play, you know, worship God alone, right like
that that was that were the weight of your matters of.
Law. But a Protestant reads that and
says, see, I don't have to do all that extra stuff.
All that extra stuff is pointless.
That's. Not what Jesus said, yeah.
He's saying your order is wrong. Your order and.
Emphasis is wrong. It's disordered.
You love the Lord, your God and your neighbors yourself.
The way you tie that curcumin might might look different.
Yeah, it might look different in how you do it.
It wasn't condemning the heavyweight people that were
pouring heavy coins in the and and then in the offering plate
of their time, if you would. They were doing it to be heard.
It was like, let me raise this a little higher.
So people, so people, others will look at what I'm doing.
It wasn't that they were giving because Jesus was looking once
again at the heart of it. You had the also the one who
gave all she had. The all she had she gave.
She gave more than the one who gave.
You know Jesus is ludicrous amount of work.
He's looking at the heart. So yes, there can be rituals.
Catholics can fall victim of rituals where they become empty
because their heart and their and their mind and their faith
is decreased or not involved at all.
We're not excusing that saying this can't exist in the system
of even. Catholicism.
It does exist like we we know it does.
It's it's it's not it's not a secret now gusted of hippo on
the spirit and on the letter talks about these things.
He says things like it is by no means follows that because it it
retains not the works of the ancient sacraments which is the
Old Testament things you just said even circumcision.
It is therefore has no works. Augusta does not read Paul is
condemning Christian obedience. He's clearly interpreting these
passages to refer to the old. System.
The Old Covenant system, folks, the New Testament is so much.
So much about the Jewish community doing life together
with the Gentile community in Christ Jesus, that is the body
of Christ, the Church of both, made-up of both Jews and
Gentiles. We have distorted, distorted
this idea of works because we do not understand that context that
was so pivotal in the 1st century, so pivotal.
So what did Paul mean then? Because that's what we go to
next. Look at this in the way that
Paul meant it. It is not a post spirit filled
obedience. That's a critical Protestant
error. This isn't faith versus
obedience. Actually Romans 8.
It's obedience that flows from faith itself.
Don't believe me? Let's let's journey through
Romans 1/5. The very beginning of the
letter, before he even gets into all of these things is quite
clear to me. He says Through whom we have
received grace and apostleship to bring about obedience of
faith for the sake of His name among the nations.
Obedience of faith. He later talks about those who
do not obey the gospel. Yep.
Oh, that's a work. A work.
No, it's not obedience to the gospel.
It's not a work. He talks about that to the
Thessalonica. He says there are those that are
going to be destroyed who obeyed not the gospel.
He says that later in his letter Thessalonica.
But how do modern Protestants read that?
How do they how do they typically read it?
Oh, you just, you hear the gospel and you believe in Jesus
Christ and all you have to have is this mental.
Ascent. Mental ascent.
Yeah, Chapter 2, verses 6 through 7.
Let's journey through Paul together, folks.
Here it is, for he will rendered every man according to his
works. Oh wow, what do you say?
According to his works. According to his works.
And by the way, I this is the point we want to emphasize and I
don't want to accidentally assume everybody understands
what we're saying. We actually are saying that
there's a distinction between works of the law and works.
Yes, we are, yeah. So if you miss that which we've
tried to build this through Dead Sea Scrolls, what we're saying
is there are works and then there are works of the law and.
Those are two separate. Categories because they're two
separate systems. One is based out of those.
As you know, Agustin just called them in a second.
I mean, he said they're ancient sacraments.
He's old sacraments. We're saying the new sacraments
are a means of grace to do the works, to do the works and do
them not out of ritual obedience to a Jewish system that was
meant to point to the greater of Christ, but the since we have
Christ. To unite us to Christ.
Which is what he said. He says, we have this gifting,
this grace and apostleship to bring about it being to faith
for the sake of His name to all nations, and we are called and
included in that. That's what He said.
So Romans 26 through seven, he goes into this, for we render
every man accord. He will render to every man
according His works those who by patience and well doing, seek
for glory and honor and immortality.
He will give eternal life. I thought it was just believe.
Sounds to me it sounds like some
striving is going on I. Mean this is.
Who seek honor, who seek glory, who seek immortality, Paul says.
I run the race that is set before me so that I might
persevere and receive the crown of glory in Philippians.
Didn't you say that? That yeah, didn't say that to
Timothy, which is which is repeating this and and and
listen, this is intriguing because I hear Josh Groban in
the background for Protestants. If you just believe like, well,
that's not what he says, is it? That's not what he.
Says not mentally, not mental assenting anyway.
Those who by patience and well doing seek for glory and honor
and immortality, He will give eternal life.
But for those who are not and do not, they don't obey the truth,
but obey wickedness. There will be wrath and there
will be fury. In other words, Jews and
Gentiles will be held to the same standard of judgment, the
same standard of judgment. Folks, we we could hit Romans 6
here briefly, for the sake of time, I'm not going to hit all
this Romans 6. Romans 8 talks about these very
things. Romans 8 There is therefore now
no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus our Lord.
But you got, you can't stop there.
You got to keep reading it, right?
Because there's a new law. Yep.
Why? For the law of the Spirit of
life is Christ Jesus. Who said it's free from the law
of sin and death? Again, we got to think Jew in in
the sense of the Jews, how they understood law works for the
law. He's saying there's a new law.
A new law. The old law is gone.
The old law has pointed us to
the new law who has come and he keeps going.
He says for God has done what the law we can by the flesh
could not do, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh. And for sin, that's the
incarnation, that's the crucifixion, that's the the
Pasca, the passion of our Lord, right?
He condemns sin in the flesh in order that the just requirement
of the law might be fulfilled in us.
The just requirement of the law. What is the just requirement of
the law? That we love God with our heart,
soul, mind and strength and we love our neighbors as ourselves.
That is the just requirement of the law because.
All the law and the prophet is hinging off all the law, and the
prophets are hinging off of these commandments.
And if we can fulfill that, we have fulfilled the heart of the
law. And that was the point that
everything was going into this. So Paul's real target here,
what's his, what? What's he?
Why is he saying these things that why is he bringing these
contrasts? Well, it's Romans 3 if you want
to go backward and verse 27, he deals with the why you say why,
why, why would Paul bring up these contentions?
It feels like he is saying that it's faith alone in some places.
Then he turns around and says you got to obey.
If you're not going to obey, you're not persevering, you're
not doing good. You won't experience eternal
life. If you do, you do experience
eternal life, then he's back to faith alone again.
This is the tension I always struggled with.
But actually, when you understand the works of the law
for what Paul all understood him and what the time and age
understood him as, there's actually no contrast at all.
So Romans 327, what is this all about then?
What becomes our boasting? Is it excluded?
On what principle? On the principle of works, no.
But the principle of faith, What is he ultimately getting at when
he says he's he? The contrast in Romans is not
faith versus holiness, but grace versus boasting.
He just said it. Yeah.
What becomes our? Boasting I want to make a
comment here because this is again where we, we don't
understand where Paul's coming from.
We we twist his words when he says faith Stephen.
I often as a Protestant, I understood that to mean belief,
mental assent, Christ is God. When he is using faith, Stephen,
he is talking about the new, the new covenant, what has come in
Christ Jesus with the gospel, with the Church, with the
sacraments. All of it is rolled into one.
That is the faith that he is now referring to.
It's not just a mental ascent from some kind of individual
perspective. It is everything convalescing
into one whole Jesus, his body, the Church, the gifts of the
Church that the Holy Spirit gives to us through the work of
the Son of God. That is, that is what Paul is
encompassing when he thinks about that word faith.
So this is what Paul is saying He's he's coming after
covenantal pride, ethnic superiority, flesh confidence,
where it's like, Oh no, I could achieve in the flesh.
Catholics don't teach that. They do.
Not they we teach explicitly you need grace and and then they
obviously the reliance on Torah possession.
This this is the whole argument right here, the big, big
argument, Pat So kind of in conclusion of this section here,
a large portion of modern Protestantism reads Paul as
though he were debating a 16th century issue in the church.
And he's not. He's a addressing his people of
his time, Jew and Gentile covenant identities, law codes,
boasting in the law, boasting what you have, what you're
around, what you were raised in, in your circumcision.
Every man is under sin. Jew, Gentile, with the law,
without the law, conscience, creation, all these things.
Salvation can only come through Christ.
He does teach that and that it does come by grace through
faith, but that that faith and that grace leads to obedience to
the gospel. Yeah.
So it's a different conversation.
Paul's having a different conversation that we people are
having today. Well, that's why, he says in
Galatians 4 in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working
through love. Faith working through love and
that is the Catholic teaching of the Church.
All right folks, Well, that is all that we have time for today.
We're so glad you joined this episode of Fax again.
Make sure you hit that like and subscribe.
Make sure you follow us on your favorite platforms.
Leave us a comment. We'd love to hear from you.
What do you think about faith and works?
How do you believe these passages are giving out the
teachings of what Paul meant? Do you think Protestantism has
been living within the true and right interpretation of this or
do you believe they've fallen into error or the Catholics and
why? And if you do respond, which we
open the door for you to do so interact with what we actually
said in the discussion. Don't just come out and and skip
it. Read one line or hear one thing,
then pause and just blow up. Actually respond to exact things
versus statements, claims. Argue with Irenaeus, argue with,
you know, Clement or whoever you have in your mind.
Go ahead, knock yourself out, you're free to do that, but at
least interact with the content. Absolutely.
All right folks, that's all we have time for.
As always, grace and peace to you.
God bless. The.