Introduction
I've said it before, and if the Lord spares my life, I will say it many more times before He calls me home: Roman Catholicism is a lot more Roman than catholic. Historically speaking, the word "catholic", which in English is spelled with a lower-case "c", simply meant "universal". This is why Christians today still frequently and freely affirm the Nicene Creed, in spite of the phrase "And we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." This refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the Church throughout the world, whether they be in Rome or not.
But there was a church in Rome quite early on in history, to which Paul the Apostle wrote a rather detailed epistle. In it, he introduces himself as an Apostle, separated to the Gospel of God (Romans 1:1), which he hoped to preach to them in person (Romans 1:13-15).
This gives us a fantastic look at the earliest history of the Church in Rome. Whereas Roman Catholics may only appeal to the second century or later to make their points, here we have a look at what was going on in the first century, even while the Apostles were still breathing. We get to see the infant stages of the faith itself, once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), from the mouth of God's own, Spirit-moved (2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:14-17) Apostle. Thus, we are in a fantastic position to ask, does Roman Catholicism resemble what we see in this Roman epistle? Does their theory of their origins match Paul's description? Do their unique doctrines appear in this epistle, in whole or in part? Most importantly, does their gospel match the Gospel Paul preached, declaring that he, the Apostles, even angels from Heaven, could not depart from, and if anyone does, let them be anathema (Galatians 1:8-9)?
If Roman Catholicism is what we see in this epistle, then every Protestant desperately needs to repent, and come under the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Magisterium. If, by contrast, we see a difference, then it is the Roman Catholics who are in dire need of repentance, for in a book they readily acknowledge as the word of God, they find their religion fatally at fault. With that in mind, I want to travel through the book of Romans, comparing the gospel of the Roman Catholic Church to the Gospel of the early Roman Church, until we see just how Biblical this toxic milkshake really is. Naturally, as Romans is a long book, this will be a long article. The following links will allow for quick navigation.
What is the Roman Catholic gospel?
Of course, it would be quite unfair to criticise the Roman Catholic gospel without defining their views as accurately as possible. I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor do I plan to become, a Roman Catholic. I am, however, blessed with a stable internet connection, allowing me to both access the Catechism of the Catholic Church in its entirety, and give you that same access. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its own words, "...aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries". This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful." (CCC 11-12). With such a purpose, it can be assumed that following this particular book is sufficient to explain Roman Catholic doctrine, primarily aiming to teach it to the teachers themselves, with the laity being a mere afterthought. So, what does it say about salvation?
In Catholicism, salvation is a highly complex process. Rather than being by faith alone, the Roman Catholic Church teaches a host of other partners to faith, which must be fulfilled in order to both gain and maintain salvation. Ordinarily, "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." (CCC 846). This is why Catholics have historically asserted "No salvation outside the Church", and have only recently upgraded "Protestants" to "separated brethren".
It is not enough, however, to simply be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. After coming to faith in Christ, and as indeed is mentioned above, baptism is necessary for salvation. To that end, CCC 1257 asserts "The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." Baptism, allegedly, "...by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle." (CCC 405). Thus, "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism...." (CCC 2020).
Baptism is not enough, however, to maintain salvation. For this, the Catholic Church claims one must continue to do good works, in particular participating in the 7 sacraments. "The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation." (CCC 1129). Aside from the 7 Sacraments, the Catholic Church also claims "...the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; (...) so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments." (CCC 2068). Beyond all imagination, the Catholic Church even teaches that "...we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life...." (CCC 2010).
The Catholic gospel does not even end here, however, as grace can be lost in whole or in part. The Catholic Church distinguishes between two types of sins, "mortal" and "venial", both of which have different ways of being dealt with.
"For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."" (CCC 1857). Mortal sin "...results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell..." (CCC 1861). In other words, mortal sin warrants the loss of salvation.
By contrast, "One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent." (CCC 1862). "...Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness." In other words, although venial sin is serious, and "...it merits temporal punishment...", and "...unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin" (all CCC 1863), it is not, in and of itself, sufficient to cause the loss of salvation.
Following this, "...Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance." (CCC 1415). "...This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn." (CCC 980). ""Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction." Contrition Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again. When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible." (CCC 1450 - 1452).
"Only priests who have received the faculty of absolving from the authority of the Church can forgive sins in the name of Christ.
The spiritual effects of the sacrament of Penance are: - reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers grace; - reconciliation with the Church; - remission of the eternal punishment incurred by mortal sins; - remission, at least in part, of temporal punishments resulting from sin; - peace and serenity of conscience, and spiritual consolation; - an increase of spiritual strength for the Christian battle." (CCC 1495-1496).
While one guilty of a mortal sin is to be denied the Eucharist, the Eucharist, allegedly, forgives venial sins. "Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins." (CCC 1416). But even with these sins absolved, punishment may still be required. This is where indulgences come in.
CCC 1471 defines indulgences as follows: ""An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints." "An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin." Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead."" ""This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."" (CCC 1477). In short, "Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory." (CCC 1498).
With all of this, it is hard to see how even "Protestants" could be considered "separated brethren". According to the Roman Catholic Church, so much, up to and including unity with the Roman Catholic Church, is necessary for salvation. Yet, the most astounding thing about this is that "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." (CCC 847). Therefore, ironically, one is safer having never known the Roman Catholic Church than to hear and be baptised into it, at least if we take what we have seen above to its logical conclusion.
The TL;DR of the Roman Catholic gospel, therefore, is that ordinarily, in order to be saved, one must:
✦ come to faith
✦ be baptised
✦ unite with the Roman Catholic Church (though apparently with exceptions)
✦ participate in the 7 sacraments (the Eucharist in particular)
✦ do good works (and in particular, keep the 10 commandments)
✦ avoid mortal sin (or have it absolved)
✦ rely on the good works of Mary and the saints, who obtained their own salvation and cooperated in saving their brethren, to remit, either in part or in whole, any temporal punishment that remains after their sins have been forgiven.
The worst part is, God doesn't even have to hold up to His end of that bargain! He can, at will, grant salvation to those who have not followed this process. By contrast, Roman Catholics who strive hard to follow this process still, at every given moment, must fear that they will be denied entry to the Kingdom of Heaven. To assume you are saved falls under the category of "the sin of presumption".
The Biblical Gospel
The Biblical Gospel is far simpler, worthy even of being called "the Good News". This, I can hardly wait to proclaim, for it is the power of God to we who are being saved (1 Corinthians 1:18). When asked the question "...Sirs, what must I do to be saved?", the true Apostles of God, upon whom the Church is built (Ephesians 2:19-20), simply answered "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:30-31). For this reason, John writes "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13). The same Paul who wrote the book of Romans also wrote Ephesians 2:8-10, which tells us plainly "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
Thus, the Gospel of the Bible as a whole is so fantastically simple: Though we have sinned, and are deserving of God's eternal wrath, He instead poured out that wrath upon Christ. By confessing Him as Lord, and believing God raised Him from the dead, we will be saved. Of course, this article is mainly intended to discuss the book of Romans, but due to the nature of Scripture, and even the nature of Paul, it would be a disservice to completely ignore the rest of Scripture as if it was of no importance. However, from this point on, I will attempt to limit myself to the book of Romans, but with exceptions.
The first exception will be where the book of Romans itself references other Scriptures, as it does quite frequently. This will require us to examine those same Scriptures to provide further context for what we have just read in Romans. The second is where Roman Catholics misquote other Scriptures, be it in direct response to Romans, or indirectly to a concept being described therein. This, of course, will require us to visit those Scriptures to put them back into context. Finally, on occasion, especially with other works of Paul, other Scriptures may be useful to cite. Beyond this, I intend to stay in Romans.
Notable absences from the book of Romans
Before we discuss what Romans says, I thought I would draw attention to what it doesn't say. If Paul was addressing the Roman Catholic Church, there are several things one might expect him to mention. In particular, Catholic tradition teaches that Peter, of course supposedly the first Pope, not only carried the Gospel to Rome, but also maintained a position as bishop there for at least 25 years.
The earliest evidence of this comes from Irenaeus, who, in Against Heresies, wrote "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." and that "...the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul...".
However, in spite of this, Paul makes neither mention of, nor reference to, Peter, and certainly not to him having preached there. Quite the opposite, although Paul had heard good things about the saints in Rome (Romans 1:8), he had been hindered in coming to them simply because he preferred to go where the Gospel had not yet been preached, lest he build on another man's foundation (Romans 15:20-22). In other words, Paul, whose ministry was quite intentionally separate from Peter's anyway (Galatians 2:7-9), could not possibly have cooperated with Peter to found and organise the church in Rome. Not that this would be particularly pleasing to Catholics anyway, as they need Peter to be the sole Bishop of Rome, not co-Pope with Paul. Either way, if Irenaeus is so woefully incorrect about Paul's role in the foundation of the Roman Church, he can be reasonably dismissed for giving Peter the same credit with the same stroke of a pen.
Outside of the Roman Catholic Church, it is generally agreed by scholars that the Gospel reached Rome by way of unnamed, non-Apostolic Jewish Christians following Pentecost. Paul merely played a part in the amazing work God was already doing in the region. This is why Paul did not address Peter, nor indeed any Apostle.
Another figure notably absent from this epistle is Mary. Of course, Paul would not necessarily be expected to greet her, as to my knowledge there is no Roman Catholic teaching of her presence in Rome at that time, but with such a heavy emphasis on Mary in modern Roman Catholicism, you would expect her name to appear at least once in the Bible after Acts 1:14. Yet, following this, she is never mentioned again. In fact, she is mentioned so little, you can summarise, and even expound upon everything the Bible says about her in less than an hour (and I have). The book of Romans makes no reference to the Marian dogmas. The phrases "the mother of Jesus", or "mother of God", cannot be found in this book (with the latter, of course, being entirely absent from Scripture). We do not find "the blessed virgin" in the book of Romans. She is certainly not mentioned as having good works stored up in the mythical Treasury of Merit, thus participating in the salvation of her brothers.
Purgatory is likewise missing from the book of Romans, and from the entirety of Scripture. Incidentally, the Roman pagans were well aware of a "Celestial Hades", as presented by the legendary author, Homer, in which the souls of the deceased were purified before either entering Heaven, or being reincarnated on Earth. Thus, the book of Romans would have been a fantastic time to not only mention Purgatory, but correct the errors of the pagans regarding it. What of Penance? Absent. What of the priestly role in salvation? Missing. What of unity with the Catholic Church? Conspicuously not present.
Of course, the argument from silence is, in and of itself, a very weak one. I would distinguish it from the argument from conspicuous absence, for the same reason "you have no scars" is a good argument against someone who claims to have been injured in battle. Nevertheless, it is far wiser to argue from what the book of Romans does say than what it doesn't. Let us therefore grant the old saying, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", assuming the possibility that everything Paul didn't mention, he still may have believed. Let us instead proceed to answer, what does the book of Romans say, and does it line up with what we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
"The just shall live by faith"
Skipping over the aforementioned fact that Paul, in his introduction, both passes up the chance to greet the Roman Pontiff (a title which, at this time, still referred to a member of the colleges of priests in the Roman state religion), and asserts he, himself, has been hindered from going to Rome, the first key statement we find in Romans is verses 15-17, where Paul writes "So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”"
Here, Paul basically says "I want to preach the Gospel to you", and immediately follows it up with "the Gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes". This will not be the last time Paul alludes to faith without works, or indeed any other qualification. But note the connection. The Gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for "the just shall live by faith". From "as it is written", we see Paul draw on Habakkuk 2:4 to support his claim that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.
Habakkuk 2:4 is a very important verse, cited two more times in the New Testament. It is part of a vision (v2), which God gives to Habakkuk, who very wisely seeks to know what God will say to him, and what he will answer when he is corrected (v1). This is because in the previous chapter, Habakkuk had questioned God. He is understandably annoyed that when he looks around, all he sees is evil, and it doesn't seem like God is doing anything about it. We cry to you, why aren't you saving us? You're too pure to look upon wickedness, why are you tolerating this treachery? Yet, Habakkuk recognises that he's not seeing things right. He knows that God's righteousness and wisdom are unassailable, and so he asks these questions, but he knows he's going to get an answer. When I am corrected, he says. We should always be willing to accept correction from God.
And God's answer is that He distinguishes between "the proud" and "the just". The proud are destined for an unpleasant reality check. God's judgment is about to descend, and they will not like the result. But the just shall live... by faith. What else can save them? Nothing. We see when Paul again quotes this verse in Galatians 3:11, he specifically highlights "the law". The commandments. That includes the 10 commandments. If you obey these, you're still not actually righteous in His eyes, you're a filthy sinner. But the just shall live by faith, and live by faith.
I say that twice, because to live by faith carries with it a double meaning. As we will see later on in Romans, faith alone can save without works, but it is simply unfathomable that the one who has faith will not work regardless. The just, therefore, shall live (i.e. be spared God's wrath and granted eternal life) by faith, and live (i.e. act consistently with their faith in their lives) by faith. And so we see already that salvation is not by observing a bunch of commandments, real or imaginary, but by faith in God.
The self-condemnation of works-based righteousness
Romans 1 continues to describe the way in which God reveals His wrath to those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (v18), and how He has revealed Himself to all men through creation (v19-20). It describes how they reject God (v21), even claiming their rejection as wisdom (v22), and ultimately worshiping the creation instead (v23). Therefore, as they reject God, God rejects them, giving them over to all kinds of evil, some of which are described in detail (v24-31). None of this is especially problematic to Roman Catholicism. It is worth noting that in spite of the irreconcilable differences, there is some similarity between Christianity and Catholicism. On top of this, the Roman Catholic Church had not yet evolved in Paul's time, therefore the book of Romans does not directly address it. Thus, while it is helpful to compare the Roman epistle to the Roman Catholic Church, not everything in Romans will be relevant to discuss, and we will even be able to skip a few chapters.
But for now, we continue to chapter 2, where Paul tells us "Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." Here, Paul sets up the problem. Ultimately, as we are all sinners, we are no better off than the wicked God haters described in the previous chapter. "But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" (v2-4).
That the goodness of God leads us to repentance is not something the Catholic Church would deny. But it is a very scary thought that by judging those who practice such things, we, ourselves, will not escape the judgement of God for when we practice such things. As the epistle goes on, Paul will set forth the depravity of man, telling us that we are all sinners.
But this is where the Catholic can smash his hands on the table and shout "Aha! Look! It goes on!" "But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God." (v5-11). Boom, Roman Catholic gospel confirmed, right?
But this jump of the gun will be swiftly refuted, first beginning with the simple fact that even if this passage was teaching works for righteousness, that still does not confirm Rome's unique gospel. See, "good" and "evil" change depending on which religion, and even which denomination, you examine. In Islam, it is good to pray towards Mecca, and evil to call Jesus the Son of God. That, however, is obviously not in view here. In the same way, in Roman Catholicism, it may well be considered good to do Penance etc. and evil to, for example, call the Eucharist a symbol.
But at this point in history, Roman Catholicism had not evolved. To really highlight the inconsistency here, remember, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the 10 commandments are still obligatory for Christians to obey, not merely out of obedience to God, but even for salvation. Yet, there is a notable difference between the Roman Catholic version of the 10 commandments and the traditional Jewish/Christian order. The Roman Catholic version is:
1. I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods."
Noticeably absent from this is what is traditionally the second commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6).
Why the conspicuous absence of the prohibition on making and bowing to graven images, which Jews and Christians take due care to retain when we list the second commandment? "Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images." (CCC 2131).
Roman Catholicism is absolutely saturated in idolatry. The Catechism continues, "The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is." (CCC 2132).
This is why we find no shortage of Roman Catholics bowing to statues, not only of Jesus, but also of Mary, who of course they believe is their "...Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."" (CCC 969). Most despicable is Pope Pius IX's "ex Cathedra" (i.e. infallible, according to the Catholic Church) statement that we repose all our hope in Mary, whereas Scripture, of course, commands us to place it all in God.
On top of this, while Catholics list "you shall not take the name of God in vain" as the second commandment, Jews and Christians, of course, list it as the third. And we stop at God's name. We do not add such blasphemous statements as "The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints." (CCC 2146).
So, what we see here is that even if we interpret Romans 2:5-11 as evidence that one must do good and avoid evil in order to be saved, and even if we include the 10 commandments as essential for salvation, Roman Catholicism is the antithesis of this. It justifies, and even commands disobedience to God, and brazenly so, with blasphemy being its chief sin. Thus, if we interpret Romans 2:5-11 as proof that one must obey God for salvation, even if we only limit that to the 10 commandments, then even before we are through with the second chapter of Romans, every Roman Catholic has failed, and will spend eternity paying for their crimes in unquenchable Hellfire. If we interpret this part as preaching salvation by works.
But if we interpret it correctly, taking into account the context of both the previous and following verses, what we see here is that Paul is actually speaking against hypocrisy. He warns us that God renders to us according to our works, and so we are inexcusable, because our works deserve the same condemnation. He's not speaking to good people who never do anything wrong. We are currently in the "bad news" portion of the Gospel, not the good news. We are seeing the problem, not the solution.
And this is not even where he stops. He continues in verses 12-16, "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."
So who is safe here? The Jews have the law, yet break it. The Gentiles have the law in another sense, not knowing it by oracle, but by God writing it on their hearts. Yet still they break it. Thus, He is able to judge sinners regardless of how much Scripture they know. On Judgement Day, everyone's conscience will testify against them.
And so Paul continues to rebuke hypocrisy, saying "You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?" (v21), and so on and so forth. He basically says the sins you expose, these you do. So what hope is there for you? Who can possibly stand before God and say "I have done no evil", or even "I have done only good"? By this standard, no one can be saved!
And so Paul says "For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."
We see, then, that faith is the internal spilling out, not the external heading in. Head on back to verse 6, which says "He will repay each one according to His works:". This appears to be a quotation of Psalm 62:12 and/or Proverbs 24:12. Proverbs 24:12 seems especially relevant here, as it says "If you say, “Surely we did not know this,” Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?" This keeps well with the theme of "circumcision" being internal, and not even necessarily literal. He is not a Jew, as Paul says, who is a Jew outwardly (i.e. keeping the law), but inwardly (i.e. living by faith).
The primacy of the Jews
One statement I have temporarily overlooked in the previous two chapters is the statement "to the Jew first and also to the Greek." This is relevant, and will become more so as we enter Romans 3, not only because of how Rome views the Jews, but also how it views itself.
See, this whole article will be incredibly difficult to convince a Roman Catholic to read, simply because of my supposed lack of authority. To a Roman Catholic, it is utter folly to compare the Roman Catholic Church to the book of Romans because I, being outside of the Roman Catholic Church, have neither the right, nor even the ability, to interpret the Bible. In fact, the Council of Trent arrogantly declared "...no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold...".
To that end, Roman Catholics try their best to claim ownership of the Bible. In fact, regarding the Deuterocanon, the New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts "According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church." This is why, as often as Christians cite the Bible to refute Roman Catholicism, you will almost always find Catholics boasting "and who gave you the Bible?"
But at the start of chapter 3, Paul tells us the correct answer to this question is the Jews. Or, more accurately, God gave it to us through the Jews. "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God." (v1-2). Paul, therefore, uses the exact same argument Roman Catholics use. But not to their advantage. No. Whatever claim Roman Catholics pretend they have to have produced the Bible, the Jews have a greater claim. It was to the Jews whom God committed His oracles. It was they whom He pulled from Egypt and placed in the land of Israel. It was they to whom He gave His laws and His revelations. It was through them He foretold of the impending New Covenant. It was through them the Lord prophesied the arrival of the Messiah. And of course, it was through them the Lord gave the Messiah. Whatever advantage the Roman Catholic Church pretends to have, the Jews have a greater claim to.
Perhaps this is why - straying from Romans a little - Paul boasted in his status as a Jew. In 1 Corinthians 11, he rebukes false teachers, and while he finds it foolish, he also sees it as necessary, to boast in what they boast. From verses 21-23: "To our shame I say that we were too weak for that! But in whatever anyone is bold—I speak foolishly—I am bold also. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often."
Why no boasting in the mythical Pope of Rome? Because Roman Catholicism, at this time, did not exist. But he boasts in his status as a Jew because it is, by his own words, a genuine advantage, because to them, not to Rome, God committed His oracles.
To the credit of the modern Catholic Church, the excessive anti-Semitism of its past has ceased, and as early as the 20th century, it came to officially reject what is known as Replacement Theology. However, even if we set its history aside, there are two rifts here. The first is between Roman Catholics and Roman Catholicism. As with any major religion, there are going to be large portions of believers who know only a little about their faith. Thus, many Roman Catholics know that their Church teaches its own authority over Scripture, but do not know that it officially rejects Replacement theology. Thus, faced with the inescapable fact the Jews, not the Catholics, received the oracles of God, many Roman Catholics assert that God has replaced the Jews with the Roman Catholic Church.
The second rift is between these two official Catholic teachings. See, in order to maintain their exclusive authority over the Scriptures, Roman Catholics must necessarily believe God has replaced Israel with the Roman Catholic Church, thereby meaning the Roman Catholics who know their faith the least actually have a more realistic worldview.
As it stands, however, Paul asserts this particular advantage of the Jew, and follows it up with "For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”" (v3-4). In other words, no, God has not replaced Israel with the Church. But that means they still maintain their advantage. Whenever the Roman Catholic Church claims sole authority to interpret the Scriptures, and especially whenever they suggest this immunises them from Scriptural criticism, they must contend with the Jews. And they will lose every time, unless they simply let Scripture say what it says. But if they do that, then not only do I have every right to write this article, but every man, woman, and child on this Earth has the right and ability to use Scripture to test Roman Catholicism. And of course, it will fall short.
All have sinned - The true purpose of The Law
After assuring us that the Jew has the advantage, having received the oracles of God, and that this is not an advantage they ever lost, Paul continues "But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin." (v5-9). This, he backs up with a number of quotes from the Old Testament.
There isn't a whole lot here with which Catholics would disagree (though keep verse 8 in mind, as this concept will come up again later). But in keeping with his previous statements, Paul here warns that we all, Jew or Gentile, are in the same danger. Every last one of us, regardless of whether or not we have received the law, are under sin, with not one of us having a Godly nature.
Following the string of Old Testament citations, Paul says "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
As we have already seen, the Roman Catholic Church is severely in violation of the 10 commandments, thereby meaning even if we were saved by them, no Roman Catholic would pass this test. However, here we see that no flesh will be justified by the deeds of the law, which of course would include the 10 commandments. I always find it amusing when Roman Catholics attempt to make this distinction. Scripture is flooded with assertions that we are saved by grace, through faith, and not of works, and Roman Catholics suggest in response "but that just means the works of the law". Yet, this would include the 10 commandments, which Roman Catholicism teaches are necessary for salvation. Here, however, Paul tells us they do not justify us, but rather, bring about the knowledge of sin.
The solution revealed
Harken back to when I said we were in the "bad news" portion of the Gospel. This is where Paul begins to reveal the "good news". The solution to our problem of sin, healing the separation between us, as wicked beings whose evil deeds are worthy of only one wage, and God, who repays all for what they have done. "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (v21-26).
Once again, it feels redundant to add more commentary here. It says exactly what it needs to say, and were it not for impenitent, sinful, false teachers who say otherwise, I would feel no need to expound upon it. But because such false teachers do exist, alongside many sheep who will follow these woolly wolves, it is necessary to point out the prominence of faith, and exclusion of works, in this passage.
We see, first, the righteousness of God apart from the law, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. Who believe what? That Mary is the neck through which grace flows? No, God is the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus, whom He set forth as a propitiation by His blood. Thus, we are justified freely by His grace, through redemption that is in Christ.
So we see already that it's all through faith. There is no work one must do to receive salvation. It comes apart from the law. It comes apart from works of any kind. No 10 commandments, no 7 Sacraments, no relying on the works of Mary and the saints, just pure faith, specifically faith in Christ.
Butchering James
This, and indeed all other Scriptures proving salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, is where Roman Catholics fall back to their fortress: James 2. If James 2 were taken alone, it would be entirely understandable that Roman Catholics believe it proves the addition of works as a requirement for salvation. However, as we are thoroughly examining the book of Romans, it should be quite obvious that it is not.
First, let us examine the argument being made from James 2. First, James notes 3 times that faith, without works, is dead (v17, 20, 26). This is woven in amongst Abraham's example, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?" (v21). Which brings us to every Roman Catholic's favorite verse, one of the few that is supposedly so super clear that even a Protestant is allowed to understand it, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."
Now, as the focus of this article is supposed to be a comparison of Roman Catholic doctrine to the book of Romans, specifically, and I have addressed the context of James 2 several times elsewhere on Bible Brain (for example, see here, here, and here), I will only briefly put the chapter into its correct context before moving back into Romans.
Ultimately, the context of James 2 is consistency. When you read the whole chapter, without breaking it into verses that conveniently seem to support works-based "gospels", this becomes quite clear. James begins by telling his readers not to show partiality, continues to say not to discriminate against the poor, and points out that the way of the world is for the rich to oppress the poor, yet the poor have been chosen by God to be rich in spirit. He then highlights the law, saying that to love one's neighbor is good, but partiality is sin. To keep the whole law, he says, yet to offend just once, is to violate it all, because the same God gave the whole law. Thus, we are to speak and do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty, and judgement will be without mercy for the merciless. He goes on to rebuke the hypocrisy of merely saying you have faith, but not having the works to back it up. This, he suggests, is mere intellectual assent; demons believe in one God, but they tremble. While the key to this chapter is undoubtedly "faith without works is dead", those who take it too far and suggest that therefore works are necessary for salvation must note verse 18, where James tells us "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." Thus, in context, salvation is not even in view here. It's true, a man is justified by works, just as "wisdom is justified by her children" (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:35). It doesn't mean wisdom is a sinner who needs her children to be reconciled to God, it means the results speak for themselves.
The Abraham example
With that "out of the way", consider Abraham. Specifically, Genesis 15:6, wherein we read "And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness." This Scripture is cited 3 times in the New Testament, once in Galatians 3:6, but also in James 2:23, and finally, in Romans 4:3. This gives us an anchor point. Whatever this Scripture means, it has always meant the same thing, and we'll find that out by combining it with its 3 New Testament citations.
Again trying to stay in Romans, we're going to ignore the Galatians quote, though it seems to be a major disservice to Scripture to do so. Of course, I encourage you to study Galatians with all due diligence, and when you do, I know you will find it as opposed to Roman Catholicism as Romans. For now, however, it neither adds, nor changes anything, but would merely reinforce the point.
But what is the point, exactly? Well, first, let's see the conclusion of chapter 3 (keeping in mind chapters are a novelty; chapter 4 is an immediate continuation): "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."
So again we see that justification and the law are two separate things. We are justified by faith, apart from the deeds of the law. But note, specifically, the exclusion of boasting. This is vital. As we read in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." Works and boasting are connected. What you achieve by faith, you have no cause for boasting, but what you achieve by works, you may boast in.
This is why, when we read on in Romans 4, we find "What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt." (V1-4).
We see, then, that if we take the Roman Catholic interpretation of James 2, then James and Paul are in conflict. James tells us, quite explicitly, that Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac on the altar (a work which, by the way, we are certainly not to imitate, even in Roman Catholic theology). Yet here, Paul argues quite firmly against the idea. James says Abraham was justified by works, but Paul says if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about. But not before God. No, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
So how do we resolve this apparent contradiction? Simply by taking a non-Catholic interpretation of Scripture. Rather than assert that James must be the one place in the entire Bible where works are set forth as additional requirement for salvation (and indeed, this is the only place Roman Catholics fall back to), James speaks about how they are a natural byproduct of faith. Meanwhile, Paul tells us in Romans that if they were included, then salvation would not be, as Scripture tells us it is, by grace. Rather, it would be a wage.
He then continues to speak about another famous Biblical figure, specifically David. "But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”" (v5-8).
This single passage is sufficient to destroy the entire Roman Catholic Gospel. First, to him who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. But this isn't just for men who never do anything good. No, there's a comma there, citing David, who describes how blessed it is to have righteousness imputed by God apart from works. But how does David describe it? It's about having your lawless deeds forgiven. It's about having your sins covered. It's about God not imputing sin.
Is this compatible with the Catholic "gospel", wherein sin is not only imputed to the faithful sinner, but if not taken care of in this life, may result in punishment in the mythical realm of Purgatory, or even the loss of salvation? Keeping in mind, David was both an adulterer and a murderer. But David says blessed is the man whose lawless deeds, like murder and adultery, are forgiven, and whose sins, like murder and adultery, are covered. And Paul points to this man and says that to him who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David. What did David get? Imputed righteousness through faith, in spite of his sin. So what do we get if we believe? Imputed righteousness in spite of sin, through faith.
Then Paul switches back to Abraham, saying "Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised." (v9-12).
This is quite relevant to some of Roman Catholicism's wonky teachings regarding baptism. Without going into too much detail, they teach that baptism has replaced circumcision, citing Colossians 2:11-12 as proof of this. Now, quickly, what it actually says is "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." From this, what we see is that baptism does not replace circumcision, but rather, it follows the "circumcision made without hands", which we receive in Him.
So, why do Roman Catholics cling to such an egregious misquote? Well, to begin with, it's how they defend the practice of infant baptism, a practice which is actually older than even the Roman Catholic Church. Well, infants were circumcised, therefore they should also be baptised, right? We'll gloss over the problems with that argument and save it for another article. For now, remember that in Roman Catholicism, "The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."
So, let us temporarily take the Roman Catholic interpretation that circumcision has replaced baptism. What does Paul say here? He says that Abraham received his imputed righteousness while uncircumcised. "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised."
Now, from a non-Catholic perspective, this doesn't actually have anything to do with baptism. In fact, baptism is mentioned only once in Romans, as we will see later on. But if we are going to say baptism replaces circumcision, then we can apply this to baptism. The result of this is that baptism is a sign, a seal of righteousness of the faith which we have while still unbaptised, and that righteousness is imputed to we who are not only baptised, but walk in the steps of the faith.
In other words, even if we take an erroneous Catholic interpretation of baptism and circumcision, salvation must necessarily precede baptism, and therefore baptism is not necessary for salvation. However, if we don't take a Catholic interpretation, therefore having no need to impose baptism on this text, this still applies. As we find in 1 Peter 3:21, baptism is not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an answer of good conscience towards God. Yet, Abraham's example still shows that before any work is ever done, it is faith that imputes righteousness to us - the kind of righteousness that not only doesn't require us to do good works, but even accounts for our lawless deeds.
And so Paul continues, "For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.”" (v13-18).
Like a beating drum, Paul hammers in this same point: By faith, by faith, by faith. But he then continues to explain the law a little. He points out that the promise to Abraham comes through faith, "for if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of no effect". So again, he sets up a dichotomy here. It can be through law, or it can be through faith, but it can't be both. But then he shows it can't be through the law, because all the law does is brings about wrath. Where there is no law, there is no transgression, but where there is law, there is not only transgression, but wrath for it.
And so Paul says it is of faith, that it might be according to grace. This is an ongoing theme throughout Romans, and Scripture as a whole. Grace through faith, not of works. If it's of works, it isn't even grace, but as we have already seen, it is actually a wage. Thus, grace and faith cancel out works, and vice versa. We will even see later on in Romans that this is explicitly defined.
Still focusing on Abraham, Paul expands upon what it meant that he believed God, and this was accounted to him for righteousness. He says "He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification." (v20-25).
At this point, Abraham's offering of Isaac is not in view, nor is circumcision. In fact, all of this concerns nothing but the promise of Isaac's birth, and the result thereof. Isaac had not been born, Sarah wasn't even pregnant, even Ishmael did not yet exist. God had merely told Abraham "this is what's going to happen". Thus, this is what Abraham believed. He was fully convinced that what God had promised, He was also able to perform. This is what Abraham believed, and this is what was accounted to him for righteousness before any external sign. This, Paul says, was written for our sakes, because this same righteousness will be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised Christ. Furthermore, it reaffirms why Christ died in the first place. He was delivered for our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.
Faith alone triumphs
The 5th chapter of Romans begins by saying "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." On its own, this is nothing a Roman Catholic would disagree with. Like any psuedo-Christian religion, they will attempt to stick to the Biblical language (though in my experience they find "dead in Christ" particularly objectionable), but qualify it with their own definitions.
Here, Paul follows up his previous point with "therefore", having been justified by faith, we have peace with God, and have access by faith into the grace in which we stand. To a Roman Catholic, that's all fine and dandy, because it doesn't say we have been justified, or have access to grace, by faith alone. Their religion doesn't deny that faith is involved, but they add to it. We must note, however, that these additions are conspicuously absent here. We have barely entered the 5th chapter of his epistle, and we have seen endless references to faith and the effect thereof. But never any kind of addition. When Paul says "having been justified by faith", he simply isn't leaving room for anything else. Not works. Not sacraments. Not specific unity with the churches in Rome, who at this point in history were relatively separate from other churches. We are justified by faith, and without even knowing what is written throughout the rest of the epistle, it is just taken for granted that this is sufficient.
But of course, we don't need to ignore the rest of the epistle, nor indeed should we. So after explaining why we should rejoice even in our afflictions, Paul tells us "Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (v5). Scripture speaks a lot to this topic, but for now, I want to focus specifically on the implications of us having the Holy Spirit.
See, three times in Scripture, we are told not only of the Holy Spirit being given to us, but actually sealing us. It would be straying from Romans to discuss this in much depth, and so I will only briefly mention it as additional context to verse 5, but in 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, Ephesians 1:13-14, and Ephesians 4:30, we are told that our salvation is sealed, and the gift of the Holy Spirit is a guarantee until the day of redemption. Roman Catholics dismiss this doctrine as "just Calvinism", but in reality, it's right there, in Scripture, for anyone who has ears to hear. Therefore, let Catholics hear, far from it being the "sin of presumption" to believe you are guaranteed the Kingdom of Heaven, this knowledge is one of the very purposes for which God gives us the Holy Spirit!
Salvation: A free gift
Paul continues to discuss what is commonly referred to in theological circles as "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" (PSA). "For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation." (v6-11).
This is problematic for Roman Catholics, because of course they do not believe in PSA, believing it to be a "Protestant" invention. Yet, here it is. Perhaps less explicitly than other Scriptures. 2 Corinthians 5:21, for example, says "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." But nevertheless, it clearly shows that Christ died for us, the ungodly, reconciling us to God through that death, and saving us by His life.
And this is where Paul moves on to Adam, who is typological of Christ. Going all the way back to Genesis 3, Paul tells us "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous." (v12-19).
Now, we can dispute whether "free gift" is the correct rendering. The notably Roman Catholic NABRE seems to agree, but that's beside the point. See, "free" gift is redundant. What gift is not free? Of course, if you're a parent, you might be the exception. If your child buys you a Christmas present, it was probably with money you gave them. But if we're talking about the opposite relation (as indeed we are, for God is our Father), the gift comes at no expense to the receiver. That's what a gift is.
And this passage really leaves us no room for alternative interpretations. It's all about how we inherit Adam's curse because of His disobedience, yet we inherit Christ's reward through His obedience. Why do I say that? Well because Paul says "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous." How many men's obedience? Christ's and mine? Christ's, Mary's, and the Saints'? One man's obedience makes the faithful righteous, and in a greater fashion than Adam's disobedience makes all men sinners.
Grace abounds much more
Paul concludes this thought, and chapter 5, with "Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (v20-21). This powerful statement shows just how little power sin has over grace. Not that sin is any small matter, as we are about to see, but that grace is far greater. Think of it as an elephant - a huge creature capable of massive destruction - compared to a behemoth, chief of the ways of God. The extent of the grace doesn't make sin smaller, it's that grace is far greater.
And this is why Paul continues, in chapter 6, to say "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (v1-4).
The Biblical Gospel is the only Gospel that would ever merit such an objection, and indeed very often does. I find whenever I debate Roman Catholics on the concept of salvation, they almost always give the objection Paul answers here. But Paul does not answer the objection in the way a Roman Catholic would. If you say to a Roman Catholic "why not continue in sin that grace may abound", their answer would be "because then you forfeit grace". Remember, "...Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." That means in Roman Catholicism, the kind of thing Paul describes leads to Hell.
But Paul says otherwise. Rather than presenting sin as voiding the contract, he scoffs at the very objection. How, he asks, shall we who have died to sin live any longer in it? He doesn't talk about righteous living as a method, but a result, of salvation. He doesn't describe sin as that which costs salvation, but that which is a symptom of not being saved. If it was a cause, this would be the best time for Paul to say it. He lines himself up, here is the objection, and the answer is... be consistent. It's like we looked at in James earlier. What good is it to say you have faith, but not works? Will that kind of faith save you? No, it's mere intellectual assent. But true faith produces action.
And so we see that the Biblical Gospel receives the same criticism Roman Catholics make of the "Protestant" Gospel, and Paul gives the same answer that a "Protestant" would give to a Roman Catholic. Now, if Paul's Gospel merits, and pre-emptively answers, a Roman Catholic objection, giving an answer no Roman Catholic would ever give, what does that tell you about the Roman Catholic faith? It tells you it is not the faith Paul intended the Romans to have when he, guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote to the Roman Church.
And lest one think I have read too much into those four little verses, Paul himself does not leave it there. He continues to say "For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace." (v5-14).
This doesn't tell us vast amounts more than I've already said, but Paul does tell us that death no longer has dominion over Christ, and He now lives to God, as He died to sin. Thus, we must likewise reckon ourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ. This is why we must not sin. Not because it costs us our salvation, but because the very reason we are saved is so that we may live righteously.
In the latter half of the chapter, Paul effectively repeats himself, again bringing up the objection "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?", of course answering again "Certainly not!" (v15). So again, he backs this up, saying "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (v16-23).
So Paul says, in "human terms", that we are slaves of whom we obey, be it sin or righteousness. If we obey sin, we are slaves of sin. But what did that get us? What profit did obedience to sin bring us? Death. But Paul reiterates that while the wages of sin is death, the gift of God is eternal life in Christ. The what of God? The gift of God. Thus far, we have seen that this gift is received through faith, and only faith. Works are not a part of it, and indeed, the addition of works would render grace ineffective.
But for a moment, let's focus on the wages of sin. Here, we are told this is death. This, of course, is something we see quite clearly from the beginning. The first sin brought death, and that even resulted in death spreading to all men because all sin. If the wages of sin is death, then the wages of sin, but for the gift of salvation, would always be death.
Yet, by Roman Catholic reckoning, sin can be divided into two categories: Mortal, returning the wages of death, and venial, requiring punishment in Purgatory, but not resulting in the loss of salvation. The wages of venial sin is not death! So, somehow, Christ's death renders sin less severe than it previously was. Only under the Biblical Gospel, wherein the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God, greater than the offence, is eternal life, does sin retain its severity. Isn't this ironic? Somehow, because Christians believe salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, not of works, we are so often slandered as trivialising sin, yet it is the Roman Catholics who believe the sins which send unbelievers to Hell only send Roman Catholics to the mythical realm of Purgatory?
The purpose of the law
With the things of chapter 6 loaded in his mind, in Romans 7, Paul switches his analogy from slavery to whom we obey - sin or righteousness - to marriage. "Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." (v1-6).
This continues his theme of us having died to sin, but actually goes to the source: The law itself. As a wife is free to remarry after the death of her husband, we are free to "marry" Christ because we are dead to the law. The law that arouses sin within us. But now we serve in what? The newness of the Spirit. We aren't saved by all these "thou shalt nots", because it is those "thou shalt nots" that tempt us to do the very things we shalt not!
And lest you think I'm making that up and reading it in to support some Protestant novelty, Paul goes on: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." (v7-12).
"I would not know", Paul says, "if the law had not said". Though we are no longer under the law, it is nevertheless a good thing. We don't just discard it like some tatty old pagan tradition, it is the word of God, as much as the New Testament. But its purpose is actually to show us how little we can keep it. That includes the 10 commandments, wherein we read "“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”" (Exodus 20:17). We see, then, that Paul isn't talking about the ritual observances of the law here. He is talking about the "righteous requirements" of the law, the very things which the Roman Catholic Church teaches us are not merely obligatory, but are actually required for salvation. But he says although the law is good, we are not! This, as he will go on to say, is the weakness of the law: "...what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son..." (Romans 8:3).
What follows Paul's explanation of the law's purpose is one of the most controversial passages in all of Romans, particularly concerning who, specifically, it is referring to. From the use of personal pronouns, there is no dispute that Paul is talking about himself, and applying his personal example to others, but exactly who is disputed. Is he talking about an unregenerate person? A believer before baptism? A "baby Christian", born again and baptised, but not yet skilled in wrestling with his flesh?
By far the best interpretation is that Paul is speaking about all believers, describing our two natures while we still live in this "body of death" (v24). In the flesh, we are "carnal and sold under sin" (v14), and that causes an internal war. When we want to do good, we don't. When we don't want to do evil, we do. And so Paul laments, "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." (v24-25).
No condemnation for those in Christ
This still works very much in tandem with the idea that believers are a "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17), doing good because we want to, and avoiding evil because we want to, not for sake of salvation, but because we have received it. From whom? Of course, from Christ! Paul continues in chapter 8: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." (v1-11).
You see, then, that first of all, for those who are in Christ, there is no condemnation. There is no venial sin which merits temporal punishment in the mythical realm of Purgatory! There is no mortal sin which damns us to Hell in spite of Christ's sacrifice! If you walk in the Spirit, and not in the flesh, you're saved! And you're not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. And how do we know if the Spirit of God dwells in you? By asking which you set your mind to. "...the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." But those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
And so Paul goes on, saying "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together." (v12-17).
In the Roman Catholic mind, this sounds almost like it backs up their works-based gospel. "if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live". So if we're running around getting drunk, having illegitimate sexual relations, killing our own children etc., surely that means even faith can't save us, right? But we're 8 chapters in now. We don't have an excuse for reading this one verse as if it's the only one in the entire Bible. Paul has already laid the foundation for interpreting this. He has already warned us that we cannot safely condemn the works of those who live by the flesh, because we do the same things. He's already told us what it means to live by faith, and that our faith is counted for righteousness even if we do not work. He's told us that those who live according to the flesh cannot submit to the law of God.
The irony is, to live according to the flesh doesn't even mean to sin. Rather, it is contrasted with living by faith. It's like the phrase "to live by the sword". One does not literally live by the sword, it's a choice of lifestyle. If you live by faith, you trust in the Lord to cover your transgressions, whereas if you live according to the flesh, you do what the Jews did. What did they trust for their salvation? Not Christ, but law. They trusted in circumcision. They trusted in charitable giving. They trusted in their Sabbath laws. They trusted in the money they gave to the temple, even the very "corban" they should have been giving to their parents. In short, they trusted in the same things Roman Catholics do. They lived according to the flesh, not by doing evil things for their own self pleasure, but by giving the appearance of piety. It was the tax collector, not the Pharisee, who was justified by God.
Perseverance of the Saints
Paul does not deviate from his own points in Romans 8, but as Roman Catholicism deviates so sharply from the Gospel, we are also going to have to deviate from the previous point. Remember when we looked at the Roman Catholic gospel, and saw that Roman Catholics believe "In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."
These concepts are entirely alien to the Bible. The word "saint" is never used in this way, but in Romans 8, Paul does use it. He says "Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." (v26-30).
From this, we see very clearly that a forerunner in the faith is a saint, but a saint is not necessarily a forerunner in the faith. Rather, in Christ, we are all saints. If we believe in Christ, if we confess Him as Lord and believe He rose from the dead, if we live by faith, if we live according to the Spirit, we are His saints. And we do not need their intercession. Saints don't intercede for us, the Spirit intercedes for saints, with groanings that cannot be uttered, according to the will of God.
And it's not only the Spirit. We read further, "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (v31-39).
We all love to hear "if God is for us, who can be against us?" You have a Goliath standing in your path? One little stone and down he goes. You need to cross the sea? There's a breeze on the way. You can be surrounded by lions and know that God will shut their jaws. But note the context. We're not talking about Earthly events here. Paul is speaking in the context of salvation. He's speaking about how God did not spare his own Son's life for us, and so he asks, who shall bring a charge against God's elect? Who is it who condemns we, whom God has justified, with the blood of His Messiah? And what does this Messiah do? He died for us, He rose for us, He sits at the right hand of God, and He intercedes for us. He, and He alone, fulfills the role Rome ascribes to the Saints.
Therefore, Paul actually asks "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" The answer to this rhetorical question is "neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
But you think you're an exception? If you were, now would be the perfect time to say it. After all, it would be far too easy to "misinterpret" Paul's words here as saying the exact opposite. He talks about how no one can bring a charge against God's elect, how it is God who justifies, how the Spirit and Christ intercede for us, how nothing can separate us from His love, how not even things present or future, nor even any created thing, can separate us from the love of God. But sin can? The very thing that hung upon that cross? This seems like the perfect time to clear up the confusion, but Paul gives no clarification, he just lets us draw his conclusion. The conclusion that those who are in Christ are in it for the long haul. That we, who are predestined, will be conformed to the image of God's Son. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like directing any devotion to a statue of a dead person right now.
Works and the stumbling stone
In Romans 9, Paul goes on to describe the sovereignty of God, particularly regarding human history and the origins of Israel. He expresses his grief over his Jewish brethren, wishing with great anguish that he could be accursed in their place, but tells us that even in the patriarchs, they are not, as they believed, all children of Abraham. He tells us "And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”" (v10-13).
Romans 8 and 9 are, of course, the "Calvinism chapters" - the pair every Calvinist loves and misinterprets. I managed to avoid the discussion on Romans 8, and hope to spend minimal time on it here also, but it is almost relevant here, as the Roman Catholic Church makes the opposite error. In Calvinism, the error is God's individual selection of who will and will not believe. All faith, no works, and indeed, faith itself is a work if it is anything other than the gift of God. In Roman Catholicism, by contrast, works are heavily overemphasised.
This is actually the very mistake the Jews make to get themselves cut off. Paul goes on to say "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”" (v30-33).
The Gentiles attained to the righteousness of faith, but Israel did not, because they did not seek it by faith, but by the works of the law. Does this not sound familiar? "...the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; (...) so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments." Well sure, faith is mixed in there, but so is Baptism, which is mentioned once in the entirety of the book of Romans, and the observance of the Commandments, which Paul has just said is why the Jews do not attain the same righteousness as the Gentiles, who receive it... by faith. Why? Simply because whoever believes on Him (Jesus) will not be put to shame. How strange that in the Christian faith, salvation is easier than in Judaism, yet in the Roman Catholic faith, salvation is significantly harder.
Knowledge to match the zeal
With all of the criticisms we have lodged against Rome thus far, it might be both beneficial and fair to give them this testimony: "...I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." For Paul, this is the testimony he gives about his Jewish brethren in the beginning of Romans 10 (v2), but it applies equally to Roman Catholics. Of course, anyone can just pluck this verse out of Scripture and apply it to their opponents. In fact, even among "Protestant" denominations, it's a common compliment to give as an attempt to build bridges. Sure, we disagree on Creation, Predestination, tithing, pedobaptism etc., but we're all brothers, right? Come on now, we all agree on the basics. It's just convenient that our group knows more than your group.
But is that what's going on here? Thankfully, Paul doesn't leave it at that. He defines the knowledge of which he speaks, going on to say "For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (v3-4).
We see, then, that Paul is being very specific about the kind of knowledge the Jews lack. Rather than trusting in Christ for their righteousness, they seek to establish their own. The Roman Catholic equivalent, as we spoke about earlier on, would be "Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life." (CCC 2010).
Who really merits salvation?
You see, then, that while Rome today teaches that we can merit salvation not only for ourselves, but for others, Paul tells Rome that this is the very mistake that disconnects the zeal of the Jews from their knowledge of God. And he continues his point, saying "For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.” But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”" (v5-13).
The more diligent Bible students will notice a plethora of Scriptural references in this particular passage. When he says Moses says the one who does these will live by them, he is referring to Leviticus 18:5. The "who will ascend into Heaven" thing, up until "the word is near you", is from Deuteronomy 30:11-14. "Whoever believes will not be put to shame" is believed to reference Isaiah 28:16. "Whoever calls on the name" is from Joel 2:32. Even just the number of Scriptures Paul draws upon to make this point tells us that Scripture has a common theme throughout, from the Torah to the prophets.
But what is that theme? It's right there. In fact, as both Moses and Paul tell us, it's "near you, in your mouth and heart", and is not too difficult: Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame, and whoever calls on Him will be saved. Our faith is counted for righteousness, and our confession is what saves us.
So where is the observance of the commandments? Where is the participation in the 7 Sacraments? Where is the union with the Roman Catholic Church? Paul doesn't mention any of that, because as he wrote to the Ephesians, it is by grace we are saved, through faith, and not of works.
And this is why "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church...", unfortunately, will not merit salvation, no matter how much Rome might claim they do. As Paul says, "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”" (v14-15). Salvation for those who have not heard is a lovely thought. It would be of great comfort to be able to believe a good man living in some tribe on some isolated island somewhere might be saved just because he acts according to his conscience, but what have we seen in this epistle so far? We've seen that the conscience, unfortunately, can only get a man so far. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and when those who do not have the law obey it by nature, they are a law unto themselves. Thus, as we saw in Romans 2, "...as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law" (Romans 2:12). Truly Jesus spoke when He said "...No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6), and falsely Rome spoke when they said otherwise.
The dictionary verse
After this, Paul goes on to speak about the stubbornness of Israel. How they have, in fact, heard the Gospel, and yet they have rejected it. Mostly. He explains that God has not given up on the Jews, and how he, himself, is of the tribe of Benjamin. He also reminds his readers of Elijah, and how he sought justice against the Jews, because they killed the prophets, and sought even his life. "But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace." (Romans 11:4-5). Then comes what is essentially a "dictionary verse". "And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." (v6).
Unfortunately, we're dealing with a textual variant here, so for sake of argument, we're going to switch translations for a moment. Until now, we have used the NKJV, but now let's cite two Roman Catholic translations.
First, the DRA: "And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace."
Now the NABRE: "But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."
In all cases, regardless of variation, every Bible tells us that if it is by grace, it is no longer of grace, or grace would no longer be grace. This means that any time the Bible speaks about grace, it is describing the antithesis of works. As light is the opposite of dark, as free is the opposite of expensive, as sufficient is the opposite of deficient, so also is grace the opposite of works. Therefore, if we are saved by grace, through faith, then it is no longer of works. Otherwise, grace is no longer grace. Yet, the Roman Catholic "gospel" has an endless stream of works on top of grace.
We are the grafted
With this in mind, Paul goes on to talk about the partial hardening of the Jewish community, saying that it has happened so that God may also have mercy on the Gentiles. It's worth noting, at this point, that Paul does say "For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles..." (v13). On its own, this doesn't sound especially significant. But it is if you take the book of Galatians into account. In Galatians 2:7-9, we read "But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."
Of course, going back to Romans 10, we see that the very feet of those who carry the Gospel are beautiful, meaning everyone who has it should indeed share it with everyone who does not have it. Thus, Paul preached to Jews, and Peter preached to Gentiles. But they did have their primary ministries. Peter, James, and John (who only "seemed to be pillars") went to the circumcised (the Jews), whereas Paul and Barnabas would go to the Gentiles. Well, where were the Jews, and where were the Gentiles? According to Romans 11:13, Paul was speaking to "you Gentiles", in Rome. This makes it a matter of both historical and Biblical fact that, contrary to the assertions and protestations of the Roman Catholic Church, Peter did not pay any particular attention to the churches in Rome! He had no reason to, it simply was not his primary focus. The entire Papacy is founded on a lie!
Meanwhile, the Jewish foundation of the Gospel is undeniable. Back here in Romans 11, Paul warns us very sternly "For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" (v16-24).
Now, the primary purpose of this article isn't to address the Jewish nature of the Christian faith, but rather, to dispute the Christian nature of the Roman Catholic faith. Thus, I won't look much further into the natural vs. wild branches aspect. But I do think it is useful nevertheless. Rome is notorious for its boasting, even claiming to have given us the Scriptures. This, supposedly, is what gives them sole authority to interpret them for us. But when it is pointed out that whatever claims they might make, the Jews have more right to make, it is said that they lost that right when they rejected Christ.
As we have seen thus far in Romans, that's not how it worked at all. We are quite explicitly told that God has not cast off His people, whom He foreknew, and that it is quite advantageous to be a Jew, because to them were committed the oracles of God. But here, Paul warns us not to boast against the Jews, because they are the natural branches, yet we were grafted in, and can be broken off as easily. They, also, can be grafted back in. None of this is a problem for God, He can graft whom He likes, and He can break off whom He likes.
But what is the criteria here? Is it the sacraments that graft us in? Is it mortal sin that breaks us off? Is it Mary pruning this particular tree? "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."
We see, then, that for all the sins of the Jews, it is ultimately their unbelief, and continuation thereof, that is what breaks them off. By contrast, we stand by faith, and it is by continuing in His goodness, not our own, that keeps us grafted in.
Love fulfils the law
As the book of Romans was written before the Roman Catholic Church evolved, its purpose is not to be a treatise against the Roman Catholic gospel, as this article is. Because of this, not everything in the book of Romans is relevant to us, and we can effectively skip Romans 12, and the first half of Romans 13.
But as we have seen, the Roman Catholic Church places a heavy emphasis on the 10 commandments, both as an obligation for Christians to obey today, and as a thing which is equal to faith and baptism in their plan of salvation. If this were truly the case, one would expect Paul to express this sentiment. In the latter half of Romans 13, specifically verses 8 to 10, he actually does allude to the commandments. But notice, he does not do so in relation to salvation. Rather, he says:
"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Of course, one might argue that this still binds us to keep them. But by the same token, you could argue it binds us to so much more. If there is any other commandment, Paul says, all are summed up in "you shall love your neighbor as yourself". Love is the criteria here, not the 10 commandments. But he still isn't setting these up as complementary to faith, or baptism, for salvation. Thus far, all Paul has ever done is set up faith as the sole criteria for the reception of God's grace, and the gift of salvation.
From here, Paul continues, saying "And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts." (v11-14).
This continues his theme of consistency. And I think, really, this is where both forms of gospel may suffer. As we discussed back in Romans 6, the Biblical Gospel receives the criticism "then why not continue to sin that grace may abound?" Whereas the Roman Catholic gospel allows the "sin on Saturday, confess on Sunday" approach. But Paul once again reinforces his point: Our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed, therefore cast off the works of darkness. Now who does that sound like? Is it not the Christians who say "we don't do good works to get saved, but because we are saved"? Is that not the answer we give when our Roman Catholic friends ask us "if we cannot lose salvation, then why not continue to sin?" Yet, here, Paul tells us that our salvation is nearer than when we first believed, therefore let us cast off the works of darkness. The exact same belief we, as Christians, are criticised for holding, Paul takes for granted in his epistle to the Romans.
A refutation of Holy Days of Obligation
And now we come to what is perhaps one of my favorite passages in all of Scripture. Romans 14 describes a concept known, colloquially, as Christian liberty. Christian liberty acknowledges that, as much as worship is a collective matter, it is also an individual one. This means we are free to literally "agree to disagree" on many issues and worship God in our own way. "Receive one who is weak in the faith...", Paul says, "...but not to disputes over doubtful things." (Romans 14:1).
But he doesn't leave us floundering as to exactly what this means. "For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand." (v2-4).
The result of this is obvious. We are no longer required to follow the Old Testament dietary laws, but have instead been returned to the Noahic covenant: "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs." (Genesis 9:2-3). So, even if you want to eat a treyf animal, like a pig, you can. If you want to stick to kosher meats, you can. If you want to be a vegetarian, or even a vegan, you are quite within your rights. And no one, not even the Pope himself, has any business judging you for that, because Paul, by inspiration of God, tells them to back off.
But where it gets interesting, at least given the topic of this article, begins in verse 5: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." Christian liberty is a very broad brush. It doesn't just cover food and drink, but anything that is considered a "doubtful issue". This includes the observance of times and seasons.
Throughout the New Testament, there is not one single command to observe any given time, and as you have just seen, it actually tells us we do not have to. What matters is how convinced we are in our own minds. And so Paul continues to say "He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living." (v6-9).
This makes our individual worship as vital as our collective. Whatever we do, even the most trivial aspects of our lives, are for Christ, and it is to this very end that He died and rose again. He didn't die and rise just so we could be transferred from one religious system (the observance of the Law) to another. He died and rose so that He might be Lord of all, living or dead.
But the Roman Catholic Church takes a very different approach. Much like the Galatians, the Roman Catholic Church "...turn again to the weak and beggarly elements..." (Galatians 4:9) by observing what they call "holy days of obligation". Regarding these, Catechism of the Catholic Church 2180-2181 teaches "The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass." "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day." The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin."
We see quite the disconnect here. To Paul, a Christian is free to esteem one day above another, or to esteem all days alike, so long as one is fully convinced in his own mind. But to the Roman Catholic Church, one who does not esteem either a Sunday, or a "holy day of obligation", above all others, by participating in the Mass, is committing a grave sin. And of course, "...Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." According to the Roman Catholic Church, therefore, you can lose your salvation entirely if you take seriously the divinely inspired writings of the Apostle Paul, to the original Roman churches. We would not find such a dreadful contradiction in the Church Jesus founded, and so I submit that Romans 14 alone is so devastating to the Roman Catholic Church that we must consider it apostate.
Paul's final greetings
With the vast majority of his points made, Paul begins to wind down his epistle. Towards the end of chapter 15, we read "...I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, but as it is written: “To whom He was not announced, they shall see; And those who have not heard shall understand.” For this reason I also have been much hindered from coming to you. But now no longer having a place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come to you, whenever I journey to Spain, I shall come to you. For I hope to see you on my journey, and to be helped on my way there by you, if first I may enjoy your company for a while. But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints." (v20-25).
Once again we note the manner in which Paul refers to the saints. As we saw earlier on, the word "saint" does not refer to a canonised dead person, whose good works contribute to our salvation, but to all who are in Christ. There are saints here, there are saints there, there are saints across the globe: Everywhere.
In pure desperation, some Roman Catholics note verse 20, where Paul says he didn't want to build on another man's foundation. This, they claim, is none other than Peter's foundation. But this is reading far too much into the text. Paul gives no indication that he is concerned about encroaching on another Apostle's territory - certainly not as though such an Apostle is superior to him. Rather, he explains himself in the same verse: He prefers to go to whom Christ was not announced, and to those who have not heard of Him. Regardless of how the Gospel actually made it to Rome, the fact is it had made it. Thus, Paul had other priorities. But notice, he had often desired to go to Rome, and even now, it is he, not Peter, who wrote God's own letter to the Romans. This, in and of itself, is not proof that Peter, or any other Apostle, was absent, but it does beg the question, if indeed there was already an Apostle present, why did Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, consider it such a pressing matter to go to the primarily Gentile churches in Rome? Remember, Peter's primary ministry is to the circumcised.
Further evidence against the Peter theory is the long list of names Paul cites in Romans 16. He requests the Romans greet a number of people on his behalf. Prisca, Aquila, and the church in their house. Epaenetus, Mary, Andronicus, Junia, Apliatus, Urbanus, and a host of other brethren. With so many of Paul's direct associates in Rome, it is not as if the Gospel was carried there by some anonymous novice in the faith, or even a heretic. But conspicuously absent are the names of even one of those who "seemed to be pillars of the faith". Not James, the Lord's brother. Not John, the son of thunder. Not even "Pope" Peter. Thus, when Paul says "...The churches of Christ greet you" (Romans 16:16), it is significantly more likely that Peter was among one of them. As the Apostle to the circumcised, likely a more Jewish congregation.
Conclusion
Whether you have sat down for well over an hour, or have read this article in chunks, you will have seen a lot in this article. It is a long one, but it is my hope and prayer that it is also a useful one. We have discussed the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, as far as they pertain to salvation, and we have seen the dictations (Romans 16:22) of the divinely inspired Apostle Paul, as he intended the actual Roman churches to receive. How disconnected they are! Whereas the Roman Catholic Church teaches a primarily works-based salvation, Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, teaches a Gospel of faith, going so far as to literally define the grace by which we are saved as the opposite of works! And it is all based on Christ alone. We cannot merit salvation for ourselves, nor do the saints merit salvation for us, for indeed we are the saints - if indeed we are in Christ. And if we are in Christ, there is no condemnation. There is no mythical realm of Purgatory, in which our venial sins are punished, nor is there any such thing as mortal sin, by which we lose salvation entirely. In this article, we have seen how anti-Biblical the Roman Catholic "gospel" really is. Thus, we may only conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is an apostate Church, far removed from the original churches to whom Paul wrote the Roman epistle. Salvation is not found in that Church, and so all who seek salvation should take the advice of our brother Paul: "...note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them." (Romans 16:17).