re: Protestant-Only Religious Service at Pentagon

quote:

---

If im baptized as a baby does your church require me to do another baptism as an adult?

---

My church has no requirements and is a non factor in all of this. It’s about what scripture says alone that matters, and there is no reference to infant baptism. How is an infant going to change their mind and believe upon Jesus for salvation? It makes zero scriptural sense. Want to dedicate your infant to Jesus? I suppose so, but it’s not the definition of baptism clearly laid out in scripture for us to go on.


First you believe unto salvation, and then get baptized.

You’re still dodging the core issue. Saying an infallible message doesn’t need an infallible interpreter sounds clean in theory, but in practice once interpretations conflict, someone has to decide what the message actually means. Otherwise “infallible” becomes meaningless functionally. That’s not a Catholic problem, that’s the unavoidable consequence of your framework.

Your Pharisee example actually reinforces my point. Yes, they had authority and could err, but look at the result without a protected teaching authority. You get internal doctrinal chaos. Christ doesn’t abolish authority, He perfects it and establishes His Church with binding authority. The Catholic claim isn’t Pharisees 2.0, it’s that Christ fixed that instability.

On the canon, you keep redefining certainty to avoid the problem. If your identification of Scripture can be wrong, then your “infallible rule” is functionally uncertain. You can call it certainty, but it’s not the kind that can bind the whole Church without contradiction. That gap is still there.

Appealing to “God preserved it” still relies on you deciding where that preservation is found. That’s the point. You’re using fallible judgment to identify an infallible authority, then acting like that process doesn’t affect the result. That disconnect is exactly the issue.

The John the Baptist analogy doesn’t hold because he wasn’t identifying a universal canon. Recognizing a person in front of you is categorically different from defining a binding collection of texts for the entire Church. One is immediate recognition, the other is an authoritative historical determination. The John analogy still misses the scale of the issue. The question isn’t whether fallible people can recognize truth, it’s whether the Church can bind the faithful universally on what counts as revelation and what it means. That requires a different level of authority.

On Acts 15, you’re minimizing what the text shows. That wasn’t just a one-off apostolic moment, it was a model of resolving doctrinal disputes with binding authority under the guidance of the Spirit. “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” is not fallible opinion language. Calling Acts 15 “transitional” is an assumption, not something the text states. The pattern is dispute, council, binding decision under the Spirit. If that disappears, you need to show where Scripture says it does.

Saying “who decides, you?” isn’t a strawman, it’s the logical endpoint. If the Church can err and Scripture alone is the final authority, then every correction ultimately depends on someone’s interpretation. That relocates final authority to the individual whether you want to say it that way or not.

Your “certainty without infallibility” distinction still collapses under pressure. You’re claiming confidence in something that could be wrong at the foundational level, the canon itself. That’s not a minor nuance, that affects everything built on it.

On the Spirit, the issue isn’t whether the Spirit confirms truth, it’s that your method gives no way to distinguish true confirmation from false claims. Every group says the same thing. Without an authoritative interpreter, that just multiplies contradictions.

At the end of the day, you’re admitting everything rests on fallible identification and interpretation, while still calling it stable because Scripture itself is infallible. But if access to that authority is uncertain and interpretations fragment endlessly, then in practice your system produces exactly what we see. The Catholic position is that Christ didn’t leave His Church with an infallible book and no infallible way to define or interpret it.

quote:

---

On Acts 15, you’re minimizing what the text shows. That wasn’t just a one-off apostolic moment, it was a model of resolving doctrinal disputes with binding authority under the guidance of the Spirit. “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” is not fallible opinion language. Calling Acts 15 “transitional” is an assumption, not something the text states. The pattern is dispute, council, binding decision under the Spirit. If that disappears, you need to show where Scripture says it does.

---

The assumption I made is something that Rome generally agrees with. She teaches that the apostolic time was unique in that new revelation was given. The RCC doesn't teach that revelation continues after the apostles, does she? If not, then my assumption is the same one held by your own church. The application is what we're disagreeing on in this instance.

I don't disagree that Acts 15 was a pattern for resolving disagreements in the Church. I believe that passage represents the model of Presbyterianism that existed early on before elders/bishops began garnering more and more individual authority and prominence, but that's an aside.

What we are disagreeing about is not whether or not Acts 15 provides a model of authoritative teaching and correction of error, but whether or not it provides a model of infallible teaching and correction that continues after the apostles died. The Scriptures give no indication that the Church is infallible in her judgements. That is a tradition that Rome adopted after the fact to help put teeth behind the teaching.

quote:

---

Saying “who decides, you?” isn’t a strawman, it’s the logical endpoint. If the Church can err and Scripture alone is the final authority, then every correction ultimately depends on someone’s interpretation. That relocates final authority to the individual whether you want to say it that way or not.

---

You're thinking too temporally. It is every Christian's obligation to study the Scriptures and seek to understand it, with the understanding that no one will have perfect doctrine hear on earth. Even the Pope doesn't have perfect doctrine, which is why we hear so many criticisms about them.

There is one meaning and one right way of understanding the Scriptures. God revealed His truth to us and we are under obligation to seek to understand it, both on our own, and also by listening to the wise and gifted men He's given us to help us understand it. While our consciences are to be conformed to the truth, we will not have full knowledge and understanding this side of Heaven, and all our error will be removed at that point, as our sin is removed and the cloud over our minds due to sin is lifted.

When I "decide" what is true from the Scriptures, it isn't me making an infallible declaration, like the Pope may do, but a recognition based on what God has allowed me to understand at that time of what God is teaching from His word. That may be a false understanding, which is why Christians are supposed to mature and grow in their understanding over time. My understanding is based in humility, knowing that what I do know that corresponds with the truth is so by the grace of God by His Spirit, and what I don't know, or what I know incorrectly and incompletely is due to my own sin getting in the way; it isn't a problem with God's word but with me.

In this sense, I'm not actually deciding what is truth, but I'm seeking to receive the truth with greater and greater clarity of understanding. This viewpoint keeps the Scriptures as authoritative--not some declaration of my own--and keeps me in a place of continual reformation.

You keep wanting to equate the Protestant view to the Catholic view, where the Pope and the Magisterium makes a decision and that's it. You want to think that Protestants are doing the same thing, but we aren't. We are recognizing that the Bible is true and we may misunderstand it, so we need to continually go back to it and seek to be reformed in our understanding. We are not making an infallible claim like Rome has often times done. It's a very big difference.

quote:

---

Your “certainty without infallibility” distinction still collapses under pressure. You’re claiming confidence in something that could be wrong at the foundational level, the canon itself. That’s not a minor nuance, that affects everything built on it.

---

While it could theoretically be wrong from a human perspective, I'm not taking a naturalistic approach to the issue. I'm not looking at this from a perspective of mere probability. In practice, God has declared that He will preserve His word, and the church is the mechanism through which God has preserved it. Not because the Church is infallible, but because God uses weakness for His own glory, and the fallible to magnify His infallibility.

You keep spinning on this concept that lacking infallible certainty means we can't have any certainty whatsoever. The evidence from history and especially from God's own word paints a different picture, where Christians can have real certainty that God has preserved His word, even through fallible means. Again, Jesus held the Jews to a standard of certainty of the Scriptures without them ever having an infallible means to recognize them as such, as Rome claims to have (but only 1500 hundred years after the fact).

quote:

---

On the Spirit, the issue isn’t whether the Spirit confirms truth, it’s that your method gives no way to distinguish true confirmation from false claims. Every group says the same thing. Without an authoritative interpreter, that just multiplies contradictions.

---

I think you are misunderstanding the Spirit's role in testifying to the authenticity of the Scriptures. You seem to be describing some entirely subjective mechanism where each individual has a feeling "from the Spirit", and that that feeling is what determines whether something is from God or not.

No, I believe the Spirit reveals the objective truth and reality about the Scriptures to those whom He enlightens, so that the objective truth is clearly seen and received. The Spirit works in conjunction with the word, not apart from it. That which is Scripture has qualities that differentiates it from that which is not Scripture, and the Spirit provides recognition of it as such.

quote:

---

At the end of the day, you’re admitting everything rests on fallible identification and interpretation, while still calling it stable because Scripture itself is infallible. But if access to that authority is uncertain and interpretations fragment endlessly, then in practice your system produces exactly what we see. The Catholic position is that Christ didn’t leave His Church with an infallible book and no infallible way to define or interpret it.

---

At the end of the day, my final authority is what the Scriptures provide. We all have the Scriptures, and what they teach about infallible authority is that the Scriptures are all that remains for the Church. Catholics seem to be very fond of downplaying the Scriptures precisely because they believe they have an infallible Magisterium that will guide the way to truth, no matter what. Functionally, you reject the Scriptures as unnecessary, because you have continual revelation (though you may not actually call it that explicitly) through the Church. You don't need the Bible because you have the bishops. That is clearly seen in these discussions.

I for one could not care less. They shouldn’t be going to church at work anyway.

quote:

---

Hello again Foo.

---

Hello! It's been a while

quote:

---

I know that you have identified yourself in a prior post to me as being a Reformed Presbyterian. And I responded to you:

"Correct me if my research is wrong, but didn't your church of Reformed Presbyterian believe the Pope to be the anti-Christ? Didn't your church also declare the US Constitution immoral because it did not list Christ as King of the country? Your members not allowed to vote? Has this been rectified? If so, how is it that a church that is only a few hundred years old could have change it's doctrine so often?"

---

In response, I said the following: "Yes (to the Papal office being the anti-Christ); yes to the Constitution being an affront to God due to religious pluralism and lack of respect for Christ as King of kings; yes to members not being allowed to vote historically, but that changed due to the SCOTUS allowing for an explanatory clause for oaths of office, etc." ( Post from 4/24/25)

You didn't respond for clarification at the time, but it seems you are asking for that now, so I'll provide it, especially around the last questions: "Has this been rectified? If so, how is it that a church that is only a few hundred years old could have change it's doctrine so often?"

1. We still believe that the Pope is the antichrist, which reflects the traditional Reformed position. Other American denominations that adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith have taken that part out, but my denomination hasn't.

2. While we still believe the Constitution is sinful as a whole due to it being a purposefully pluralistic document and not confessing Christ as King, we have adopted a position that oaths of office that vow to uphold the Constitution may be made with an explanatory declaration that affirms that such obedience and support will be performed except where obedience to God prevents such performance. This isn't a change of position about the Constitution, but about the ability of the Christian to faithfully and in good conscience submit to the Constitution where it doesn't require disobedience to God.

3. Yes, members are allowed to vote, which is a change in application, not in principle. With the explanatory declaration from #2, voting was seen as a valid option so long as the Christian voted for godly leaders who publicly commit to governing by scriptural principles of governance, and maintained Christ as an authority even over the Constitution.

With those issues clarified (I hope--please let me know if they aren't clear), your last question from your post last year is answered: our church has not changed its doctrine "often", and especially not for the 3 examples you provided.

quote:

---

You go on and on criticizing the fallibility of the Church, the Pope, etc.

---

I'm not criticizing the RCC and Pope for being fallible, but for their claim of infallibility. I know they are fallible, and there is no person or institution on earth today that is infallible. Only the Scriptures are infallible.

quote:

---

and believe that your "better than everyone else's" interpretation of Scripture leads you to this kind of reasoning? Is that where Scripture has led you and your little group? Wow!

---

Everyone believes their interpretation is "better" than all others, or else they wouldn't believe it. Don't you believe the RCC's interpretation of Scripture is "better" than mine? If so, why are you criticizing me for something you do?

What is at the core of this discussion isn't whether or not the RCC is "better" or "worse" than my little Presbyterian denomination, but whether or not our organizations are reformable according to Scripture. My denomination believes that she can err and that it is our duty to continually seek reform according to the Scriptures. The RCC doesn't believe this: they believe their infallible teachings cannot be reformed because they are infallible, and that any "changes" in doctrine are not changes, but expansions and clarifications, like an acorn that grows into a tree.

If the elders of my congregation go off the rails or our denomination proposes teaching that goes against Scripture, there is a mechanism for reform and correction. When the RCC creates a dogma, that's the end of it; no more debate or discussion, but only submission.

quote:

---

1. We still believe that the Pope is the antichrist, which reflects the traditional Reformed position. Other American denominations that adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith have taken that part out, but my denomination hasn't.

---

Seriously? You believe that a man who has dedicated his life to Christ, who travels the world preaching peace and love, is the leader of the Church which by far and wide contributes more charity for the poor, more care for the sick, preaching in places putting their very lives at risk to fulfill the Great Commission, and much more......You honestly in your heart think Pope Leo is the spawn of Satan?

Intellectually, your brain knows this is ridiculous because logic dictates that Satan would never do all the good mentioned above. If he is the antichrist, don't you think his plan to wreak havoc on earth is backfiring "bigly"? Satan, is that the best you can do?

I don't believe the Bible mentions any bishop as being the antichrist, so it seems your denomination is therefore creating beliefs outside of the only source: Sola Scriptura.

I think you know in your heart and mind that he is not the antichrist, and that you are being disingenuous. Is it pride stopping you from admitting your group is wrong? Can't you correct your denomination if it goes off the rails?

quote:

---

2. While we still believe the Constitution is sinful as a whole due to it being a purposefully pluralistic document and not confessing Christ as King, we have adopted a position that oaths of office that vow to uphold the Constitution may be made with an explanatory declaration that affirms that such obedience and support will be performed except where obedience to God prevents such performance. This isn't a change of position about the Constitution, but about the ability of the Christian to faithfully and in good conscience submit to the Constitution where it doesn't require disobedience to God.

---

Again, your reformers are so, so off base. Anything concerning obeying authority in the Bible in the new testament is to obey rulers because power was given to them by God, whether they were good or bad, God allows them that power. What did Jesus tell Pontius Pilot about where his authority came from? Did Jesus or anyone say the Romans should be disobeyed? NO

So where does the thinking coming from that the US Constitution is immoral and "sinful" because it doesn't explicitly list Christ as the king? Does Sola Scriptura tell us that all countries must have Christian theocracies? Its an untenable position. The authors of our constitution went out of their way to signify that all power, rights and freedoms come from God. Isn't Jesus God? Isn't that enough for your denomination?

Don't vote if the candidates aren't godly? Did the bible really say that? Or was it just another man made "I think this is what we should do guys"?

Mr. Foo, you astound me. I consider you perhaps the most civil protestant on the board, an eloquent writer and obviously very studied. But when we open the door to your denomination, I am truly aghast and can hardly believe this is what you go for. It seems way below you to defend this type of thinking.

quote:

---

Everyone believes their interpretation is "better" than all others, or else they wouldn't believe it. Don't you believe the RCC's interpretation of Scripture is "better" than mine? If so, why are you criticizing me for something you do?

---

Well said Mr. Foo, this is the real crux of the matter and I agree with you about the infallibility of scripture. As you make the case that everyone should believe in their own interpretation, that is the true downfall of Sola Scriptura. While scripture is correct, those who interpret it are truly flawed. If a thousand read the bible, you will end up with 1000 different interpretations. That's why a governing body of holy, inspired, and discerning experts were needed to have God work through them to give us the best interpretation. Why would God let this group, who are trying so hard to understand and convey His word to the world, go way off the rails and get so much wrong? Why? I don't think HE did.

Have you heard the expression that "A man with a watch knows what time it is? A man with two watches never knows what time it is". Here's one I've added: Does a man with 45,000 watches know what time it is? I would say not.

My interpretation is shared with 1.4 billion other servants to Jesus. Your interpretation along with the other 45,000 or so denominations are all over the place, and I feel pretty strong this was not the intent of God.

You quote Protestant hero captain, Martin Luther, but even he was appalled, angered, shocked and troubled that other reformers disagreed with him, (the gall, the audacity and disrespect to question me, the flawless great one!) and he realized the genie he let out of the bottle was rapidly spinning out of control.

I hope some day you quit downgrading the Church and spend your time reforming your own group from their unreasonable positions as you say can be done. Or better yet, convert to the true Church. I would gladly be your sponsor.

There’s no point in debating with him. He uses circular reasoning and never actually answers the question. Surface level responses only.

quote:

---

Seriously? You believe that a man who has dedicated his life to Christ, who travels the world preaching peace and love, is the leader of the Church which by far and wide contributes more charity for the poor, more care for the sick, preaching in places putting their very lives at risk to fulfill the Great Commission, and much more......You honestly in your heart think Pope Leo is the spawn of Satan?

Intellectually, your brain knows this is ridiculous because logic dictates that Satan would never do all the good mentioned above. If he is the antichrist, don't you think his plan to wreak havoc on earth is backfiring "bigly"? Satan, is that the best you can do?

I don't believe the Bible mentions any bishop as being the antichrist, so it seems your denomination is therefore creating beliefs outside of the only source: Sola Scriptura.

---

You see the Pope overseeing much material good in the world, and that may be so, but so do many pagan and godless nations and individuals. The position of the Pope (the office rather than a particular Pope) being the antichrist is focusing on the spiritual harm that he does the people, leading many into perdition because of his teachings about the gospel and how one must be saved. This is quite consistent with what we should expect from a child of Satan: masquerading as an angel of light while deceiving many with a false gospel. Satan deceives by mixing the truth with a lie, and providing a perception of goodness while poisoning the soul.

The biblical support for this position (and remember, this was the position of the Westminster Assembly, not just my denomination) is based on multiple passages (2 Thes. 2; Dan. 7; Rev. 13, 17; and 1 Jn. 2, in addition to others), but high-level: The Pope is considered the antichrist because he is in Babylon (Rome), opposes and exalts himself above God (he takes on the titles and authority of God, Himself, and makes his words and the words of his church, as its head on earth, superior in prominence to even the word of God), and sits in the temple of God (which we view as representing the Church). Because there are many antichrists, and language of the antichrist is a continuation rather than a one-time event, it is seen as a continuation of papal succession in office rather than one particular Pope.

That's the very short version. I'd be happy to go into more detail.

quote:

---

I think you know in your heart and mind that he is not the antichrist, and that you are being disingenuous. Is it pride stopping you from admitting your group is wrong? Can't you correct your denomination if it goes off the rails?

---

I have come around to agree with this position. I know that I'm currently in the minority in even Protestant Christianity, but that would be true even if I didn't believe the Pope was the antichrist, because it seems the majority position right now is pre-mil dispensationalism, which I think is absolutely unsupportable by the Scriptures due to its entirely literalistic interpretation that doesn't hold up under minor scrutiny.

And yes, my denomination is certainly reformable, including in this area. If it can be shown from the Scriptures that this position is not tenable, there is a way to bring this up for study again in the denomination.

quote:

---

Again, your reformers are so, so off base. Anything concerning obeying authority in the Bible in the new testament is to obey rulers because power was given to them by God, whether they were good or bad, God allows them that power. What did Jesus tell Pontius Pilot about where his authority came from? Did Jesus or anyone say the Romans should be disobeyed? NO

---

Acts 5:29 provides the basic template, but other passages like Daniel 1 and Gen. 39 also provide the same example: while we are to obey the government, we are not to obey if we are ordered to do something that is sinful in itself. All human authority is subordinate to God's authority, and if the government tells us to murder our families, we are to resist that command. Do you disagree? If you were commanded to worship false gods by our government, would you do so? I hope not.

quote:

---

So where does the thinking coming from that the US Constitution is immoral and "sinful" because it doesn't explicitly list Christ as the king? Does Sola Scriptura tell us that all countries must have Christian theocracies? Its an untenable position. The authors of our constitution went out of their way to signify that all power, rights and freedoms come from God. Isn't Jesus God? Isn't that enough for your denomination?

---

The short answer is no, it's not good enough, because the Constitution says nothing about God, even if God is within the context of the Founders' reasoning. Not only is God not mentioned in the Constitution, but the 1st amendment explicitly states that no religion should be founded at the federal level, even though state constitutions specifically mentioned Christ as Lord.

quote:

---

Don't vote if the candidates aren't godly? Did the bible really say that? Or was it just another man made "I think this is what we should do guys"?

---

So again, nothing we believe is some random opinion of a guy that merely caught on as a good idea with no backing from Scripture. All the positions listed here are supported by the Scriptures. You can disagree with our interpretation, for sure, but they aren't arbitrary conclusions.

The position we hold here is part of the broader doctrine of the mediatorial kingship of Christ, which states that while Jesus had essential kingship as Lord and God due to Him being God, He received all authority in heaven and earth as the God-man for His active and passive obedience, and He is exalted and ruling and reigning even today.

First, Jesus is reigning today with all authority, even over the nations (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-22; and Ps. 110:1 (quoted in Acts 2:34-35 and Heb. 1:13), among others). Ephesians 1:20-22 says that Christ is the head of the Church and head over all nations for the sake of the Church. So His rule is for the sake of His kingdom and His people. Jesus is "King of kings and Lord of lords" expressing His authority over all the subordinate authorities on earth, and as their King, He is owed honor and obedience.

Second, all nations are intended to serve Christ. Christ rules until all nations are under His feet, which means that they serve Him. That is the end or goal; all nations (including their rulers) are to give Jesus honor as King. Psalm 2:11-12 says the kings and rulers are to serve the Lord and "kiss the Son", which means to serve and honor Christ. That extends to all emperors, kings, and presidents, and our congress, as well as our Constitution, which is seen as the highest authority in our nation for our laws

Third, Christians are always called to seek godly leaders for themselves, in all three areas of life (home, church, and state). Ex. 18:21 sets the example of selecting leaders who fear God, but is supported by the command for even rulers to "kiss the Son", going back to Psalm 2. Prov. 31:10-12 says that we should seek a godly spouse. Husbands are supposed to lead their wives as Christ (Eph. 2:25-28) and manage his household well (1 Tim. 3:4-5). The leadership of the Church is also to be godly, as seen in a host of passages like 1 Tim. 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9, and Acts 6:3. So, also, should we seek godly rulers in the state: Deut. 17:14-20, 2 Sam. 23:3, Prov. 29:2, and Hos. 8:4 speak to leaders needing to be godly, as well.

At the end of the day, we should seek to honor the Lord by selecting men who honor the Lord to rule over us. If we choose pragmatism over honoring the Lord, then our priorities are off.

quote:

---

There’s no point in debating with him. He uses circular reasoning and never actually answers the question. Surface level responses only.

---

If you can explain specifically how I am being circular, I'd like to know. Circular reasoning is only fallacious if it is a vicious circle. All reasoning becomes circular when you get to first principles, however. Such as, if all knowledge comes from God ultimately, then you cannot appeal to something greater than God for it, and you'll have to continually circle back to God as the origin of knowledge.

Regarding my responses: I don't believe I'm responding with surface-level only. My posts are typically on the long side exactly because I'm seeking to avoid giving surface-level responses. I'm attempting to explain my reasoning and support my positions, which requires more words than many provide on this forum.

You kept accusing me of dodging the questions or points in your previous posts, but I honestly don't think I was. I gave a lot of reasoning for my answers and sought to directly touch on what you were asking or saying, which is why I quote individual portions of posts that I'm replying to, as I don't want to miss or avoid anything. If I haven't answered you to your satisfaction, I apologize, but I can say in good conscience that I'm not avoiding you or your statements, and am trying my best to thoroughly respond with not just my opinions, but my reasoning for them, based on what I believe to be true.

quote:

---

Your church believes that the US Constitution is Sinful. You believe that there were Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark and your church believes that the Universe is roughly 6,000 years old.

No wonder why your whole denomination has about 10,000 members in the whole USA and not a single church in all of the State of Louisiana.

Your church is a fringe and tiny section off-shoot of mainline Presbyterianism. It hardly exists, and, yet, here you are - the loudest voice here on Political Talk.

You've lost your mind. People should ignore you.

I'm not going to help you prepare for your Sunday School teaching here.

---

If you would like to argue why my beliefs are incorrect, please do so, but I've noticed with you that you care less about defending your position and more about just telling me I'm wrong (without supporting your conclusion) and appealing to the size of my denomination as an argument for why I'm wrong.

I've said many times to you in particular, consensus does not determine truth, and even so, my denomination has about 98% overlap with other like-minded denominations like the PCA and OPC, which are much larger in this country. The differences are primarily around worship, such as our stance on only singing the Psalms in worship, which is not crazy, just not something most Christians agree with.

You are essentially attacking me with ad hominem errors, and it is not only logically fallacious, but it's a violation of the 9th commandment. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but to attack me as "crazy" because I take a minority position on a non-salvific issue is ungenerous and sinful, as I see it.

Again, if you think I'm wrong, feel free to argue your position and to refute my own. Calling me "crazy" and "fringe" is not an argument in itself.

quote:

---

You preach a False Gospel.

---

I know you think that because you believe our own works add merit towards our salvation, but that's exactly why I believe you hold to a false gospel. The Scriptures teach that Christ's works alone merit justification, and that good works are required as an evidence of that salvation, not as a basis for it. I don't reject good works; I reject they add to the perfect and sufficient work of Christ.