The Manhattan Declaration

I consider the Manhattan Declaration a mostly good document that probably will have mostly good results. But the most problematic characteristic of the document, its affirmation that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are Christians, is significant enough to convince me to not sign it. For a fuller explanation of my reasoning, if anybody is interested, see the comments section of the thread here.

I want to respond to some representative comments in this thread.

David Porter wrote:

“I am disappointed that a few object because they think we might stand under a redefined view of the gospel. Certainly there are significant theological differences in these three camps, but I am afraid the world looks on with confusion as we dicker about justification, when the real subject of this matter is abortion, or religious freedom….I am deeply disappointed that this division exists, and frankly think it perhaps smell of sanctimoniousness to an onlooking world.”

And Nicodemus wrote:

“There appears to me to be nothing unscriptural about supporting the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and religious liberty.”

The document is primarily about issues like abortion and homosexuality, but it also refers to Catholics and Orthodox as Christians. It does so in a way that suggests the Christian nature of Catholicism and Orthodoxy in general, not just some individuals within those groups. (I argue for that conclusion more fully in the thread linked above.) And it refers to those Catholic and Orthodox as believers, suggesting that they aren’t just part of a historical Christendom, but rather are part of the church as defined by Biblical standards. I consider Catholicism and Orthodoxy to be modern equivalents of the Judaizers. I doubt that Paul would have worded an agreement with the Judaizers in the manner in which the Manhattan Declaration is worded.

The most problematic elements of the document could easily have been avoided. Whose fault is it when a controversy that could so easily have been avoided wasn’t? Men like Chuck Colson and Timothy George have known for a long time that affirmations of the Christian status of Catholicism and Orthodoxy would be objectionable to many Evangelicals. Why did they include such comments in the document?

Regarding David Porter’s comments about what the world will think, I doubt that the world approves of Paul’s reaction to the Judaizers. Celsus, a second-century critic of Christianity, criticized Christians for being too divisive and suggested that even the differences between Christianity and Judaism aren’t of much importance. Many people in today’s world claim that there isn’t much of a difference between Christianity and Islam or Christianity and Judaism, for example. Why can’t we be more united with Muslims and Jews and stop arguing with them? The world often doesn’t exercise much discernment on issues of unity. Jesus and the apostles didn’t meet the world’s standards on such issues, and neither should we.

Truth Unites… and Divides wrote:

“I’m glad to have brought Scott Klusendorf’s article to your attention and for your prayerful consideration….And the division that’s caused by those sanctimonious Protestants who are angry with the Protestants who have affirmed and signed the Manhattan Declaration is harming the Witness of the Gospel.”

I don’t know whether you’re including me among “sanctimonious Protestants who are angry with the Protestants who have affirmed and signed the Manhattan Declaration”. I’ve explained, at two blogs you read (Triablogue and Between Two Worlds), what I think is wrong with the document, and you haven’t interacted with what I said at either place. Klusendorf makes some good points, and I agree that it’s acceptable to work with Catholics and Orthodox in some contexts. I often vote for them when they seek political offices, I recommend some of their books and other material they produce, I consider it acceptable to work with them on issues like abortion and homosexuality, etc. But the Manhattan Declaration does more than that. It seems to affirm the orthodoxy of those two groups. Even if some or all of the signers didn’t intend such an affirmation, it’s the most natural way of reading the document, for reasons I’ve explained above and at the other two blogs. Men like Chuck Colson and Timothy George ought to have known better than to have worded the document as they did. Some of the critics of the document have been overly negative about it, but the primary blame has to be laid at the feet of men like Colson and George. The most problematic aspects of the document could easily have been avoided.

Karyn Brownlee wrote:

“This document unites people on three basic biblical principles. It does not try to define ‘believer’ or preach the gospel. Does that make it wrong? Is it better to stand by and watch our rights be taken away and say nothing?”

And Jenny wrote:

“The smugness, the self-congratulatory, sanctimonious arrogance that I read in the linked posts by Christian leaders and most of those posting here leaves me speechless.”

Karyn, I’m glad hat you want something to be said on such issues. That’s good. I agree with you. But the opponents of the Manhattan Declaration cited by Tim Challies haven’t argued that we shouldn’t say anything. And the Manhattan Declaration isn’t the only means by which something can be said.

James White, for example, has been addressing issues like abortion and homosexuality for a long time. He’s written a book on homosexual issues, he’s debated men like Barry Lynn and John Spong on the subject, he’s written and debated on abortion, he often writes about issues of religious liberty on his blog, etc. He also works with Catholics and other non-Evangelicals in contexts in which that sort of cooperation is warranted. Take a look at his background and his current schedule. White doesn’t argue that we should “say nothing”. He’s said, and done, a lot about the subjects addressed by the Manhattan Declaration.

But he’s also said and done a lot about the doctrine of justification through faith alone. If you want to know where James White and other critics of the Manhattan Declaration are coming from, read Luke 18, Acts 15, 2 Corinthians 11, Galatians, and other portions of scripture that address justification and condemn false gospels, even false gospels coming from an angel or angelic men (2 Corinthians 11:2-15, Galatians 1:6-9). If you disagree with those who see Catholicism and Orthodoxy as modern equivalents of the Judaizers, then say so and explain why. But don’t respond to them as if they’re motivated by wanting to “say nothing” about social issues or motivated by “smugness” and such. You’re misrepresenting them, and you’re neglecting the gospel-centered issues that are at the heart of the dispute.

Keith wrote:

“It saddens me greatly that Tim and others are so forthrightly set against supporting this declaration - feeling that your denominational distinctives (however valid) take precedence over matters of justice and righteousness. Is this truly what the Lord wants of us? Though I applaud and support your strong stand for the gospel, I suspect that Amos would weep at the desperately self-righteous pride and principals being expressed here - and even Pilate and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day would stand over in judgement against us as they see us washing our hands and turning away from the needy”

Why do the defenders of the document keep ignoring some of the points that have been made by its critics? Again, the Manhattan Declaration isn’t the only means of furthering justice, righteousness, the cause of the needy, etc. And prominent critics of the document have a demonstrable record of doing such work. See my comments about James White above, for example.

Keith, would you explain how your reasoning couldn’t also be applied to the apostles in their response to the false gospel of the Judaizers? Their differences with the Judaizers seem to have been less than our differences with Catholics, for example. Not only has Catholicism added works to the gospel, but it’s also taught Purgatory, the worship of the communion elements, a highly unhealthy view of Mary, and other significant errors the Judaizers were never associated with. If you’re so upset with Tim Challies’, James White’s, or John MacArthur’s response to Catholicism, how much more upset must you be with the apostles’ response to the Judaizers? Why didn’t Paul stop arguing with the Judaizers about “denominational distinctives” and, instead, affirm the orthodoxy of the Judaizers while working with them on issues like infanticide and sexual immorality?

You write:

“Aside from the single phrase that McArthur takes exception to, there is surely not a word in the declaration that you could not support?”

There isn’t just a “single phrase” that’s problematic. The document repeatedly refers to the drafters and signers as “believers”, suggests that they’re following “the faith”, etc.

It’s true that a term like “Christian” can be used in more than one sense. We can refer to somebody as a Christian in a variety of ways. We can give a historical figure the benefit of the doubt, since he’s vaguely associated with Christianity, and thus refer to him as a Christian, even if we don’t have much evidence by which to judge that he’s a Christian by Biblical standards. For instance, we often refer to the author of an anonymous document of ancient church history (such as The Epistle Of Barnabas or The Epistle To Diognetus) as a Christian, even though we don’t know much about him beyond his affirmation of some Christian concepts. People often use the term Christian in a more historical or social sense rather than in its highest, Biblical sense.

And the Manhattan Declaration could be read as using terms like “Christian” and “believer” in some lesser sense. But is that the most natural way to read the language? I don’t think so. Especially when ecumenists like Chuck Colson and Timothy George were so involved in the drafting of it, when so little effort was made to avoid giving people the impression of a more ecumenical meaning, and when reading it in a non-ecumenical way would be so awkward. At a minimum, the document is poorly worded and misleading on this issue. And I suspect that it’s worse than that, though some signers, like Albert Mohler, surely had better intentions than others.

Paul Bruggink wrote:

“I’m sorry, but people who can affirm the Apostles and/or the Nicene Creeds ought to be able to get together on important things without nitpicking.”

Those creeds address some of the most important issues of the faith, but they don’t address every foundational issue. I see no reason to conclude that a Judaizer wouldn’t be able to affirm those creeds. Yet, the Judaizers were criticized by the apostles as erring on a foundational issue by adding works to the gospel.

Evangelicals can work with Catholics in the pro-life movement, in political offices, by voting for Catholic political candidates, by recommending books written by Catholics, by drafting and signing documents with them in some contexts, etc. But it would be inappropriate to join them in other contexts. The Manhattan Declaration repeatedly makes comments that, when read in their most natural sense, affirm the orthodoxy of groups that aren’t orthodox. That’s a significant error. Yes, the document is mostly good, and its error that I’m referring to is on an issue that the document doesn’t focus upon. Those are significant qualifying factors, and they do lessen the significance of the document’s problems. The document is problematic, though, and signing it isn’t of much importance. People can still work to oppose abortion or homosexual marriage, for instance, without signing the Manhattan Declaration. I don’t think the document is as important as some people in this thread have suggested.

In the future, people who draft such documents ought to be more careful about the language. Men like Chuck Colson and Timothy George should have anticipated this sort of reaction to the document. Why aren’t supporters of the document criticizing them for failing to avoid problems that could so easily have been avoided?

virtualcheese wrote:

“Are we now judging intentions?”

As far as they’re objectively discernable, yes. We make such judgments frequently in our everyday lives, in law courts, etc. Some of the people associated with the document have told us what they think of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. And it’s unlikely, upfront, that such a large number of people from such diverse backgrounds would have identical intentions. The people associated with the document came to it from different backgrounds and have acted in different ways since signing it. It would be irresponsible to ignore such distinctions. The fact that we don’t know everything that motivated the signers of the document doesn’t mean that we can’t reach any reliable conclusions on the subject. You don’t need exhaustive knowledge of men’s hearts in order to discern that Chuck Colson probably approached this document with a more ecumenical perspective than Albert Mohler did.

You write:

“Furthermore the document says ‘we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities’. So if they do not speak on behalf of their organization, who knows what their personal convictions and beliefs are?”

If you don’t know “what their personal convictions and beliefs are”, then why refer to them as if they’re believers in the highest sense of that term? And they’re being referred to as believers in a document in which such references could easily have been avoided. For reasons I’ve explained already, I doubt that any of the Evangelical signers know every non-Evangelical signer well enough to discern that they’re believers in spite of the false gospel of the groups they’re associated with.

I second nmgraham’s well-written response to Josiah.

Nicodemus writes:

”You choose to read it as a document that ascribes a negative thesis to it’s import, all because you have narrowed the definition of ‘Christian’ and because of that it is inevitable that you and others would question at the very least it’s potential to compromise gospel integrity.”

As I said earlier, the term “Christian” isn’t the only relevant language in the document. And I didn’t “choose” to read the document as I did. I read it according to the textual and contextual evidence, some of which I discussed above.

You write:

”But all that this document is doing is defining a Christian in exactly the way that it would be received and understood by those who it seeks most to affect. To an audience that knows little if anything of the distinctions you make and knows everything about the lesser generic sense to which you refer.”

You haven’t argued for the identity of the audience as you’re defining it. Rather, you’re just asserting a conclusion without arguing for it.

Why are we supposed to believe that the audience of the document would interpret phrases like “believer” and “the faith” as referring to some lower meaning of those terms? Why should we think that the document is meant to be read as highly ignorant individuals would interpret it, and why should we think that those who are so ignorant would know about the lower meaning of every term in question, but none of the higher meanings? Even people who know little about Christianity are often aware of concepts such as the salvation of believers (John 3:16). Why should we think that they would interpret a reference to Catholics and Orthodox as “believers” in some lower sense? There are other words they could have used if they didn’t want to suggest that the people in question are Christians in the highest sense of the term (“Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals”, etc.). Using terms like “believer” and “[Jesus’] disciples” suggests something more than being born into a Christian family or attending a church. Why would the drafters of the document repeatedly choose a variety of less clear terms to use when other terms that would have been clearer and commonly understood were easily available? As I said before, the document is poorly worded at a minimum, and I think the evidence suggests that it’s even worse than that.

It’s likely that the document assumes an above average knowledge of the subject matter among its readers. Not many people would read such a document. Those who do read it probably aren’t as ignorant as the average person. That’s why the document can use terms like “gospel” and various historical and moral phrases without defining them for the audience.

Even if the document had been drafted with a highly ignorant primary audience in mind, the drafters surely knew that more knowledgeable people would be reading it as well. Where, then, is the effort to communicate effectively to those people? If phrases like “Catholic” and “Evangelical” had been used, without using terms like “believer” and “[Jesus’] disciples”, the language would have been accurate and understandable to both the more ignorant and the more knowledgeable readers. The more often the drafters use problematic language instead, the more difficult it becomes to argue for your interpretation of the document. And the drafters chose the problematic terminology more than a few times. I doubt that they would have done so if they didn’t intend to suggest the orthodoxy of all of the groups involved.

Mike Ekim wrote:

“It would be of interest to me to know the Eschatological view of those opposed to the declaration.”

We have a variety of eschatological views. John MacArthur is a premillennialist, whereas James White is an amillennialist, for example.

Josiah wrote:

“The crux of my argument is this: it seems that those who cannot sign do so because they fear Catholics may think that they have the true Gospel, or worse, that Protestant lay people may think Catholics are saved. If this is the main concern—and I think it is legitimate—then what of Paul, who has Timothy circumcised at risk of the Judaizers saying ‘see! We’re vindicated!’ It seems that Paul had a higher priority in that case.”

What’s the logical connection between having somebody circumcised and doing so in an attempt to attain justification? People can get circumcised for a variety of reasons. Anybody who had interpreted Paul in the manner you’re suggesting some might have interpreted him would have been doing so irrationally and incorrectly. In contrast, it hasn’t been shown that an interpretation of the Manhattan Declaration such as mine is irrational or incorrect. The language of the document isn’t as ambiguous as having Timothy circumcised. And we know that many of those involved with the document, including the ones most influential in the process of putting it together, view Catholicism and Orthodoxy as Christian in the highest sense of that term.

Nicodemus wrote:

“The identity of the audience is obvious, it does not need arguing.”

I cited evidence against your view of the audience, and your response is to say that your view is “obvious” and doesn’t need argumentation. Why don’t you interact with what I said in my last response? Why should we think that the audience is as ignorant as you suggested, considering the factors I mentioned in that post? Given that the drafters of the document would have known that some more knowledgeable people would be reading the document as well, why didn’t they use language that would be appropriate for both the less knowledgeable and the more knowledgeable readers? Etc.

There are many ways to word such a document. It wouldn’t even need to describe who the signers are aside from including their names at the end. Or if they wanted to identify themselves further, they could have used terms like “Catholics”, “Orthodox”, and “Evangelicals”. That sort of terminology would have been understandable both to less knowledgeable and more knowledgeable readers, and it wouldn’t have suggested what terms like “believers” and “[Jesus’] disciples” suggest. And, as I explained earlier, it’s not as though the primary drafters (Robert George, Timothy George, and Chuck Colson) are people who would normally use such language only in a lower sense.

You write:

“It is illogical to infer necessarily that those who would see the terms in a generic ‘narrower’ sense are ignorant unless of course you are defining ignorant in a less offensive way.”

I was responding to what you said about the audience of the document. Here’s how you described them:

“But all that this document is doing is defining a Christian in exactly the way that it would be received and understood by those who it seeks most to affect. To an audience that knows little if anything of the distinctions you make and knows everything about the lesser generic sense to which you refer. There can be no other interpretation of the word Christian other than in this generic sense here because it has to be causally related to the audience it is intended to reach.”

If the audience “knows little if anything of the distinctions”, then why would it be inappropriate to refer to people who know little or nothing as people who are ignorant of that subject?

You write:

“It is just of little interest to many to want to know what these terms might mean to various vested interests.”

Now you’re not only telling us that they’re ignorant of the distinctions I made, but you’re also telling us that they have “little interest” in learning such things. Do such people usually read documents like the Manhattan Declaration? If they’re so ignorant of and uninterested in Christianity, how likely is it that they’re interested in reading a document about issues like abortion and embryonic stem cell research, a document that frequently refers to Jesus Christ, believers, the church, etc.?

Even if “many” readers are as you describe, what about the other readers? There would be many ways to word such a document so that it would be unproblematic and understandable to both less and more knowledgeable readers.

You write:

“The document achieves it’s primary goal to assert the ‘christian’ bedrock values in the three key areas and that it achieves and it achieves it well.”

I agree that the document is mostly good. But the bad portion of it that I’m criticizing is significant. It’s not just one bad word chosen, but a series of poor choices made several times throughout the document by drafters who have a history of being overly ecumenical.

Elizabeth Esther wrote:

“Your refusal to sign strikes me as a kind of spiritual pride; perhaps the very kind that delights the Divider. It’s no wonder that unbelievers scoff at Christians—how can we expect the world to be drawn to Christ if even His followers bicker, quarrel and turn up their noses at each other?”

Did you have the same reaction against Paul when you read Galatians?

Many unbelievers think that it’s unreasonable for us to “bicker” and “quarrel” with Muslims, Buddhists, and other groups as well. Should we accept the world’s standards of unity with regard to those groups?

When Celsus criticized the early church for being too divisive, did the Christians of that era respond by accommodating Celsus’ definition of unity?

You write:

“Honestly, your cold tone (‘I would not and could not’) grieves my heart so deeply.”

As opposed to the warm tone with which you accuse Tim of pride, delighting Satan, etc.?

Josiah wrote:

“Isn’t the logical connection between circumcision and justification established in Galatians, where Paul is writing against those who connect the two, saying that it is necessary for salvation?”

What Galatians establishes is that some people were arguing that circumcision is a means of justification. It doesn’t follow that anybody who gets circumcised is doing so to be justified or will be perceived in that manner.

Circumcision should be avoided in some contexts, but it’s acceptable in others. Acts 16:3, the passage you’re citing, doesn’t tell us much about the Jews in question.

You write:

“Would having Timothy circumcised, before going to meet Jews, have been seen as an ‘ambiguous act’ by the Jews?”

Yes, if they were being logical. If the Jews in question believed in justification through circumcision, why would they assume that other people, namely Christians like Paul and Timothy, agreed with that view?

Paul, the leader among those meeting with the Jews in question, was circumcised, and he would be communicating the gospel to the Jews he was addressing. The passage you’re citing is about delivering the decisions of Acts 15 to the churches (Acts 16:4). What the apostles affirmed in Acts 15, in part, was that justification is through faith alone, apart from circumcision.

The circumcision of Timothy wasn’t left to itself. It was accompanied by proclamation of a gospel that doesn’t require circumcision. The same can’t be said of the Manhattan Declaration. There is no affirmation of justification through faith alone accompanying it.

Even if Paul’s circumstances hadn’t included such qualifiers, would it follow that we must or should be involved in activity like signing the Manhattan Declaration today? No. Acts 16:3 has some significant qualifiers that you’ve neglected, and even if it didn’t, you haven’t established a connection between that passage and signing the Manhattan Declaration.

Josiah wrote:

“Ok…I may not have established a connection (I still think there’s something to it), but then you fellows haven’t established the Catholics=Judaizers connection.”

You didn’t ask me to establish it. I’ve addressed the subject many times, at Triablogue and elsewhere. Go here (including the comments section) to read a recent example, and you can find many more by searching the Triablogue archives. Here are some of the problems with the Catholic view of justification:

- Paul doesn’t just exclude the works of the Judaizers from the gospel. He also tells us that there isn’t any type of work whereby we can attain justification (Romans 3:27, 4:4, 9:11-12, 11:6, Galatians 3:21-25). Passages like 2 Corinthians 11:2-15, Galatians 1:6-9, and Galatians 3:21-25 demonstrate that Paul wanted all types of work excluded, not just the works the Judaizers were advocating. He was concerned about false gospels (plural), not just one particular false gospel.

- The Jewish law includes commandments such as honoring our parents and caring for the poor. Catholicism doesn’t include some works of the Jewish law in its gospel, such as circumcision and animal sacrifice, but it does include other works of the Jewish law, such as the ones mentioned in the previous sentence. Paul excludes all works of the law, whereas Catholicism only excludes some. As Romans 7:7 illustrates, Paul had moral aspects of the law in mind, not just ceremonial aspects of it.

- Paul doesn’t just tell us that works are excluded. He also tells us what’s included. What’s included is faith, not faith and baptism or faith and all of the works required by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. As Paul tells us in Galatians 3:21-25, the gospel shuts us up to faith. But the Roman Catholic gospel, in contrast, shuts us up to faith and works. Saying that God empowers us to do the works by His grace doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic gospel fails to shut people up to faith. The alternative to the Judaizers’ gospel, according to Paul, isn’t faith combined with a different system of works. Rather, the alternative is just faith.

- Paul cites Genesis 15:6 to illustrate what he’s communicating. What does Abraham do in that passage? He just believes (sola fide). Not only are there no works of the Jewish law in Genesis 15:6, but there isn’t any baptism or other work of Roman Catholicism either.

- Scripture gives us many examples of how individuals were justified. What we see, over and over again, is justification attained at the time of faith, apart from baptism and all other works (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, Acts 10:44-48, 19:2, Ephesians 1:13-14, etc.). Thus, even if a Catholic wants to dispute an Evangelical interpretation of a passage like Romans 4 or Galatians 3, we can turn to other passages, like the ones just cited, to see that the Evangelical reading of passages like Romans 4 and Galatians 3 is correct.

Much more could be said, but I think that the points above and my directing you to the Triablogue archives are sufficient for now.

I want to expand on my post above.

Some people may question whether it was the claim that works are a means of justification that caused Paul to condemn the Judaizers’ gospel as a false gospel. What if Paul condemned the Judaizers for some other reason? Perhaps they were condemned for denying that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish law. Thus, adding works to the gospel wouldn’t constitute a false gospel if the person or group adding the works acknowledges that the law was fulfilled by Christ. Since Catholicism acknowledges that Jesus fulfilled the law, and therefore doesn’t require circumcision and other such works, the Catholic gospel wouldn’t fall under the anathema of Galatians 1.

Notice, first of all, that the apostles frame their disputes with Judaizing opponents in the context of what the person who wants to be justified must do. Must the person be circumcised (Acts 15:1)? Paul said that the “only thing” he wanted to be told by the Galatians was what they did to receive the Spirit (Galatians 3:2). In Romans, Galatians, and elsewhere, when Paul is responding to Judaizing opponents, he keeps raising the issue of works. He tells us that works would nullify grace (Romans 4:4, 11:6), and his letter to the Galatians puts a lot of emphasis on the issue of works (Galatians 2:16, 2:21, 3:10, 3:21-25, etc.). Notice that Paul repeatedly uses illustrations that can’t be limited to works of the Jewish law, such as an employer paying an employee (Romans 4:4), or makes comments about works in general without limiting himself to the Jewish law (Romans 3:27, 9:11-12, 11:6, Galatians 3:21-25). If Paul considered it acceptable to seek justification through works, as long as the person doing so acknowledges that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish law, then why does he place so much emphasis on the means by which a person seeks to be justified and the exclusion of everything other than faith? Paul’s gospel was a gospel of grace (Acts 20:24, the many references to grace and the gospel in Paul’s letters, etc.), and his principle that works nullify grace (Romans 4:4, 11:6) suggests that any form of justification through works would be a fundamentally different gospel.

It’s doubtful that Paul would mention justification through faith in Galatians 3:2 if he thought that justification is attained through faith combined with works or if he thought that adding works is wrong, but doesn’t constitute a false gospel. It would make little sense to argue that adding works of the Jewish law constitutes a false gospel, whereas adding other types of work doesn’t. As Paul explains, no conditions can be added to the gospel later (Galatians 3:15), and such a principle can’t be limited to the Jewish law. Adding Roman Catholic works later on would likewise violate the principle Paul lays down. Judging from Paul’s language in Galatians 3:2 (“This is the only thing I want to find out from you”) and how he builds upon it, it seems that Galatians 3:2 represents the heart of what he wants the Galatians to understand. And the Roman Catholic system of faith combined with non-Judaizing works isn’t what he’s communicating. Rather, it’s another gospel.

Paul does sometimes raise the issue of Christ’s fulfillment of the law. But he doesn’t do so in order to argue that we should acknowledge Jesus’ fulfillment of the law as we attempt to be justified through some other system of works. Rather, Paul raises the sufficiency of Jesus’ work in order to argue that works of every type are excluded from the gospel and that faith in Christ and His finished work is the only means of justification. Paul’s concept of the sufficiency of Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2, Galatians 6:14) is radically diluted if we conclude that Jesus merely fulfilled the Jewish law so that we can seek justification through some other system of works, such as a system of works prescribed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy.