It's "For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; and that (faith) not of yourselves, but it (faith) is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
The preposition refers to the whole process. It has to do with genders of nouns in the Greek. The gender of the pronoun does not agree with the genders of “grace” or “faith.” Of course, faith is included as part of the gift.
@@ricksonora6656 No doubt. But most Christians have more of a semi-Pelagian or Arminian notion of salvation, thinking that faith originates in their fallen wills. That's the point of emphasizing that even the faith that we indeed place in Christ is a gift from God, and not something that we created in our hearts.
@@stegokitty To reiterate some of what has already been said in this thread; I agree that the entire process of Salvation is a gift from God in Ephesians 2; however, yes it's very important to emphasize that even the faith itself (*and also repentance) is a gift from God; for instance: "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God", which even further indicates that we aren't talking about a so called "faith" that is humanly generated, but Divinely generated faith that saves. See also Hebrews 11 & 12.
‘American Gospel: In Christ Alone’ is a helpful movie that has a really great, respectful, and truthful picture of Catholicism (along with other doctrines) compared to what the Bible says the Gospel is. Greg, I’ve watched some of your seminars and my husband and I are in the middle of your book ‘Tactics’. Thank you so much for the wisdom and resources you share. I have a lot to learn and I want to start putting them into practice. I know it’s an important part of having it be useful.
Been a while since I touched back home with my old friends in the USA. In case Greg reads these comments, I have always been a big fan of Stand To Reason. I've been living in the Philippines for the last 12 years (and loving it). My older brother (still lives in USA) became Roman Catholic a while back and so I did my homework and concluded that Luther was right and Leo X was wrong. Twice a year I read 2 books that keep me Protestant, Paul's letter to the Romans and Paul's letter to the Galatians. I think Greg will still remember me so greetings my old friend and keep up the good work for Christ.
"A Woman Rides the Beast" by Dave Hunt gives a good look at the Catholic Church using Catholic resources and Catholic theologians' own words and documents.
Thanks for the question! We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your thoughts with Greg Koukl. He'd love to hear from you. Or you can submit an #STRask or Open Mic question. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.
What is apostacy or blasphemy if we can't isolate ourselves from God? I think it's highly unlikely because who would give up an eternity of happiness, but...it seems possible.
Jesus said “I give them eternal life, and they will forever not never perish.” The double negative in Greek means he’s being emphatic. Everlasting that could end us not everlasting. Forever means it’s forever true. Never perish means that, even if it were hypothetically true, it will never happen. Apostasy and blasphemy (against the Holy Spirit) are demonstrations that the apostate or blasphemer was a false convert. Some people use behaviors of false believers to show what real believers can do, but it is a category error.
Jesus gave authority to the apostles whom he chose, this argument is about their authority. Did they have it or not? this is the argument that the Sadducees and pharisees made. "by whose authority do you do this? Catholics believe in the original church authority because the gospel confirms it.
You follow the teaching of the Reformers who taught that through faith alone you receive Christ' righteousness imputed or counted on you, while your sins (past, present AND future) are imputed to Christ who bore them on the cross. You are only righteous externally using that of Christ but you remain sinner at the same time. That explains why you can say that your salvation is secured, you do not have to do anything and your sins will not make you lose your salvation, which you refer as the Gospel. Is this what the Scripture teaches as a whole, and not just based on few cherry picked verses? Ezekiel 18:20 says "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself". How do you reconcile this verse with imputation concept of the Reformers? Ezekiel 33:12 says "the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins" and 1 John 3:8 says "he who sins is of the devil". You should read Heb 10:26-27 as well. How do you reconcile these verses with your belief that because your future sins are also imputed/counted on Christ, they won't make you lose your salvation? Even Paul in 1 Cor 9:27 that he himself could be disqualified (Greek adokimos). Contrary to what you said Catholics do not believe in salvation by faith plus works or merits. The difference with that of the Reformers is Catholics believe that to be saved we must be made righteous through Christ (Rom. 5:19). Scripture says righteousness delivers from death (Prov. 10:2, 11:3). We are made righteous by faith as faith is counted as righteousness (Rom. 4:2) and through doing what is right (1 John 3:7). Jesus said in Luke 10:28 "do this (love one another) and you will live". It is not salvation by works as our ability both to have faith (rom. 4:2) AND to do what is right (1 John 3:7) comes and is only possible by grace through Christ. Salvation in Catholicism is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) and through sanctification (2 Thes. 2:13). We lose our righteousness through sinning (Ezek. 33:12) which makes our accumulated righteous deeds be forgotten (Ezek. 18:24, 33:18). Moved and enabled by grace we repent and turn away from sin that put us back in our righteous state as our sins will be forgotten (Ezek. 18:21-22, 33:19). When we die in righteous state and face judgment (Heb. 9:27), we will be declared righteous because we are indeed made righteous. In contrast the Reformers taught that we will die still with sins, but those sins won't affect our salvation as they are counted or imputed to Christ.
Wow! I finished listening to all of this video and I find it amazing that this Greg Koukl guy gets by with what he is saying without ever being checked by any of his disciples. So please allow me to invite Greg Koukl or any of his loyal disciples to have a discussion on the unBiblical things that was said in this particular video. I would not want to be him when he enters through that door of Judgement and he sees St. Paul and St. John as witnesses to what was said in this video. Sts. John and Paul are both good Catholics and would never have said the things that Koukl said. I do hope that there is a Koukl disciple that is willing to have the discussion. God bless.
If you would like to discuss a particular disagreement with Greg, we invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.
@@STRvideos Thank you for responding to the post and for the invite, but I prefer the comments section of the RUclips video. I do hope that the conversation can continue in this form.
We welcome others to have respectful conversations in the comments section, but our apologists, unfortunately, do not have the time to respond to the thousands of comments we receive on social media.
@@STRvideosThank you for your prompt response. I certainly can appreciate how busy your apologists must be, and I would not expect them to be able to respond to the thousands of comments made on social media in reaction to one of your videos. However, it's always been a practice of mine to invite the host into the conversation. So I will just throw out a concern of mine stemming from something that I heard Greg Koukl say in this particular video, and if one of your apologists has the time to respond then that would be of great benefit to all that are reading these comments. And if not, then maybe one of his disciples would be willing to address this concern. Greg Koukl said that Ephesians 2:8-9 flies smack in the face of Catholic doctrines. This is absolutely not true. We wrote those doctrines in the Bible 2000 years ago and have been teaching them unchanged down through the millennia. So it seems to me that Greg Koukl totally misunderstands what the Bible teaches, either that or he really does not understand Grace. In either case I think an answer to the following question will go a long way in helping him to better understand Biblical Salvation. Here is the question: Considering that we are saved by Grace and not of works, exactly when did those First Converts in Acts chapter 2 receive that Saving Grace? Was it when they first believed in vs. 37, or was it when they were Baptized? Acts 2:14 "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.......36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “ *Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit* ...... 40....... “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." Eph.2: 8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God- 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast" It's important to note that St. Paul was writing to the Catholic Church in Ephesus when he wrote those verses about Grace. He was not teaching them anything new, for they had already received the Gospel and entered into the Church in the very same manner as those first converts did on that great Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. It's how we did it then, and it's how we still do it today. Acts chapter 2 is the Biblical Blueprint for how we receive Saving Grace. God bless.
The false doctrine of assurance of salvation (once saved always saved) is a doctrine of Calvin that never was taught by the early Church. The Catholic Church has been teaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ since the first century and it is the reformers that introduced another gospel not taught until they came around. The 'tips' that you gave in answering the question, might work for a Catholic who knows nothing about their faith, but it is bound to fail with a Catholic who has been proper catechized. Throughout the bible, it speaks to losing our salvation. Add this to what the early Church taught about losing one's salvation, we can see where the idea of assurance of salvation is a false teaching that actually feeds into the sin of presumption. The Catholic Church teaches we are saved by grace and through faith, just not by faith alone. Without grace even your faith cannot save you.
Paul says that he’s working out his salvation with fear and trepidation. James says that faith without works is dead. The good news is that I can Repent and believe.
again the question still applies: How is it good news if you stop at Philippians 2:12 and don't read verse 13. If you stop at verse 12 it sounds like you are doing the work, that's not good news to me. But if you go on to read the very next verse you will see that it is not you doing the work (lest any man should boast - right?) but it is God who works in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure (And faith is dead if God is not working through you). Put it another way: Is salvation based on Christ alone? Or Jesus plus something else? Is it based on Jesus plus taking the Eucharist? or Jesus plus going to Church? If so, then salvation is not based on Christ alone and that's not a salvation that is able to save (Romans 5:1-2, Acts 4:12). I pray as you journey you continue to search the scriptures and draw closer to God, I hope you will do the same for me.
Narrow path connotes harder but more fruitful. If it’s not good news then you’re misinterpreting what the gospel has in store. Just because the path is harder does not mean that it’s not “good”. Good news does not mean easy street. Simply ask the martyrs about that. Grace needs to be cooperated with for it to have any benefit. Thank you for your reply.🙏
@@websterlee7708 I did not say it was easy. The hardest thing in the world is to get out of the way and let God, through the Holy Spirit work in and through you. The more I get out of the way the more He can accomplish - that's how I view sanctification. I must decrease and He must increase. So long as I'm doing things to "earn my salvation" I'm not getting out of the way and I'm definitely not trusting in the work Christ completed on the cross for me.
@@matthayes533 I did not say you earn salvation. Salvation is bought and paid for on the cross but I can reject it. Gods grace can be sown in many places but it does not mean that it takes root and produces good fruit. It could fall in poor soil or on rock. Weeds may grow up and choke it. The seed needs to die, sprout, take root, grow to produce good fruit. Even repentance and belief is a work. It all takes cooperation. Faith without work is dead. What will be judged on judgement day if not our works. Some works will be tested in fire. Some will be burned up and the work that remains will bring reward. 1 Corr. 3:13-14.
@@websterlee7708 I appologize if I missunderstood you. Based on your initial post I presumed your stance was that one had to work to "keep" your salvation - to me that's earning as in earning wages. Like the wages of sin is death, as sinners we cant earn or work to keep our salvation - all we can do is earn or work to keep death. It is only through faith and dying to ourselves that we can get out of the way and let God work through us. I do find it interesting that you quoted 1 Cor 3, I wonder why you stopped at verse 14. How would you interpret verse 15? I also wonder if you have done any studying about "Judgement day" and the various judgements mankind will face. For me, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ so I will not face the Great White Throne judgement, rather I will face the Bema Seat or Judgment of Christ. At the Bema Seat I will not receive punishment as you already pointed out 1 Cor 3 says my sins or unworthy works will already be burnt away. If I am left empty handed by such a fiery baptism, verse 15 says I will still be saved. Verse 14 says I will receive a reward if God has accomplished anything through me. But neither the Bema Seat nor the passage in 1 Cor 3 are about salvation, for even those who fail are still saved so clearly these passages are meant for Christians whose salvation is already assured. You say belief is a work. Would you classify belief as faith? if so, if faith is a work, then you are saying that "faith without faith is dead" Clearly James believed faith was not a work. Rather, I think, works are the product of God through the Holy Spirit working in the lives of those who believe. I do not think belief or faith, therefore can be a work, otherwise the logic and grammar break down. I wish you well, it was not my intent to get into an argument on social media, only to help clarify some points to help me understand your position better and to be understood. I think I have accomplished that so thank you.
1. (Catholic view) To be saved (initial): Repent, believe, and be baptized. To be saved, if committed mortal sin: repent, believe and penance/confession. 2. Yes you can know if you’re going to Heaven. It is called examination of conscience. John 15:6, Rom 11:22, Heb 10:28-29, 1 Cor 9:26-27, Gal 5:4, 2 Tim 2:11-13, Matt 24:13. If someone chooses to be humble about their answer, doesn’t always mean uncertainty about their salvation but a lack of wanting to exalt, which may be a problem in answering the question but not in going about humility towards the gift of grace and faith received allowing us to make it to heaven. - Purgatory is the final purification for those who have died in God’s friendship but still need to be cleansed of their attachment to sin. It makes us pure and ready for the full glory of heaven. Which there is biblical evidence for in 1 Cor 3:15, Matt 5:25-26, 2 Maccabees 12:42-46. If you don’t believe in the term that’s ok, but don’t act like there isn’t a clear indication that nothing unclean/no sin will enter heaven, hence cleansing prior to entering will take place. “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24) Grace (gift) by faith (gift) working through love. “Good works” would not be possible without grace. “Works of the law” are possible with and without grace/faith. Hopefully this helps, it seems many are confused about this (Catholic and non-Catholics)
@@ericb.1384 who said He couldn't cleanse you of all your sins? I'm not following how'd you get there from what I said... Can Jesus cleanse me of all my sins? Yes. Can I sin again after being cleansing? Yes. Must I repent/confess after sinning? Yes. Are there sins i might have committed without repenting/confessing? Yes Do the sins I don't repent/confess just disappear? No. Could you help me understand where this reasoning fails? Unless you're referring to someone or something else
@@justenaugustine5954 I'm referring to your false doctrine of purgatory, where you WORK off the sins that JESUS' ATONING DEATH DIDN'T COVER (your beliefs, not mine). I believe Jesus died for ALL of my sins. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE OF THEM. Past, present, and future!
@@ericb.1384 I’m still not understanding, what do you mean by purgatory? And where does it say He couldn’t cleanse us? Can you send me a link or resource regarding that doctrine?
4:40 The Catholic Church teaches you can be confident in your salvation. Just not completely certain, and that’s because the Bible teaches that you can lose your salvation. Your example of the Catholic only being confident immediately after confession is false, because the only way they could lose salvation after confession is if they commit mortal sin, which can’t be done on accident. If any of you have questions on Catholicism from a believing Catholic please reply.
Greg is very confused. Catholics believe you go to hell if, and only if, you die in a state of mortal sin. You commit a "mortal sin" if the act is a "grievous matter", you know this ("full knowledge"), and you commit the act freely ("full consent'). In other words, by definition a Catholic knows if they're in a state of mortal sin, and so logically they also know if they're not. Therefore, at *any given moment* the Catholic knows with a good degree of certainty whether or not they would theoretically be saved if they died there and then. The reason Catholics claim not to know ultimately if they will be saved is because they do not know how their future selves will act, and therefore whether or not they will be in a state of mortal sin at the moment of death.
@@reddawn8230 Sure, you can take issue with the Catholic position overall. My point was that Greg badly mischaracterized it. And to be clear, quoting the Bible at a Catholic is somewhat pointless. For Catholics, any authority the Bible has is only because the Catholic Church decided which books were to be in it (c. 397 AD) in the first place. Those decisions were based on the tradition that already existed. The Tradition is therefore the source, preceding and superseding the Bible.
@@prutherfordGreg didn’t mischaracterize. He simplified. You’re caught up in irrelevant details. And yes, I’ll put up the scriptures written by real apostles against the constantly evolving Roman traditions any day. Sin is sin. The real apostles said nothing about venial versus mortal sins. The canon had been decided by councils long before 397, there was no Catholic corporation until centuries later, and there was no Roman Catholic corporation until the eleventh century. I’d have let that go, but since you’re into details….
@ricksonora6656 the “irrelevant details” to which you refer are precisely the details that refute Greg’s claim that Catholics “don’t know” if they’re in a state of mortal sin, so they’re highly relevant. To your broader points about biblical primacy there’s some historical and conceptual confusion. 1. There is clear reference in the bible to mortal sin (First Letter of John). 2. Augustine of Hippo talks about the distinction before the canonical Bible was agreed showing it predates the Bible. 3. These “real apostles” you invoke also believed in transubstantiation, confession, the papacy, and the immaculate conception, among other doctrines. You can play semantics if you want, but those beliefs have a Catholic ring to them. 4. Conceptually your position is contradictory: When the books to be included in, and rejected from, the bible were agreed canonically the framework for agreement was reference to the tradition that already existed (which included the doctrines in point 2 among others). You want to reject that tradition while claiming the bible is valid - which is a contradiction.
@@prutherford “Mortal sin,” as defined by Rome, is a special class of sin that earns damnation. “There is a sin unto death” mentioned by John is not defined in its immediate context. Your definition of “clear reference” needs work. Without a definition, you risk equivocation. The “real Apostle” contrasts those having the scripture-defined gifts and qualifications against bureaucrats who arrogate the title yet lack the qualifications to have the title. If clarity and avoiding equivocation is “play[ing] semantics,” I’ll accept the charge. You should play the same game with those lording it over you in Rome. The real Apostle Paul describes, in 1 Corinthians 5 and 11, a chastisement from God that can lead to physical death “that his soul may be preserved in the Judgment.” Being preserved through Judgment Day is not damnation. Scriptures don’t merely refer, but explicitly state repeatedly that Jesus’s followers will never perish. Jesus Himself used an emphatic negative to say that eternal life is eternal and a present possession of His followers. This excludes the possibility of a child of God being damned. Therefore, the only way to interpret John excludes Rome’s idea of “mortal sin.” “Sin unto death” in 1 John must refer to physical death. Unless you’re happy with adding to God’s words. Your statement about Augustine is ambiguous. If you are referring to some Jewish pronouncement, I’ll side with what Jesus said about people using traditions to nullify the words of God. If you refer to a primitive Christian idea, consider that many of the New Testament scriptures were written to correct divergent ideas. That some early Christian believed something is not relevant. And if you mean “before the Bible existed,” consider that the books and letters existed separately before “the Bible.” Your argument based on Augustine would carry no weight, even with ambiguities corrected. Your third point is pure projection. (I’m biting my tongue, using such a gentle word.) Acts records a growth of doctrinal understanding, and (again) God inspired many of the New Testament scriptures to correct bad doctrines and behaviors. Even if there were truth to it, your claim would be an argument from unreliable authority. When you refer to traditions, what you actually mean is the majority of opinions among independent churches. That’s how the councils worked. They came together voluntarily and hashed out formal statements in response to heresies. Again, Rome has lead you into equivocation. You say, implicitly, the prime authority is traditions because the canon was determined by traditions. As I said, that is inaccurate. What we had was a majority of opinions. Furthermore, recognizing the authority of scriptures does not assert authority over scriptures. It comprises submission to the scriptures’ authority. Therefore, your fourth point fails. I don’t see how anyone can follow a corporation that uses so much equivocation and has been so incompetent at interpreting the scriptures.
It's "For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; and that (faith) not of yourselves, but it (faith) is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
The preposition refers to the whole process. It has to do with genders of nouns in the Greek. The gender of the pronoun does not agree with the genders of “grace” or “faith.” Of course, faith is included as part of the gift.
@@ricksonora6656 No doubt. But most Christians have more of a semi-Pelagian or Arminian notion of salvation, thinking that faith originates in their fallen wills. That's the point of emphasizing that even the faith that we indeed place in Christ is a gift from God, and not something that we created in our hearts.
@@stegokitty To reiterate some of what has already been said in this thread; I agree that the entire process of Salvation is a gift from God in Ephesians 2; however, yes it's very important to emphasize that even the faith itself (*and also repentance) is a gift from God; for instance: "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God", which even further indicates that we aren't talking about a so called "faith" that is humanly generated, but Divinely generated faith that saves. See also Hebrews 11 & 12.
‘American Gospel: In Christ Alone’ is a helpful movie that has a really great, respectful, and truthful picture of Catholicism (along with other doctrines) compared to what the Bible says the Gospel is.
Greg, I’ve watched some of your seminars and my husband and I are in the middle of your book ‘Tactics’. Thank you so much for the wisdom and resources you share. I have a lot to learn and I want to start putting them into practice. I know it’s an important part of having it be useful.
Been a while since I touched back home with my old friends in the USA. In case Greg reads these comments, I have always been a big fan of Stand To Reason. I've been living in the Philippines for the last 12 years (and loving it). My older brother (still lives in USA) became Roman Catholic a while back and so I did my homework and concluded that Luther was right and Leo X was wrong. Twice a year I read 2 books that keep me Protestant, Paul's letter to the Romans and Paul's letter to the Galatians. I think Greg will still remember me so greetings my old friend and keep up the good work for Christ.
Well said
Excellent Biblical teaching
“Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”
John 14:6
I cannot remember the place of the passage, but Jesus also said "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."
@@paulwilson4738 “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.””
Matthew 11:30
This helped so much. I don't have to mention Catholicism to try to help them see.
Wow. Thank you so much!!!
Dennis Prager is lovely! I pray for him.
*_Ongoing eloquence. PTL_* 🙌
"Recieved" Christ means different for others..like that transubstantation thing.
Is there a link to your article that you wrote about "Gospel for Christians"? (my apologies if I didn't recall the title properly)
Here's the link! www.str.org/w/the-gospel-for-believers-in-3-quick-verses
You'll actually be laughing at times about purgatory after knowing its unbiblical like she did
"A Woman Rides the Beast" by Dave Hunt gives a good look at the Catholic Church using Catholic resources and Catholic theologians' own words and documents.
Are you one of the elect? How do you know? Is an intellectual assent to God's existence sufficient for salvation?
Thanks for the question! We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your thoughts with Greg Koukl. He'd love to hear from you. Or you can submit an #STRask or Open Mic question. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.
What is apostacy or blasphemy if we can't isolate ourselves from God? I think it's highly unlikely because who would give up an eternity of happiness, but...it seems possible.
Jesus said “I give them eternal life, and they will forever not never perish.” The double negative in Greek means he’s being emphatic.
Everlasting that could end us not everlasting. Forever means it’s forever true. Never perish means that, even if it were hypothetically true, it will never happen.
Apostasy and blasphemy (against the Holy Spirit) are demonstrations that the apostate or blasphemer was a false convert.
Some people use behaviors of false believers to show what real believers can do, but it is a category error.
Jesus gave authority to the apostles whom he chose, this argument is about their authority. Did they have it or not? this is the argument that the Sadducees and pharisees made. "by whose authority do you do this? Catholics believe in the original church authority because the gospel confirms it.
What if they said is that because of Jesus Christ is that you have a better "chance"?
Because Jesus didn't come to give us a chance, Jesus came to Himself be the way and to save, we don't save ourselves
You follow the teaching of the Reformers who taught that through faith alone you receive Christ' righteousness imputed or counted on you, while your sins (past, present AND future) are imputed to Christ who bore them on the cross. You are only righteous externally using that of Christ but you remain sinner at the same time. That explains why you can say that your salvation is secured, you do not have to do anything and your sins will not make you lose your salvation, which you refer as the Gospel. Is this what the Scripture teaches as a whole, and not just based on few cherry picked verses?
Ezekiel 18:20 says "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself". How do you reconcile this verse with imputation concept of the Reformers? Ezekiel 33:12 says "the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins" and 1 John 3:8 says "he who sins is of the devil". You should read Heb 10:26-27 as well. How do you reconcile these verses with your belief that because your future sins are also imputed/counted on Christ, they won't make you lose your salvation? Even Paul in 1 Cor 9:27 that he himself could be disqualified (Greek adokimos).
Contrary to what you said Catholics do not believe in salvation by faith plus works or merits. The difference with that of the Reformers is Catholics believe that to be saved we must be made righteous through Christ (Rom. 5:19). Scripture says righteousness delivers from death (Prov. 10:2, 11:3). We are made righteous by faith as faith is counted as righteousness (Rom. 4:2) and through doing what is right (1 John 3:7). Jesus said in Luke 10:28 "do this (love one another) and you will live". It is not salvation by works as our ability both to have faith (rom. 4:2) AND to do what is right (1 John 3:7) comes and is only possible by grace through Christ. Salvation in Catholicism is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) and through sanctification (2 Thes. 2:13). We lose our righteousness through sinning (Ezek. 33:12) which makes our accumulated righteous deeds be forgotten (Ezek. 18:24, 33:18). Moved and enabled by grace we repent and turn away from sin that put us back in our righteous state as our sins will be forgotten (Ezek. 18:21-22, 33:19). When we die in righteous state and face judgment (Heb. 9:27), we will be declared righteous because we are indeed made righteous. In contrast the Reformers taught that we will die still with sins, but those sins won't affect our salvation as they are counted or imputed to Christ.
Once again you have shown a misunderstanding of what Protestants believe and teach.
@@HearGodsWord Then tell me and other readers what you believe!
Wow! I finished listening to all of this video and I find it amazing that this Greg Koukl guy gets by with what he is saying without ever being checked by any of his disciples. So please allow me to invite Greg Koukl or any of his loyal disciples to have a discussion on the unBiblical things that was said in this particular video. I would not want to be him when he enters through that door of Judgement and he sees St. Paul and St. John as witnesses to what was said in this video. Sts. John and Paul are both good Catholics and would never have said the things that Koukl said. I do hope that there is a Koukl disciple that is willing to have the discussion. God bless.
If you would like to discuss a particular disagreement with Greg, we invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.
@@STRvideos Thank you for responding to the post and for the invite, but I prefer the comments section of the RUclips video. I do hope that the conversation can continue in this form.
We welcome others to have respectful conversations in the comments section, but our apologists, unfortunately, do not have the time to respond to the thousands of comments we receive on social media.
@@STRvideosThank you for your prompt response. I certainly can appreciate how busy your apologists must be, and I would not expect them to be able to respond to the thousands of comments made on social media in reaction to one of your videos. However, it's always been a practice of mine to invite the host into the conversation. So I will just throw out a concern of mine stemming from something that I heard Greg Koukl say in this particular video, and if one of your apologists has the time to respond then that would be of great benefit to all that are reading these comments. And if not, then maybe one of his disciples would be willing to address this concern.
Greg Koukl said that Ephesians 2:8-9 flies smack in the face of Catholic doctrines. This is absolutely not true. We wrote those doctrines in the Bible 2000 years ago and have been teaching them unchanged down through the millennia. So it seems to me that Greg Koukl totally misunderstands what the Bible teaches, either that or he really does not understand Grace. In either case I think an answer to the following question will go a long way in helping him to better understand Biblical Salvation. Here is the question: Considering that we are saved by Grace and not of works, exactly when did those First Converts in Acts chapter 2 receive that Saving Grace? Was it when they first believed in vs. 37, or was it when they were Baptized?
Acts 2:14 "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.......36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “ *Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit* ...... 40....... “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."
Eph.2: 8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God- 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast"
It's important to note that St. Paul was writing to the Catholic Church in Ephesus when he wrote those verses about Grace. He was not teaching them anything new, for they had already received the Gospel and entered into the Church in the very same manner as those first converts did on that great Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. It's how we did it then, and it's how we still do it today. Acts chapter 2 is the Biblical Blueprint for how we receive Saving Grace. God bless.
The false doctrine of assurance of salvation (once saved always saved) is a doctrine of Calvin that never was taught by the early Church. The Catholic Church has been teaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ since the first century and it is the reformers that introduced another gospel not taught until they came around.
The 'tips' that you gave in answering the question, might work for a Catholic who knows nothing about their faith, but it is bound to fail with a Catholic who has been proper catechized. Throughout the bible, it speaks to losing our salvation. Add this to what the early Church taught about losing one's salvation, we can see where the idea of assurance of salvation is a false teaching that actually feeds into the sin of presumption.
The Catholic Church teaches we are saved by grace and through faith, just not by faith alone. Without grace even your faith cannot save you.
Paul says that he’s working out his salvation with fear and trepidation. James says that faith without works is dead. The good news is that I can Repent and believe.
again the question still applies: How is it good news if you stop at Philippians 2:12 and don't read verse 13. If you stop at verse 12 it sounds like you are doing the work, that's not good news to me. But if you go on to read the very next verse you will see that it is not you doing the work (lest any man should boast - right?) but it is God who works in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure (And faith is dead if God is not working through you).
Put it another way: Is salvation based on Christ alone? Or Jesus plus something else? Is it based on Jesus plus taking the Eucharist? or Jesus plus going to Church? If so, then salvation is not based on Christ alone and that's not a salvation that is able to save (Romans 5:1-2, Acts 4:12).
I pray as you journey you continue to search the scriptures and draw closer to God, I hope you will do the same for me.
Narrow path connotes harder but more fruitful. If it’s not good news then you’re misinterpreting what the gospel has in store. Just because the path is harder does not mean that it’s not “good”. Good news does not mean easy street. Simply ask the martyrs about that. Grace needs to be cooperated with for it to have any benefit. Thank you for your reply.🙏
@@websterlee7708 I did not say it was easy. The hardest thing in the world is to get out of the way and let God, through the Holy Spirit work in and through you. The more I get out of the way the more He can accomplish - that's how I view sanctification. I must decrease and He must increase.
So long as I'm doing things to "earn my salvation" I'm not getting out of the way and I'm definitely not trusting in the work Christ completed on the cross for me.
@@matthayes533 I did not say you earn salvation. Salvation is bought and paid for on the cross but I can reject it. Gods grace can be sown in many places but it does not mean that it takes root and produces good fruit. It could fall in poor soil or on rock. Weeds may grow up and choke it. The seed needs to die, sprout, take root, grow to produce good fruit. Even repentance and belief is a work. It all takes cooperation. Faith without work is dead. What will be judged on judgement day if not our works. Some works will be tested in fire. Some will be burned up and the work that remains will bring reward. 1 Corr. 3:13-14.
@@websterlee7708 I appologize if I missunderstood you. Based on your initial post I presumed your stance was that one had to work to "keep" your salvation - to me that's earning as in earning wages. Like the wages of sin is death, as sinners we cant earn or work to keep our salvation - all we can do is earn or work to keep death. It is only through faith and dying to ourselves that we can get out of the way and let God work through us.
I do find it interesting that you quoted 1 Cor 3, I wonder why you stopped at verse 14. How would you interpret verse 15?
I also wonder if you have done any studying about "Judgement day" and the various judgements mankind will face. For me, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ so I will not face the Great White Throne judgement, rather I will face the Bema Seat or Judgment of Christ. At the Bema Seat I will not receive punishment as you already pointed out 1 Cor 3 says my sins or unworthy works will already be burnt away. If I am left empty handed by such a fiery baptism, verse 15 says I will still be saved. Verse 14 says I will receive a reward if God has accomplished anything through me. But neither the Bema Seat nor the passage in 1 Cor 3 are about salvation, for even those who fail are still saved so clearly these passages are meant for Christians whose salvation is already assured.
You say belief is a work. Would you classify belief as faith? if so, if faith is a work, then you are saying that "faith without faith is dead" Clearly James believed faith was not a work. Rather, I think, works are the product of God through the Holy Spirit working in the lives of those who believe. I do not think belief or faith, therefore can be a work, otherwise the logic and grammar break down.
I wish you well, it was not my intent to get into an argument on social media, only to help clarify some points to help me understand your position better and to be understood. I think I have accomplished that so thank you.
1. (Catholic view) To be saved (initial): Repent, believe, and be baptized.
To be saved, if committed mortal sin: repent, believe and penance/confession.
2. Yes you can know if you’re going to Heaven. It is called examination of conscience. John 15:6, Rom 11:22, Heb 10:28-29, 1 Cor 9:26-27, Gal 5:4, 2 Tim 2:11-13, Matt 24:13.
If someone chooses to be humble about their answer, doesn’t always mean uncertainty about their salvation but a lack of wanting to exalt, which may be a problem in answering the question but not in going about humility towards the gift of grace and faith received allowing us to make it to heaven.
- Purgatory is the final purification for those who have died in God’s friendship but still need to be cleansed of their attachment to sin. It makes us pure and ready for the full glory of heaven. Which there is biblical evidence for in 1 Cor 3:15, Matt 5:25-26, 2 Maccabees 12:42-46. If you don’t believe in the term that’s ok, but don’t act like there isn’t a clear indication that nothing unclean/no sin will enter heaven, hence cleansing prior to entering will take place.
“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)
Grace (gift) by faith (gift) working through love.
“Good works” would not be possible without grace.
“Works of the law” are possible with and without grace/faith.
Hopefully this helps, it seems many are confused about this (Catholic and non-Catholics)
No confusion here brother. Baptism and the spirit. By grace through faith.
How messed up, you think that Jesus can't cleanse you of ALL your sins. God help you...
@@ericb.1384 who said He couldn't cleanse you of all your sins?
I'm not following how'd you get there from what I said... Can Jesus cleanse me of all my sins? Yes.
Can I sin again after being cleansing? Yes.
Must I repent/confess after sinning? Yes.
Are there sins i might have committed without repenting/confessing? Yes
Do the sins I don't repent/confess just disappear? No.
Could you help me understand where this reasoning fails? Unless you're referring to someone or something else
@@justenaugustine5954 I'm referring to your false doctrine of purgatory, where you WORK off the sins that JESUS' ATONING DEATH DIDN'T COVER (your beliefs, not mine).
I believe Jesus died for ALL of my sins. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE OF THEM. Past, present, and future!
@@ericb.1384 I’m still not understanding, what do you mean by purgatory? And where does it say He couldn’t cleanse us? Can you send me a link or resource regarding that doctrine?
4:40 The Catholic Church teaches you can be confident in your salvation. Just not completely certain, and that’s because the Bible teaches that you can lose your salvation. Your example of the Catholic only being confident immediately after confession is false, because the only way they could lose salvation after confession is if they commit mortal sin, which can’t be done on accident. If any of you have questions on Catholicism from a believing Catholic please reply.
where does Jesus say He was God, He said He was son of man or Son of God didn't He? God bless, Mat.6:33, Prov. 3:5
They don't want that Grace because they will lose their power,authority influence etc. It will certainly unfold their false authority
Greg is very confused. Catholics believe you go to hell if, and only if, you die in a state of mortal sin. You commit a "mortal sin" if the act is a "grievous matter", you know this ("full knowledge"), and you commit the act freely ("full consent'). In other words, by definition a Catholic knows if they're in a state of mortal sin, and so logically they also know if they're not. Therefore, at *any given moment* the Catholic knows with a good degree of certainty whether or not they would theoretically be saved if they died there and then. The reason Catholics claim not to know ultimately if they will be saved is because they do not know how their future selves will act, and therefore whether or not they will be in a state of mortal sin at the moment of death.
1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.
@@reddawn8230 Sure, you can take issue with the Catholic position overall. My point was that Greg badly mischaracterized it. And to be clear, quoting the Bible at a Catholic is somewhat pointless. For Catholics, any authority the Bible has is only because the Catholic Church decided which books were to be in it (c. 397 AD) in the first place. Those decisions were based on the tradition that already existed. The Tradition is therefore the source, preceding and superseding the Bible.
@@prutherfordGreg didn’t mischaracterize. He simplified. You’re caught up in irrelevant details.
And yes, I’ll put up the scriptures written by real apostles against the constantly evolving Roman traditions any day. Sin is sin. The real apostles said nothing about venial versus mortal sins.
The canon had been decided by councils long before 397, there was no Catholic corporation until centuries later, and there was no Roman Catholic corporation until the eleventh century. I’d have let that go, but since you’re into details….
@ricksonora6656 the “irrelevant details” to which you refer are precisely the details that refute Greg’s claim that Catholics “don’t know” if they’re in a state of mortal sin, so they’re highly relevant.
To your broader points about biblical primacy there’s some historical and conceptual confusion.
1. There is clear reference in the bible to mortal sin (First Letter of John).
2. Augustine of Hippo talks about the distinction before the canonical Bible was agreed showing it predates the Bible.
3. These “real apostles” you invoke also believed in transubstantiation, confession, the papacy, and the immaculate conception, among other doctrines. You can play semantics if you want, but those beliefs have a Catholic ring to them.
4. Conceptually your position is contradictory: When the books to be included in, and rejected from, the bible were agreed canonically the framework for agreement was reference to the tradition that already existed (which included the doctrines in point 2 among others). You want to reject that tradition while claiming the bible is valid - which is a contradiction.
@@prutherford
“Mortal sin,” as defined by Rome, is a special class of sin that earns damnation. “There is a sin unto death” mentioned by John is not defined in its immediate context. Your definition of “clear reference” needs work.
Without a definition, you risk equivocation.
The “real Apostle” contrasts those having the scripture-defined gifts and qualifications against bureaucrats who arrogate the title yet lack the qualifications to have the title. If clarity and avoiding equivocation is “play[ing] semantics,” I’ll accept the charge. You should play the same game with those lording it over you in Rome.
The real Apostle Paul describes, in 1 Corinthians 5 and 11, a chastisement from God that can lead to physical death “that his soul may be preserved in the Judgment.” Being preserved through Judgment Day is not damnation.
Scriptures don’t merely refer, but explicitly state repeatedly that Jesus’s followers will never perish. Jesus Himself used an emphatic negative to say that eternal life is eternal and a present possession of His followers.
This excludes the possibility of a child of God being damned. Therefore, the only way to interpret John excludes Rome’s idea of “mortal sin.” “Sin unto death” in 1 John must refer to physical death. Unless you’re happy with adding to God’s words.
Your statement about Augustine is ambiguous. If you are referring to some Jewish pronouncement, I’ll side with what Jesus said about people using traditions to nullify the words of God.
If you refer to a primitive Christian idea, consider that many of the New Testament scriptures were written to correct divergent ideas. That some early Christian believed something is not relevant.
And if you mean “before the Bible existed,” consider that the books and letters existed separately before “the Bible.” Your argument based on Augustine would carry no weight, even with ambiguities corrected.
Your third point is pure projection. (I’m biting my tongue, using such a gentle word.) Acts records a growth of doctrinal understanding, and (again) God inspired many of the New Testament scriptures to correct bad doctrines and behaviors. Even if there were truth to it, your claim would be an argument from unreliable authority.
When you refer to traditions, what you actually mean is the majority of opinions among independent churches. That’s how the councils worked. They came together voluntarily and hashed out formal statements in response to heresies. Again, Rome has lead you into equivocation.
You say, implicitly, the prime authority is traditions because the canon was determined by traditions. As I said, that is inaccurate. What we had was a majority of opinions.
Furthermore, recognizing the authority of scriptures does not assert authority over scriptures. It comprises submission to the scriptures’ authority. Therefore, your fourth point fails.
I don’t see how anyone can follow a corporation that uses so much equivocation and has been so incompetent at interpreting the scriptures.