I am a Catholic priest and find your videos so refreshing and have to admit, you have helped me with many of the misconceptions I had regarding Luther and especially the concept of Sola Scriptura. I grew up Methodist but became Catholic because of an experience of Christ I had that my Methodist minister could not explain. Unfortunately his point of references were usually around covered dishes and choir specials. Thanks so much for your academic work and may the Lord bless you and your family abundantly.
Could you give an example of what you mean about Luther's points of reference? And it's sad and opposite of you, but I had to LEAVE the Catholic church because of a spiritual trauma in my teens.
@@Convert2024 as Cardinal Newman stated, to immerse one's self in history is to cease to be protestant. That was my experience. I came to love Church history both in college and in seminary, and a study of how the early church was liturgical hsstened the process. Paul Johnson's History of the Jews was thus pivotal in that process, and Dr. Johnson was no friend to church traditionalists, at least in his critique of the Church in his History of the Church. Early Christianity was a Jewish movement and based in the Jewish temple, and the early Church leaders had been formed in their experiences by Jewish temple liturgy. Even in the synagogues it is based upon the Jewish temple service. The focus is on the sacrifice which is preceded by psalms. So the understanding, for me, shifted from one of no sacramental priesthood to one which retained a distinction between ordained priests and the wider priesthood of all believers. In Luther that distinction is blurred, yet it is a distinction which is stated explicitly in the Old Testament and within the five books of Moses, Exodus I believe. So I came to see that my own faith tradition, especially as a Calvinist evangelical of the English puritan tradition, had basically thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
@@cinaedmacseamas2978 that’s so cool. I’m glad your understanding allowed you to take the Protestant spirit away. I know without that people will not understand. That’s a blessing.my hope is that all of us drive toward John 17:21.
@@alexking8802 we catholics have repent and we already believe in god. What are you talking about ........you just sound like all protestants .....just repeating what they hear at their heretic cults
@@gch8810 Baptists in general aren't exactly known for being well informed. I don't mean that to be mean, but rather that I wish Baptists would become more educated. Especially when it comes to historical Christianity. I think due to their lack of education they actually harm a lot of people and turn people away from the faith. This is coming from someone that grew up Baptist. Most importantly, Baptists seriously need to learn law and gospel distinction!
What a joke you are. .....thinking of this heretic as being humble where he has videos “explaining himself” why he does not belong to certain denomination or other denomination...... he is full of himself...you failed to recognize that pride an arrogance hides extraordinarily in this type of “intellectual Don Fernando Colomer Ferrandiz from the San Sebastian church in Spain, priest and doctor in philosophy explains exquisitely each of the 7 deadly sins and describes this type of individuals........the “intellectual faith”
My bible study leader teaches something he learned through another denomination that I embrace as a confessional Lutheran. " Unity in the essentials, liberty in the non essentials, but in all things love". I think we hold true to that as Lutherans and you just helped me bring that lesson together. Thank you brother and once again why I'm now a Lutheran. Always solid theology.
"SOLA Fide" If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have charity, I am nothing." Luther misunderstood Paul. Paul never ever taught we are saved by dead faith. We need a living faith. Paul excluded the Law written on paper or stone (Gal. 3:17), Paul never excluded the gift of charity poured in our hearts. Supernatural love (charity) does not boast. Luther made a little mistake and then started to re- read the Bible according to that mistake.
@@Alfredo8059 For the love of all that is good, Luther never taught that we are saved by dead faith either. I saw a previous conversation you were in on this video, and I really don't understand why you are still thinking that Lutherans teach this. You Roman Catholics cling to the "faith without works is dead" quote, which Lutherans have always affirmed to be TRUE, but yet there are many more verses that teach that FAITH ALONE is what does the saving. FAITH ALONE does not mean faith without any works. The very definition of faith in Christ is believing that we are sinners in need of Christ as our Savior. This means that daily repentance is inextricable from true saving faith. True faith itself is a gift from God that we are unable to conjure up within ourselves. This true faith brings with it repentance from our sins. Our turning away from sin or any other good work is not what actually justifies us though.
@@bethanyann1060 , thank you for your kind message. Catholics totally agree Luther's phrase: faith alone is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. But, According to Luther, the justification given by God through the sinner's faith is extrinsic; Christians are merely declared to be just; they remain what they were before, incurable sinners, "heaps of shit", no matter what they do. They were intrinsically corrupted through and through by Adam's sin, but they are not made intrinsically right with God by the redemptive work of His incarnate Son. You say : "our turning away from sin or any other good work is not what actually justifies though". You are clearly ignoring what the Apostle taught: "If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[a] but do not have LOVE, I gain nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2 Its not our work its the LOVE of God. Faith ALONE (before or apart the LOVE of God is not even a Christian faith. Martin Luther clearly misunderstood Paul: " And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2 "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." 1 Cor. 6:22. God bless you always
@Asaph Vapor , Luther argued that Christ himself, not love, is the form, or the essence, of faith. Abraham, Mary, Cornelius believed with love. The demons believe without love (James 2:19). Martin Luther ignored Christians have to believe this teaching of Jesus: "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" Mat. 6:15 . What is the faith that avails anything according to Paul? "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."
@Asaph Vapor , "Who cares what Luther says", but Protestants read the Bible through Luther's construct. For 15 centuries no one believed in Sola Fide as Luther taught. Work based salvation is a heresy called pelagianism. D you think Jesus taught pelagianism to His disciples? "“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." According to Jesus, who are the branches of the vine? Are they Christians or not Christians? If they were never really Christians, then, how did they become branches of the vine in the first place? Does Jesus call non-believers "mine"? and if they are His, how then can they be taken away from Him? Who cares what Luther says, Catholics believe Jesus
Coming from an evangelical Wesleyan background, it is very helpful to put myself in other perspectives. I don't currently view the sacraments the same way a Lutheran does. In fact, I think that Lutherans have not only the right but the obligation to have closed communion of the Eucharist from their perspective. If I were Lutheran, I would think those who held to a symbolic baptism and communion as dishonoring God and potentially in sin. These very real disagreements should not be ignored altogether for the sake of ecumenism. Wesley himself believed in baptismal regeneration and in paedobaptism as an Anglican. There are certainly aspects of Lutheranism I find appealing.
Love to hear more from you. I was a General Arminian Baptist for my first 12 years as a Christian, before going to a Confessional Lutheran Church and be confirmed there. My problematic journey begins when the Arminian General Baptists and Reformed Calvinistic Baptists often dispute each other on serious Soteriological issues that I could not find any satisfactory solution......until God led me to study what the Lutheran Confessions have to offer in accordance to Scripture about Soteriology.
Open communion and closed communion do not mean what you think they mean. Open communion, as given by John Wesley, was different than how it is done today. Basically many people in the Americas were traveling far from their home church. Possibly their church was a different denomination. Open communion just meant that John didn’t deny communion to baptized Christians (ie had a valid baptism) who were away from their home church or who had not officially expressed membership in that church. Since basically almost everyone in English/American society had a Christian baptism, it was ok to assume your random traveler could receive communion. However, I’ve (I as a Methodist) seen Methodists these days turn it into “whoever wants to come, come”, which is very very bad. The unbaptized cannot receive communion, and there has been a resurgence of heretical groups like was not seen 200-300 years ago. We have to be discerning in practicing “open communion” now, to the point that it may begin to look like closed communion.
And if you look at the way Wesley viewed salvation, it bears more resemblance to Luther than modern day Methodists. Wesley said man may be saved if he wills, though not when he wills. Wesley also believed salvific faith was a gift given through the means of prevenient grace (like the hearing of the word preached), which is similar to Luther. Wesley believed that if man either drew close to or was exposed to the means of grace, eventually he would be offered the gift of salvation through faith. His views don’t really bear resemblance to the modern semipelagian notion of “everybody has prevenient grace upon birth, we have the choice to start with”. Wesley’s conversion experience (of receiving salvific faith) came at Aldersgate, after he had already become a minister. He finally felt like Christ had died for him, ironically after hearing Luther’s commentary being read about Galatians.
This is for all my Catholic brothers and sisters who are weak in the faith. Please study your faith from learned Catholics or learned people who converted to Catholicism after deep study of history and scripture. The Catholic church has biblical justification for all our dogmas and sacraments. Don't allow a person who has been indoctrinated to hate Catholicism to "open your eyes" with the "truth" with lies and you will not be able to refute those lies. Instead, many uninformed Catholic brothers and sisters leave their church before they ever knew it. Wake up lukewarm Catholic! Learn, love, and live your faith!
Judas arius nestorius luther Calvin were weak catholics. There are only a few of them. If you look at statistics there are 1.2 billion catholics. Where I was born in the philippines. There are nearly 90 percent strong Catholics. And in Australia majority still catholics
@@arnoldmaglalang5522 The Philippines is a stronghold of the Catholic faith. May the people of the Philippines remain strong in their love for our Holy Catholic Church.
I am a recent Catholic convert who grew up protestant. I find myself agreeing more with Lutheranism lately but still don't see the need to not stay in the catholic faith. This video has solidified my decision in a way. I would like to have a broader discussion with someone about this though.
To give some context. I was raised Catholic, but would not describe myself as that now. However, one of my studies was for a Masters in History (World Religions), which (as the name implies) takes a historical rather than a devotional or theological view of religion. Most of my studies were in Eastern religions, but I also spent time on Christian writings, the cultural background of early Christianity, Roman and Greek religions, and some basics of Koine. I have since expanded into something more like a 'history of belief systems' and therefore include things like liberalism, modernism, marxism , post-modernism and so on in a similar study. What you have stated is a very fair description of the Catholic position (or perhaps its range of positions) on justification (or soteriology). My recollection of childhood instruction is that it 'Justification is by the grace of God'. E.g. People don't 'earn' salvation any more than a child 'earns' the love of its parents, but our actions might cut ourselves off from those. I remember it being expressed in a more positive way at times. For example, I recall a rather wily old nun, who was instructing lay catechists, being asked why she spent so little time discussing doctrine as such. Her reply was that, there were really only two things that needed to be taught to children. One was that there is a God who loves them beyond comprehension regardless of who they are and what they do; and this was the theme of all instruction for the very young. As they became older, the second idea to be taught was that their actions in life were one of the means by which that love should be expressed and demonstrated to all. While Galatians and Romans focus a lot on justification, I think the words in Corinthians "All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial" are also very interesting. That can lead to a remarkably radical interpretation, and an interesting take on moral relativism versus absolute / universal positions.
Well stated! I am a committed evangelical, and have never understood why some Protestants, particularly in the Reformed community, think that one cannot be Catholic and a follower of Jesus. We are not saved by our understanding of doctrine, however biblical that doctrine may be. We are saved by confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior. None of us trusts in Christ perfectly at any moment, but praise God that the blood of His Son cleanses us from all sin, including doctrinal error! "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:12
I'm an Independent Catholic and formerly Roman, and have enjoyed your videos on a wide range of topics. There was a joint declaration on Justification signed by Lutherans and Catholics in 1999, so we're really not that far apart anymore. Most Roman Catholics I know don't go around quoting the Council of Trent and some might have no awareness of that particular Canon. In light of the Second Vatican Council the church has had a better understanding of it's relationship to other churches.
We aren't 'Roman.' We are simply Catholic. There is no such thing as an 'Independent Catholic.' That's schism at best, and more likely involves heresy.
I don't support the Pope's error when he is mistaken. No Good Catholic should. Rather, we should prayer for him to be rightly guided. Popes can err, not only in pastoral advice or governance but even in matters of faith and morals. The popes are granted the charism of infallibility only when teaching ex cathedra. That isn't to say the pope won't often teach or discuss things that are certainly true or that we should ignore everything else the pope might say. If a pope says something against Scripture and Tradition, he should be corrected, prayed for, and if he refuses correction, shunned or refused obedience so far as is possible within what is lawful for us. Theologians debate whether a pope can fall into manifest heresy, and if God would depose such a heretical pontiff, and how the Chruch might act in such a case. @@JesusisKing89-fs2kb
Note that the joint declaration was signed by the LWF which is a very liberal group of Lutherans and are not really confessional and are not upholding the book of concord in that declaration
John 6:40: ""For this is the will of my Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him will have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”
@@ragnardanneskajold1880 John 6 is not about the mass. The Lords Supper had not been instituted yet, and Jesus cleary ties eating and drinking to faith. Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:35, 40
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 - nah, Jesus was crystal clear…..“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my Flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” ~ Jn 6: 52-58 No ambiguity. None. Zero. Are you saying Jesus didn’t know that the Mass was to come?
@@ragnardanneskajold1880 there is no ambiguity. It’s clearly about belief in Christ. Follow the entire argument. Christ isn’t a magical potion that gives you life by eating it. John 6 isn’t even about the Lord’s supper. In fact in the Lord’s supper, Christ says to do this in remembrance of me. Paul doesn’t mention John 6 when he speaks of the Lord’s supper as well. It’s not about eating and drinking. It’s about coming to Christ, i.e., trust.
@@KnightFel - everything about Christs redemption of man is mystical, supernatural. This notion of something ‘magical’ implies a slight of hand, a trick. This is not what Christ is or does and implying such is sinful. In regard to YOUR interpretation of John Do not forget, the Bible is a Catholic book. The Bible was compiled, canonized, and interpreted by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church 1200 years before Luther. The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is composed of the Roman Church and Her 24 rites, all of the Eastern Orthodox, and all of the Oriental Orthodox Churches who constitute the entirety of Christianity for 1500 years, and ALL of them know that the Eucharist is the body blood soul and divinity of Christ. If you do not believe as such you are in error at best or heresy at worst; the majority of the sola scriptura crowd are the latter. I would suggest you read into church history at length and depth and come to realize sola scriptura is a man made doctrine that is counter to the teachings of all the oldest of Christian Churches. Lastly, Christ left us a Church not a Bible; the Church preceded the Bible, the Church gave the Bible to the world, the Church, not the Bible is the Bride of Christ.
What I observe from my Roman Catholic friends, and from reading the Catholic literature, they trust Christ for their salvation and they trust their works for shortening/getting out of purgatory. Seems to be a pretty clear line for them.
Works are our cooperation with Gods grace- the catechism of the Catholic Church is unambiguous- justification is thru Gods grace alone. Period. We cannot “earn” it. However, we as humans have free will and we must cooperate with and accept that gift of grace- works are part of that cooperation
That's right and wrong. Rather than thinking of "shortening", on purgatory, think of Paul's first letter to the Church in Corinth: your work, built in stone or in gold, may be preserved from the fire of the Lord, and the workman rewarded-but it is the foundation, Christ, which saves. But secondly, and I suppose this is my Byzantine tradition kicking in, Dionysius says and correctly, that the impression of a seal into wax can be only so perfect as the wax is suited to taking an impression. This is precisely the language I see used often in discussing baptism. We are impressed with the seal of Christ, the Divine Image restored in us. What our works on Earth do is not to diminish God's wrath, or to earn brownie points. The work which is saved is not about others or about things. It is about making the wax of our souls more perfectly suited to taking the impression of the perfect seal that is Christ. Since purgatory is all about cutting away the wax which will not take an impression, naturally it will lead to minimizing purgatory, but it's an interior disposition that's important, and in this life we can only temper that disposition through war on the flesh in the form of prayer, fasting, and giving alms.
I have found it very odd that the reformed community would hold to grace alone through faith alone by God’s predestination alone ( odd )… but in practice also proclaim by a perfect understanding of ‘correct’ theology alone. If the later of those is the case we are all doomed. People often conflate pet theologies with the gospel itself.
I am LCMS and we believe God calls us. We don’t make a decision for Christ. God does not want one person to perish. People are not predestined to hell; the Lutheran Church that belief.
I know there are weird people that like to add things into the gospel. Don't get me started on KJVonlyists... However, you're wrong to say that is what the Reformed community thinks or says. The Reformed tradition teaches a law and gospel distinction as well. Also, "Reformed" Baptists aren't really Reformed. So if that's where you heard that it makes more sense to me. Baptists aren't known to distinguish law and gospel.
@@margorice1 Double predestination is really that God predestines some to election and then passes over the rest. So elect are actively chosen, and the nonelect are passively chosen. I understand if you disagree, but saying people being "predestined to Hell" is not the accurate representation of the doctrine. People go to Hell because they are sinners and reject God. I think perhaps you have been misinformed from a supralapsarian view of double predestination rather than an infralapsarian. God doesn't want any person to go to Hell, but some do. While He may not want something, it doesn't necessarily mean that He will actively make it happen.
I don't know a single Catholic who trusts in their works. I was one for maaany years, and am surrounded by them. All their trust is in God's grace. Even good works done, as christ encouraged when He said let your good works shine before men, is, and can ONLY be done BECAUSE of God's grace Peace to you who truly believe
@@geoffrobinson You don't even understand what grace is. Grace is itself a work, the work of God accomplished through Christ in his creation and salvation of the world. Through the grace of the spirit we cooperate in the salvific work of Christ as members of his body. Apart from him you can do nothing. Faith without works is dead.
Protestants remember salvation is about forgiveness. Protestants seem to ignore salvation is new creation, new life, inner transformation. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
Protestants: It is by grace through faith you are saved, and this is not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Catholics: It is by grace you are saved, accessed through the established sacraments (works) of the RCC. One of these statements is straight from God’s unchanging word, and the other is from the ever-evolving traditions of men. They cannot be reconciled.
I think you made a good point about there being different opinions withn Catholicism. When it comes to critical issues like justification I've heard Catholics present very different views just like there are very different views within specific genres of Protestantism. Sometimes people don't understand what their church teaches other times they disagree with others within their church.
@Dominus Vobiscum Yeah that's why I'm not a Catholic (among other reasons). Some Catholics disagree with that or interpret it differently though. I bet most Catholics have never even read it.
Hello Dr Cooper. I have been watching your videos for several months. I am impressed by your deep knowledge, clear thinking, kind approach, and careful speech. I have personal goals based on your example. I was struck by your observation in this video that salvation is by faith alone, not by a perfect understanding of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. I have never heard that before, but it is clearly true. Thank you for teaching me.
Our works are effects of the grace of Christ, and only in that condition they are necessary for justification and sanctification. That is the Catholic doctrine. When defining about justification, the Council of Trent speaks of our free will "moved and excited" by God. It is not the free will left only to its natural capabilities.
No, it is not free will left only to its natural capacities...but it is these natural capacities ameliorated and assisted rather than transformed. It is not all of grace and all of Christ. It is us working our way into divinization rather than being Spiritually born anew, brought from death into life. It is a relatively humanistic approach to soterioligy: we have the power within us. God will help us, but we must, in essence, take the initiative to save ourselves. It is decidedly a works-based salvation...and for that reason, Catholics scratch and claw to bring down justification by faith.
@@hanssvineklev648 obviously, there is TWO kinds of graces...The Grace that Excites and moves us to the Good works" and The Grace that ENTERS in our soul to help us in Good Works.... Ultimately, it is God that initiates, without violating Free Will.... Like a beautiful woman....You get attracted, but you are Free to approach or reject...If you approach, you get the ACTUAL grace which transforms you within and fills you with Grace...
Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God". This means that every single peacemaker, whatever background they come from, are the Children of God. Basically we all are brothers and sisters. I'm a committed catholic guy, however i prefer to be called Christian, for i believe in the unity. Talking denominations-wise makes it really convoluted. Pray for me sir
If faith only saves, then by necessity faith+works also saves. Catholics don't believe works save you, but even if they did, you can't deny that their faith in Christ saves them.
First of all, if you dont have 100% faith in Jesus then it that's not the same as someone who believes in faith alone. What if someone believes Jesus only died for one lie they told as a child, and believe that for the rest of their life they are earning salvation by being perfect? That's stealing from God's glory. Secondly, many catholics believe works do save, because when you ask them why they will go to heaven they will say its because of their works. The Bible says if you don't believe salvation is a gift then you are making God a liar. Matthew 7:21-23 talks about people who call Jesus lord (so they are Christians) but say that their works play a part in their being saved. Then Jesus rejects them.
@@edbotikx I’m curious to hear your thought on these passages James 2:21-24 NASB [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? [22] You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; [23] and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Galatians 5:4-6 NASB [4] You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. [5] For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. [6] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
@@christhayer5034 James 2 is about justification before man. James talks about showing faith by works, but he doesn't deny they have faith without works. And nowhere does James 2 say faith without works doesn't save the person. Inb4 you take verse 14 out of context
@@edbotikx the passage seems pretty clear faith without works is dead. This wasn’t even a topic of discussion or debate until the reformation because of the issues in RCC. You are trying to reason your theology in the text specifically sola fide. It’s suffice to say we are justified by faith but it’s a living faith. A faith that produces works so therefore it’s faith working through love. Resulting in the reality of faith plus works. The works do not save in themselves it has to be United with faith for we are created in Christ Jesus for good works. The only passage in the Bible that mentions sola fide says “James 2:24 NASB [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Therefore sola fide is a misleading and contradicts the Bible. Again the passage prior regarding faith. James 2:19-22 NASB [19] You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. [20] But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? [22] You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; Faith produces something real and tangible that is to say works. Salvation is 3 fold. Past, present and future. Blessings. Ultimately we aren’t saved until we are saved. Which translates to hope, perseverance, taking up or cross, loving God and our neighbor, working out our salvation with fear and trembling, abiding in Christ and He in us. Knowing that nothing can separate us from the love of God so long as we cling to Him for our hope and strength.
If anything was not catholic, it wouldn't have gone into the bible. The bible was catholic, is catholic and will be catholic and the gates of hell will not prevail against its catholicity. Sola fide as a doctrine is not Luther's genius. From Pope Clement I to St Bernard of Clairvaux the doctrine had been expounded along the early church's understanding of grace, Christ's redemptive work, and our own continual cooperation with redemptive grace through Christ. The centrality of testimony through works of love, of charity is the criterion of our response to Christ's redemptive work, just as believe in Christ through grace is our response to faith in Him. It is freely given in His cross, it must be freely received in our own crosses. Luther's doctrine, if unqualified (which stands as an all or nothing principle), is biblically untenable. Faith without works is dead.
I don't understand why Protestants believe in the Bible at all, since the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in 382. They love the Council of Rome but not the Council of Trent! What's up with that?
I am sure that the Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian and all of the other ancient churches that predate the Church of Rome would be bemused by your opinion. The canon was fixed in the 5th Century before the Roman church emerged in its final form. I notice that you use catholic with a small c which negates your argument. Catholic with a small c means universal and has nothing to do with Rome. The Bible is indeed God's gift to the whole church. Also don't forget that the church at the time of Luther was rotten to the core. It was more interested in serving its own position of power and wealth rather than being true to its call to a ministry of service. As most people could not read or understand Latin then the church was able interpret scripture in a way that met its own ends. People were denied access to the sacraments and the church dictated who was worthy of heaven by the way they obeyed the rules. The church used fear of going to hell as a way of generating income. Indulgence selling to rebuild St Peters was the spark that triggered the reformation. Justification by faith as expounded by Luther was a major challenge to the churches position of wealth and power. If people found that all they needed to be saved was to believe that Jesus died for you and that you are saved through faith in his promises then was need for the church as a way of dictating your salvation.
@@x8lover I gave you the thumbs up because in so many ways I agree with what you have said. JP II recognised the ancient church in its original constitution, seeking brotherhood through ecumenism. 'Roman' signified nothing more than a synonym for the Church of the West. You have divided our spiritual communion as christians by reasoning on the ground of a lack of formal communion. No church today that originated from apostolic tradition denies the Roman Catholic Church's origin, nor Rome of the others, not from the day of Pentecost, c. AD 30s. The Church founded in the name of Our Lord miraculously grew out of persecution. Rapid growth meant one thing, the difficulty of communication. Heresies, many of gnostic and pagan origins, adulterated the Word. The need to identify the true communion was real. In Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Smyrnaeans c. AD 110, the Catholic Church, was officially recognised. For another 1000 years, there were no christians other than catholics. I have no quarrel with your assertions of corruption and Luther's protest. I regret that it persists even today. What I cannot accept is your apparent belief that Luther was without guilt. Luther was a catholic monk in the Augustinian tradition. He wrote and circulated 95 theses in good faith. Whether he nailed 95 theses to the door at Wittenberg remains a question. There are historical allusions to the fact that he was not even in Wittenberg that fateful day. And right until his dying moments, Luther never once mentioned, not even an intimation to his closest associates, that historic moment of the Reformation. It would have been in the disposition of anyone else to do so. Towards the end of his life, Luther would express disappointment and regret. Why then, allow a lie to persist? Luther had no political muscle to defy Rome. The german princes, bent on denying the ecclesial authority, had no legitimacy. Fearing for his life, the need for collaboration was imminent. Hence, Luther allowed himself to be manipulated by the princes, against the church, which he had a vested interest to protect as a man of the cloth. Throughout Europe, churches were pillaged, plundered and desecrated. Important manuscripts, christian art and relics were destroyed, culminating in the sacking of Rome. Yet, most of the princes who converted to Lutheranism remained secular humanists. One man remained true to Luther, his protector, Frederick the Wise, who supported the Reformation cause without denying the Church. Frederick died a catholic. The fruits of the Reformation are open for us to judge. Brother in faith against brother in faith. How we have erased our common identity, if not on account of faith, hope and charity, at least in obedience to Christ's commandment to love one another. As for the doctrines established at the foot of the Cross, let us trace our theology to our common destiny of resurrection. Catholic theology is open to all.
@@wenshan9101 Can I suggest that you have a look at Bart Ehrman's book 'lost Christianities'' that will open your eyes to the fact that early church history was not that simple. There was as many different strands of Christianity in antiquity as there are now. There was not one church and a whole bunch of heresies. What we have now was the proto orthodox movement that was better organised and gained imperial patronage. Ignatius was a leading theologian in that movement. At the council of Nicaea the Marcionists were a strong voice and if they had won the argument our central doctrines would be very different. We would have a creed that confessed faith in two gods as Marcion believed that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New. Marcion devised the first canon but rejected the whole of the Old Testament sticking with the Gospel of Luke and some of Paul's epistles. Then there was the Ebonites who were basically Jewish Christians and if they had won the battle for supremacy we would all be Jewish. Early church history is marked by winners and losers with all of the losers being labelled as heretical. We then had the many quarrels between Rome and Constantinople about supremacy that eventually lead to the great schism. In the west what was to be the Catholic church came about because it was the only institution to survive the collapse of the empire. We still have a common identity in as far as we all believe in the same doctrines and have scripture at the heart of our faith. Unfortunately Rome has for centuries refused to recognise other traditions as being part of the body of Christ. In the 19th Century Rome soured any relations it may have had with the Anglian church as it declared that its ordinations were null and void and so were its celebrations of the sacraments. This is still Rome's position although relations between the two became warmer over the past 100 years. Because I am not a Catholic official I am still excluded from table fellowship in a Catholic church even though it is Jesus who is the host and invites all to come and partake. Its my hope that one day tradition and practice will not be a barrier to all Christians partaking in table fellowship in any church. But I will never see it as Rome's position is too entrenched.
Beautifully explained! The Blood of the Lamb covers all of our sins (including theological ones), and still we need to keep asking Him for proper understanding with full confidence.
Dr Jordan B Cooper, Trent anathemized "justification by faith alone". The Catholic Church condemns pelagianism (work based salvation) and semi pelagianism (faith + works salvation). The doctrine of justification by faith is from Paul. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is from Luther. Please , notice Luther added a word to Paul. Protestants usually think we have two choices: faith alone or faith plus works ( "read Eph. 2:8-9 and decide"). The Catholic Church teaches we receive the free gift of charity for salvation (Eph 2:5). Then, Christian faith was NEVER alone. The Christian faith is nothing without the gift of love (1 Cor. 13:2). Please, don't say again " Trent anathemized justification by faith", that is not true. Trent anathemized justification by faith ALONE ( before or apart the love of God). That is quite different.
@Asaph Vapor , you conflate the Catholic Church and the local church of Rome. You conflate sins with doctrines, works an "good works" That speech indulges in wholy trivial, vague and directly nonsensical notions about Catholic faith. It is a shame such a storm of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and caricatures. Catholics are totally aware of the perfect work of Jesus, but we do not ignore we were justified by his resurrection: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Gal. 2:20. Protestant usually think Catholics are trying to prove salvation by "works". That's the root of Protestantism error. Protestants should realize Luther ignored what the Church officially taught: ""It is quite possible that Martin Luther may have confused one theological opinion with the official teaching of the Church and initiated his program of reform on the basis of this misunderstanding" Protestant Oxford professor Alister McGrath.
@Asaph Vapor , good point. Pelagianism and semi pelagianism should be rejected. The Bible says that, before the grace of God saves us, we are “dead” in our sins (Ephesians 2:1. Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism are unscriptural and should be rejected. Now, the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is what grace is and what grace does. What it is and what it does. That is the key. The Protestant misunderstanding of justification lies in its claim that justification is merely a legal declaration by God that the sinner is now “justified.” If you “accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,” he declares you justified, though he doesn’t really make you justified or sanctified; your soul is in the same state as it was before, but you’re eligible for heaven. A person is expected thereafter to undergo sanctification (don’t make the mistake of thinking Protestants say sanctification is unimportant), but the degree of sanctification achieved is, ultimately, immaterial to the question of whether you’ll get to heaven. You will, since you’re justified; and justification as a purely legal declaration is what counts. Unfortunately, this amounts to God telling an untruth by saying the sinner has been justified, while all along he knows that the sinner is only covered under the “cloak” of Christ’s righteousness. But, what God declares, he does. “[S]o shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Is. 55:11). So, when God declares you justified, he makes you justified. Any justification that is not woven together with sanctification is no justification at all. Paul indicates that there is a real transformation that occurs in justification. This is seen, for example, in Romans 6:7, which every standard translation-Protestant ones included-renders as “For he who has died is freed from sin”. in Paul’s mind, justification involves a real, experiential freeing from sin, not just a change of legal status. And it shows that, the way he uses terms, there is not the rigid wall between justification and sanctification that Protestants imagine. According to Scripture, sanctification and justification aren’t just one-time events, but are ongoing processes in the life of the believer. As the author of Hebrews notes: “For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). In regard to justification also being an ongoing process, compare Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6 with both Hebrews 11:8; Genesis 12:1-4 and James 2:21-23; Genesis 22:1-18. In these passages, Abraham’s justification is advanced on three separate occasions. Paul is obviously speaking about being freed from sin in an experiential sense, for this is the passage where he is at pains to stress the fact that we have made a decisive break with sin that must be reflected in our behavior: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (Rom. 6:1-2). “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness” (Rom. 6:12-13).
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." -James 2:24 "...the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." -Revelation 20:12
James 2:17-26 KJV Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Abraham believed by faith, and it was credited to him as righteousness. I don't think Paul means that the patriarchs foresaw every aspect of Christian doctrine that can be known after Christ. So yes, I would think the bible teaches you can have faith in God and be saved by faith while being mistaken or at least not haven fully realized certain points of doctrine.
Thank you, Dr. Peterson. Always thoughtful, balanced and conciliatory. Enjoying your explanatory videos greatly...and blessed by them. On an interesting and compelling side-note...recent scholarship on Pelagius has cast serious doubt on his supposed soteriological positions and the beliefs he held. I am not one who kneels at the desk of Augustine even though I highly respect another struggling brother trying to make sense of it all. See Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism. Be open to having much of the Augustine vs. Pelagius battle disintegrate. Respectfully, brother.
Catholics don't trust in works, Christ requires works. Work Righteousness was declared a heresy in 418 Council of Carthage - see Pelagianism. St. Paul's definition of "works" referred both to circumcision and the boundary set of Jewish laws surrounding the laws God gave Moses. See Tim Staples article titled: "Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation?"
@Asaph Vapor , we should not conflate the LAW of God (Torah) written on paper or stone (Gal. 3:17) and the law of God (charity, a gift) written in our hearts. As you have heard from the beginning. "What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise." "And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.." 2John 6
@1517 "Good works "(God alone is good) are a gift of God ( Eph 2:10) The Catholic Church teaches that every "good work" has as its origination the grace of God. Every "good" (God alone is good) thing we have and do comes to us as a gift from God. Without the Lord we can do nothing (1 Cor. 4:7) "If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[a] but do not have LOVE, I gain nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2 Its not our work its the LOVE of God. According to Paul Faith ALONE (before or apart the LOVE of God) is not even a Christian faith. Martin Luther clearly misunderstood Paul: " And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2 "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." 1 Cor. 6:22. God bless you always
Faith that leads to good works. Like Abraham faith and still he did what God ask him to do. He went walk in miles and followed what God said and he went to sacrifice his son. If you do not have faith it will be by Gods grace like the guy in the cross with Jesus. He said to barabas that Jesus was there and he is innocent. And Jestas admitted that he did a crime that is why he is being crucified and ask the Lord do not forget him when Jesus will be in his kingdom and Jesus answered today you will be with me in paradise. Jestas did not have faith. He did not have good works. He was convicted for what he did. And yet he was save by Gods grace.
"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." 1 Cor. 13:2; "Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, [a]goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." Rom. 11:22
Yeah I could never get 2 different Protestant groups to agree on this teaching. As a Catholic I gave up on trying to decipher all the different views on Justification. I’ve met people that believed you needed to speak in tongues to be saved. That you could never lose salvation. That if you had faith and left it you never really had it. You are right that Trent doesn’t agree with Lutheranism but neither do 99% of other Protestants. Baptism, Eucharist, Salvation etc. I would assume every Protestant could condemn every other Protestant group to hell under the rubric that Rome is. I’m glad you don’t condemn Catholics to Hell. I think like you said. It would require you to condemn all others. Good video.
Saving faith is about an individuals heart before God, not group identification. I’m Protestant, but I know Catholics who I think are probably saved and Protestants who probably aren’t.
One more thing: to know what the Catholic Church believes one must go to the official documents, and not ask the first Catholic that one finds. Because not all Catholics have a good learning about their own faith, as happens also with the believers of the other confessions, that not all of them have a good knowledge of what their confession believes.
I am protestant searching for truth and I wanted to know do Lutherans read the books that were taken out of the original bible? I couldnt help but see something in Hebrews 11:35 a reference I am not familiar with and when I search it up it talked about 2 maccabees a book I dont have in my bible
Most Lutheran laypeople never read the Apocryphal/Deutero-canonical/Inter-testamental books. Seminary students do. They're referenced a lot in our declarations of faith. My Lutheran denomination publishes them as a separate companion volume from the books of the two Testaments.
@@Mygoalwogel I want to try to attend a Lutheran Church. I've gone to RCC Mass 3 times and have catholic friends but I just dont know where to start. What i like about Lutheran is that they believe in the body and blood of Christ in communion something i am still learning about. I am torn to say the least
@@dianaperez6369 You can use this tool to find the closest LCMS church to you. locator.lcms.org/dashboard The trouble is there may not be one reasonably near. Depending on what state you live in, you could try ELDONA, AALC or WELS. If you're not very conservative, you could try LCMC. If none of these are nearby, you could continue attending where you currently are, and supplement with thewordendures.org podcast, Lutheran Public Radio (online) or Pirate Christian Radio (online). I've had times where I'd go to communion only once a month because of distance. God bless your soul's seeking!
@@Mygoalwogel More Gnosticism. A reread of Paul’s first letter to the folks in Corinth talking about love and man’s incomplete understanding might be good for all faith communities to reflect on.
John 10:14-15 “ I am the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father. And I lay down My life for the sheep.…”. There are of course some Roman Catholics who have put their trust in Christ alone for their salvation. The sad thing is that there is too many Roman Catholics who trust in Mary. I would simply tell them that Mary is not omniscient (as Christ is) thus she nor any other saint in heaven can HEAR THEIR PRAYERS. Pray to the Persons of the Trinity. Mary right now is wrapped up in the love of Christ her savior. We should be likewise obsessed with Christ!
Catholics do believe Christ alone, Christ is our HEAD, and Christ has members. Our brothers and sisters are alive in Christ. Christ loves we love each other, He loves we pray for each other. Mary right now is wrapped up in the love of Christ her Savior, we are all wrapped up in the love of Christ our Savior. Faith and hope are over once we die, love is eternal. "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?". We can talk to each other by internet, God is much more powerful than internet, don't you think so? " He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err." Mk12:27
@Asaph Vapor , Chirst was never alone (the Father and the Holy Spirit were with Him) Christ is not alone, once He was incarnated Head and body are together. Does "Christ alone" mean a beheaded Christ? A Christ without body is a "Christ alone" according to Protestantism? Catholics agree Mary needed a saviour, it is written Mary declared God to be her saviour: "To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy". Jude 24 Protestants seem to ignore God is able to put enmity between the devil and the WOMAN. (Gen 3:15) You say: "Mary needed a sin offering. She was a sinner" Mary did a sin offering to "redeem" her firstborn. For the same reason Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent. Mary fulfilled the Law. According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them. The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn’t written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.
Asaph Vapor's SOLA(private interpretation of) Scripture. "Christ alone" means Asaph Vapor needs his Bible alone's interpretations. Does Asaph Vapor, as a good protestant, think Jesus + Asaph Vapor is "the church"? . The Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15). That is a good solution to evade the authority of the Church, Me and Jesus are the Church, then my interpretations are the pillar and ground of truth.
For us Catholics, our good works are gifts from the grace of God. Human merit is because of salvation. Everything comes from God. The grace of God can make our good works meritory, as can also renew us and make us new creatures.
I am LCMS, and have to draw you attention to Ephesians 2. V. 8-9. Jesus took all of mankind’s sins upon him once. When we die, our eternal destiny is decided. I find the doctrine of purgatory absolutely contrary to the gospel. In the Catholic Church during Eucharist, the priest calls Jesus down from the right hand the father to die all over again. When you attend mass your sins are forgiven but not the sins that occur between then and the Mass. so Jesus, always dying, remains on the cross. When a Catholic dies, they often die with fear. After all even saints go to purgatory. The living must pay to have masses said to shorten the suffering if those in purgatory. Nothing unclean can enter heaven. According to the RC church, the average stay in purgatory is @2000 years. I have a Catholic neighbor who does not respect my faith and even had a priest call me. My mother just died and her husband died and she is terrified that her husband and loved one who have gone before him are burning in purgatory. This is not good news. This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Is the phrase "a person is justified by faith ALONE" anywhere in the Bible? Martin Luther added the word ALONE (ALLEIN) in his German translation of Romans 3:28. I checked numerous translations of this verse including the NRSV and ESV which Lutherans on the internet said were in usage by their churches/synods and that word ALONE is not there. The ESV translation reads: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." However, Luther was adamant and insisted: "If your papist worries you about the word 'alone', just tell him plainly that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says 'papist and donkey are one and the same thing'; sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas [translated from Latin this phrase is 'thus I wish, thus I order, my will stands in place of reason']. For we must not be the pupils or disciples of the papists, but on the contrary their masters and judges. We ought to hammer and swagger on their donkey-heads, and as Paul challenged the sanctimonious fools of his day, so I will challenge these donkeys of mine." (The Reformation in England by Philip Hughes, Volume 1, page 19, London 1950) In addition, Luther also stated regarding Romans 3:28: "I am sorry now that I did not add the word 'all' so that it would read 'without all works of all laws', and thus ring out loudly and completely. However, it shall stand as it is in my New Testament, and though all the Papist-donkeys go mad about it, they shall not move me from this." (Martin Luther by A. Hilliard Atteridge, pp.19-20, London 1940).
Thanks Dr. Cooper! I am not a Lutheran or Roman Catholic. I was raised in a Pentecostal church which I left over disagreement over the central doctrine of tongues as "the only" initial evidence of Spirit baptism, though I believe in tongues, but not in the modern practice you typically see. Galatians and Romans are my two favorite books due to the centrality of theological importance, and I am a near "perfect" Calvinist at this point :) But I think you really nailed every point extremely well, applying grace at every opportunity WITHOUT assenting to error and heresy and wandering into ecumenicism. This may be the best balance I have ever heard on the topic "Who is my brother?" that I ever heard. Great job! I know we disagree on some things, but not the most important central things.
@@petertrast Do you agree with Calvin that God wills that the majority of humanity is born "doomed from the womb"? That God literally hates people before they're born? He created them for the sole purpose of being firewood?
Can you make a video that focuses on if prayer to Mary and the Saints and Angels can cause a Catholic to not be saved? This is the central issue to me. I don't know if you can go to heaven if you worship Mary. I know a lot of Catholics say they don't worship Mary though. But they call her things like Advocate and Life and Hope and they say a prayer to entrust their eternal soul in Mary's hands. I definitely think they could have a misunderstanding of Justification as long as they truly believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is Lord. I just don't know about what looks like Mary worship
If we are justified through faith alone, then why should I attend church, participate in the Sacraments, and avoid sin altogether? Aren't I saved if I just believe in God and Jesus's sacrifice on the cross?
Kingfish179 if you have truly repented of your sins and have trusted in Christ alone, then as someone with a new heart you would hate sin in your own life, enjoy fellowship with believers, and participate in the sacraments. Even further, you would also love the unbeliever and share the Gospel with them. Haven’t you read this portion in Ephesians 2:8-9? “8 For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.…”
A person who has truly repented of his sin and exercise faith in Christ will give evidence of a changed life.Faith in Christ always results in good works.Works are not the cause of salvation.Works are the evidence of salvation.
the way I look at Christianity/Christendom, the non-Lutherans (Evangelicals, EasternOrthodox, RomanCatholics) are our brothers and sisters because of Christ - "being in Christ," "belonging to Christ," "baptized into Christ". But based on their confessions, they are NOT our brothers and sisters because they teach or preach a different Gospel or different Christ. Evangelicals (or American Protestants) confess a different Christ ... who is not present thru the Means of Grace and whose Word is not efficacious (to forgive sins thru the Pastoral Office, Holy Baptism, or Holy Communion). This is a major denial of Pure Doctrine. Also, Evangelicals are notorious for mixing, comingling and confusing Law&Gospel, transforming the freeing Gospel of our Lord into a subjugating Law and making the Law sound like it is some sort of twisted 'good news.' IN THE END, our different confessions show us not to be united, but, our Lord unites us. All Christians who are "baptized into Christ", who "are in Christ" and who "belong to Christ" ... are one, and are brothers & sisters with one another, thru the power of the Holy Spirit. But in this real and sin-filled life, our divisions are very real and also very sad.
After 8 years since the publication of the video, I have two questions: Does the Roman Catholic Church recognize the Lutheran theology of justification by faith? and consequently recognize the confessional Lutheran churches as true and valid churches and as brothers in Christ? Is Martin Luther still excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church?
What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose? How shall we answer him? Each of you (says he) asserts, ' I speak the truth.' (b) No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule. (a) But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then (c)if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and you interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)? And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment? And how should I be able (to decide), says he, I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to become a learner, and you are making me immediately a teacher. If he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretence and subterfuge. Let us ask whether he has decided (κατέγνωκε) against the heathen (that they are wrong). The fact he will assuredly affirm, for of course, if he had not so decided, he would not have come to (enquire about) our matters: let us ask the grounds on which he has decided, for to be sure he has not settled the matter out of hand. Clearly he will say, Because (their gods) are creatures, and are not the uncreated God. Good. If then he find this in the other parties (αἰρέσεις), but among us the contrary, what argument need we? We all confess that Christ is God. But let us see who fight (against this truth), and who not. Now we, affirming Him to be God speak of Him things worthy of God, that He has power, that He is not a slave, that He is free, that He does of Himself: whereas the other says the reverse. Again I ask: if you would learn (to be) a physician, * * *? And yet among them are many (different) doctrines. For if you accept without more ado just what you are told, this is not acting like a man: but if you have judgment and sense, you shall assuredly know what is good.
I will grant that some Catholics are saved in spite of official doctrine, but this video misreads Galatians. The logic of Galatians is that when you add works to grace, you destroy grace. You can't be justified. Because the demand of the law is perfection. Also, Paul called the Judaizers "false brethren". Not, "maybe you guys are somewhat confused."
You do get that in both Romans and Galatians, the inspired author does NOT say "good works" but instead "works/works of law (Torah)". The heresy is such because the ceremonial law of the Jews looked forward to Jesus' coming, and thus to practice it again is by action to deny that Jesus has come. In Romans 2, we see that St. Paul is talking of "good works" and says that this IS how God will judge those in Him and outside of Him. We say that grace is the gift of God, completely unmerited by us, but we need to respond to that grace - to say "yes", if you will. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to have faith to make an act of faith to begin with.
//You do get that in both Romans and Galatians, the inspired author does NOT say "good works" but instead "works/works of law (Torah)". // The Torah contains all of the moral law. All good works are contained in the Torah. //The heresy is such because the ceremonial law of the Jews looked forward to Jesus' coming, and thus to practice it again is by action to deny that Jesus has come.// This isn't Paul's critique of why adding Torah observance doesn't justify. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”- 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. Paul's argument is not that ceremonial law is looking backwards, besides your incorrect limiting of "works of the law" to ceremonial works. Paul's argument is that they can't justify because we can't do them perfectly. The verse he quotes from Deuteronomy is all moral law commandments btw. //In Romans 2, we see that St. Paul is talking of "good works" and says that this IS how God will judge those in Him and outside of Him.// We need to keep reading and not stopping in Romans 2. We have the conclusion of how both Jew and Gentile will be judged according to this standard in Romans 3: For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. Romans 2 is the standard. No one will be justified according to that standard. //We say that grace is the gift of God, completely unmerited by us, but we need to respond to that grace - to say "yes", if you will. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to have faith to make an act of faith to begin with.// When you add anything to grace you've destroyed grace. 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 a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. A purpose of excluding works (and a reason why faith is a gift) is to remove the grounds for boasting. Your "but we need to respond to grace" destroys the very reason the apostle Paul tells us we are saved apart from works. Why does person A respond to grace and person B does not? It has to logically have something to do with person A, giving person A grounds for boasting. Thus, your system should be rejected out of hand.
@@geoffrobinson I hope you get this reply because I like what you wrote. I am a 67 year-old Catholic who believes - as far as I can tell - much as you do. I accept what Paul says in Ephesians 2. The main reason I am writing to you is I have read a lot - a lot!!! - about the Law and Faith. Yet I think the weight of my Catholicism prevents me from fully understanding or accepting by faith that Jesus' atonement/death on the Cross is a particularly incredible event that sets sinners free from judgment. Maybe I am not stating it correctly; however, I think you came as close as anyone I have read to explaining why works might destroy grace. I have read some tremendous theologians on the topic. IMO, Galatians and Romans are the best Biblical writings about The Law and Grace, but still there remains things that are still cloudy. Would you mind expounding some more? It would be greatly appreciated. I know that understanding is not the same as Grace, but it sure cannot hurt understanding what God did in Jesus Christ.
@@ronaldkulas5748 //but still there remains things that are still cloudy// If you want to email me for a deeper conversation: operationstcyprian AT gmail dot com So just a quick summary unless you have a specific question. Paul contrasts wages and gifts. A wage is something you get based on your efforts. Gifts come with no strings attached. Grace isn't a power source or an enablement per se. It's unmerited favor. It's God doing something for you that you don't deserve. Now, Paul has two arguments I want to highlight. In Galatians, Paul is making the argument that if you want to be declared righteous (that's what "justify" means) before God with works added, they have to be perfect. And they can't be perfect this side of heaven. So if you want to go that route, you're going to be condemned. Bringing your works before God as the basis for being declared righteous is an extremely horrible idea because God demands perfection and we are far, far from perfect. We need to understand how holy God is and how deeply offensive our sin is. The other argument Paul makes is that God wanted to exclude boasting. This means the possibility of boasting. That's why works are excluded and why justification (again, being declared righteous) is by faith. "For by grace you have been saved by God, and this is not your doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works so that no man should boast." If I'm over here working real hard and believing in my own power I have a reason to boast over someone who doesn't. If salvation is a gift from beginning to end, no basis for boasting. Now, what did Jesus do on the cross? He took the punishment your sins richly deserved. Trust in that to be saved. What did the Israelites need to do to be saved from the poisonous snakes. Just look at the bronze serpent and be saved. That's it. Jesus said He had to be lifted up like the Bronze Serpent. Email me if you wish to chat.
+Jordan Cooper -- 6:02 I'm not aware of Fr. Joseph A. Fitzmyer having written a commentary on the letter to the Galatians. Unless you were referring to some book in which he mentioned Luther and Galatians, can it be you instead meant to say his Romans commentary in the 'Anchor Bible' series?
Pretty good talk. You are correct on many levels. Some key books in my improved understanding of Catholicism were books such as McGrath's "Iustitia Dei" (3rd Ed.), David Aune's "Reading Paul Together," and Bruce McCormack's "Justification in Perspective." It has also been helpful to realize that Catholics read the same gospels and epistles which we do, and believe them. That including all the verses I used to quote regarding salvation by grace through faith, as accusations against them (to which Catholics say, "Yes!" unless they are poorly catechized, and/or don't read their Bibles. It is difficult to run against Rome, when the early church fathers, and their successors for centuries followed in their steps. One can either join the heretics who imagine the whole of Christendom fell away (Torrence claimed he found nothing of Grace in the early fathers), only to be restored in the Reformation. Or the myth of a red thread of secret protestant-like believers down through the centuries until then. Luther, himself, might be counted as a heretic, adding "alone" to the scriptures, and inventing his own Canon (he still had doubts about the Book of Revelation when he died). Moreover, his fluctuating spiritual insights (say with the peasant wars) seemed to flow from great vain certainty of his own interpretation, and how it played into his strong socio-political influence. His seeking acceptance from the East (the Orthodox Churches) belies his objective (or subjective?) need for a doctrinal and ecclesiastical lineage that could be traced back to the early church. It is still sought by some Lutheran and Reformed people / groups, today. But the East still holds them at bay. Discussion yield mutual understanding, but no reconciliation on differing points.
I'm not sure why people speak of the church fathers as if they were monolithic on every issue. As a Confessional Lutheran, I agree with myriad of things many of them said, and disagree with some things as well.
Eastern Orthodox Church throws anathema on all those who teach Filioque and Iconoclastic related heresies. That covers all Latins and most of the Protestants.
Sadly I have to disagree. I say sadly because I'd be rejoicing if I could say catholics are going to heaven. But sadly Scripture, conscience, and reason withhold me from such audacity...
Well said brother, there is no true confession of faith in Christ, but faith in their own works. Certainly, it is possible that God will save catholics, or even unbelievers or muslims for that matter, but scripture states that to him that trusts in God who justifies the ungodly his faith is counted as righteousness. I am not aware of a roman catholic that would teach that God justifies the ungodly, by faith alone, because of it I would not give roman catholics a pass. God certainly can do that, but he has not revealed in his word a way of salvation, other than through faith in Christ so it would be wrong for me to say that roman catholics are christian brothers. With that said, it is possible that they will go to heaven, it is God that would judge those outside the christian church, and in my view most roman catholics are outside the christian church.
@Dominus Vobiscum I have to say my position has become much milder since then. However there are many catholics who aren't saved cause they trust in Mary or their works instead of Jesus, just as there are many Protestants who aren't saved because they trust the sinner's prayer or something of that kind instead of Jesus
James 2:26 faith apart from works is dead. also Galatians 5:6 John 14:15 and it's pretty much all around the Bible especially the book of James, which is not apocrypha right? protestant brothers and sisters, catholic just means universal as Christ made the church to unite and remember that he also says not to judge and names the abuser as who? today's bible lesson is free, you just have to read the whole thing.
Trent is Catholic dogma. "SOLA fides" is Protestant dogma. The only passage in the N.T. that contains the phrase "faith alone" (greek, pisteos monom) is James 2:24. Pope Benedict XVI said: "Luther's phrase faith alone is true IF it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love". Faith in love is not what Luther taught. The fact that sin (faith without love) has consequences, eternal consequences, according to the Bible, is a problem with Protestantism. Protestants should know Martin Luther ignored what the catholic Church officially taught: ""It is quite possible that Martin Luther may have confused one theological opinion with the official teaching of the Church and initiated his program of reform on the basis of this misunderstanding" Protestant Oxford professor Alister McGrath.
@@Alfredo8059 James 2:24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. When you quote James 2:24, i think you forgot the word "not" 😁
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." "and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." 1 Cor. 13:2 "If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be [a]accursed. O[b] Lord, come!" 1 Cor. 16:22 Neither James nor Paul ever tauught "faith alone" as Luther constructed.
Yes, Trent is dogma. Christian faith is never alone. Love is inseparable from faith. Luther was wrong ( 1 Cor. 13:2). The Protestant dogma was not infallible.
Thanks very much! Just became a subscriber of yours. For years I've believed that Catholic and Orthodox CAN be saved eternally. Trust and faith in the Holy Trinity alone, as revealed in accurately translated scripture, in one's heart language is essential.
I was born and Baptized a Catholic.. I went to both Catholic Grade School and Catholic High School And spend a seminar in a Catholic University.I trained to become a CCD teacher ( Like the teacher who taught the Catechism) . I went to church every day for years and years. I received the Lords Supper daily too. I went to bible study once or twice a week and Confession once a month. till i started weekly and for a time i went daily or every other. day. I never thought of any of that as Good Works. When i was excommunicated because i felt John Paul ll was wrong and publicly stated that ; i went to many different Churches. When i found something unbiblical i would leave and try another Church. Five years latter i went to a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and talking with the pastor was the first time i ever learned that the Catholic Church taught that salvation needed works. I always believed that Salvation was through the work of Jesus and that i was a poor miserable sinner .When asked by a Baptist once if i was saved ? My reply was only if Jesus was in a very forgiving mood the day i showed up. I was fully aware i could not earn my way to heaven. and that it was what Jesus did and it was a free gift to me. Most Catholics do not know what the council of Trent was and I had heard of it but never know what it said . I know now that the Catholic church teaches different but most Catholics avoid sin, fear sin , try to love their neighbors as themselves, and rely on Jesus not on works.
I disagree, I have never met a catholic that does not rely on his own works for salvation or that does not believe that people that go to heaven have merited it by their works. The catholic church is not even sure if the Pope is going to heaven, before they canonize a Pope they are looking for miracles or good works the Pope did otherwise there is no assurance of salvation. Sorry, but hardly any Catholic has trusted in Christ for salvation, and this is why if you ask a Catholic if they are going to heaven or not, not a single one would tell you that they are going to heaven because they have been cleansed from all sin by the blood of Christ. You must be the exception, since you say you always relied 100 % on Christ and 0 % on your own works to know for sure that you are saved.
@@billk8874 As a former Protestant who became Catholic, I recognize what you're saying about Catholicism as the same deeply mistaken view I once had. Please remember that you have been raised inside a religious culture that sees itself as embracing the gospel in opposition to Catholicism. That's who you are "protesting" against. It's part of your inherited identity to see Catholics as embracing "works righteousness." But that doesn't mean it's the truth. And, in fact, if anything, in my 20 years in the Catholic Church (after 40 as a Protestant), I've found it if anything more centered on God's unmerited Grace than any Evangelical Protestant group I was ever a part of.
@@gordonsavage Well, I was not raised protestant or evangelical. Regardless, I am speaking from direct conversations I have had with catholics. They certainly use the right words, like Christ, and some would even tell you that in Calvary Christ shed his bled for the forgiveness of sins. Yet, still none of these people believes Christ has saved them from their sin, otherwise they would not hesitate to say I know I am going to heaven with 100 % certainty and assurance because Christ took away my sin at Calvary. They simply are unable to confess the death of Christ as their sole cause of their own salvation, and because of it they do not know about their salvation, they are unaware of God's unconditional love for them. Everything is conditional on their behavior for catholics. They start by saying that at baptism original sin is taken away, but not all the sins that come after baptism, for which you need the sacrament of penance to take them away (which is a human work), and it goes south from there. Paul in Romans 6 says at baptism we died with Christ and we rose again with Him, we died to sin, we've been cleansed by Jesus. Catholics do not look at Jesus (although they say they do), they look at themselves all the time, whether they are obedient enough, whether they confessed enough, whether they did enough penance, whether they took the extreme unction before dying. It is insanity, the thief on the cross did nothing, looked and Jesus in faith and was told tonight you will be in paradise. There is nothing we can say, think, or do that can save us, Christ has done it all, but catholics do not believe it and because their salvation depends on themselves instead of Christ they have no assurance, no certainty of their salvation.
@@billk8874 Your words sadden me more than anything else. Clearly, you don't know anything about Catholic theology, nor the joy most Catholics experience basking in God's Grace, but you do know your own insular opinions, which is clearly all you think you need in this life. Good luck with that.
@@gordonsavage I love catholics, I talk to them all the time but it is clear to me that they do not know the love of God. They have an intellectual knowledge, but they lack trust in the promises of the gospel for themselves.
I would have to particularly have to disagree with you on the Catholic view of Salvation. So Roman Catholics believe that salvation can be broken into two parts. Part 1 is event in which you either except Christ for the first time or re except Christ again. This is the piece that we believe is 1000% necessary to enter into the kingdom of heaven. The problem is that protestants have is with what happens after that. This is where works comes in. We believe there is a more perfect form of salvation in which we participate in Good Works and the Sacraments So that we may become more Christ like THROUGH THE GRACE OF GOD. I want to make clear that Catholics are not trying to merit their own salvation. Rather when we say +Works we are really saying +Trying to be more like Christ. It is only through the Grace of God that we will ever achieve this more perfect form because it requires God to convict us. So in short Protestants believe that what we consider the continuation of our salvation to the ends of obtaining a more perfected salvation is really the evidence of our salvation.
This is similar to the Protestant view of salvation but it needs qualifiers to see where we differ. We see salvation in 3 tenses. 1st) Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone. In justification we receive the imputed righteousness of Christ to our account. This is done outside of us NOT in us. (Rom 3:28; Rom 4:5) 2) Progressive sanctification: being conformed to the image of Christ and growing in the grace & knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.This is done IN us.(Rom 8:29; 2 peter 3:18) 3) Glorification: Upon death the completion, the consummation, the perfection, and the full realization of their salvation for those who simply believed in Jesus.( Rom 8:28-30). My question is where does purgatory fit into the Roman Catholic order of salvation?
@@InTheSpirit12 Sorry it took my a while to reply. I would suggest speaking with a priest because I'm not 100% sure how to convey this. Purgatory is a final purification for those who have died in God's grace that has been opened because of the sufficiency of Jesus's death. I'm not sure if this is adaquetly explains it but im trying my best here. I'm newer to the Catholic Faith so Im not the best apoligist
@@thomasbryant2486 but on The Cross Jesus declared, " It is finished! " ...Catholic basically calls Him a liar by saying " no its not...Purgatory is needed, Your payment on the Cross was not quite enough"...
@@wbl5649 No. We believe he paid the price for sin. He opened the way to salvation. We also believe that something in us is fundamentally broken and that is what Purgatory is. Jesus paid the price and Purgatory is a final cleansing from sin before we enter heaven.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3 Chapter 3 Article 2 sections 1-4 make what I feel are a fairly clear and concise statement on Grace and Justification. So to the extent that the Catechism is a confession of their faith I think they’re consistent. Of course Catholic doctrine can be squirrelly to pin down as there is not one authority on these matters.
The whole point of the Catholic Church is that authority is vested in apostolic succession through the see of Peter. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. How do you mean there is not one authority? Do you mean the magisterium has not pronounced on every single question from every possible perspective? They have certainly defined everything necessary for salvation, and sufficiently for faith and morals.
@@thereaction18 What I mean is that there isn't one single compendium that contains all that the Catholic church believes. There's the catechism, cannon law, apostolic constitutions, papal encyclicals, and those things contained in the scriptures and in tradition that either aren't enumerated in other places, or are enumerated in many places. For the layman or protestant, it can be tricky to figure out what Catholics believe not just for these reasons, but also the fact that there are many diverging schools of thought within the RCC.
Thanks Pastor Cooper. As a Lutheran, I agree entirely. I hope that our brothers in American Protestantism will find this video helpful, showing that those in the Roman Communion are also saved by faith alone, even if they do not confess that truth. Their doctrine of justification can be very damaging, but not in and of itself damning. Solus Christus!
+Jereme Bernier I do not consider them brothers in christ because they don't consider us a valid church. Don't accept them for they believe you are damned for not fulfilling the catholic sacraments.
+Kenny Barringer Here's the thing though... what they say about us doesn't matter, because it doesn't change it. A Christian is determined by whether or not one holds to the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union (as confessed in the 3 ecumenical creeds), we are Catholics regardless of what Rome says. BUT..... By this logic Roman Catholics TOO are Catholic regardless of what Protestants say. We're all Christian but only one of us is Orthodox (heterodoxy vs orthodoxy).
+Aaron Carlson I have since writing this comment learned different things and I apologize for sounding rude. However, there are Catholics that mis represent what the church actually believes because many don't even know what they believe in. I have been told many times however that I'm going to hell by Catholics. What say you?
+Kenny Barringer well Papal Catholicism while elitist and opinionated doesn't teach that Roman Catholics are the only Christians on the planet (just like Lutherans :) ) --- so if you came across an A-hole who told you that only papists are saved... Not only is he lying, but he's misrepresenting the teachings of his church.
Aaron Carlson Well I thank you for that. How does the Church feel about hybrids? I agree with some of the Church's doctrine such as the sacraments (though I don't believe are necessary for salvation, they are definitely biblical) but disagree with the apostolic succession (though it can be proven historically, it's hard to prove it biblicly). I am sort of a mix of protestant and catholic.
And one more: one must not let the catholic theologians post Vatican Council II make one believe that the doctrine of the Catholic Church has changed since Trent. See the Catechism made under John Paul II as an official statement. Theologians are one thing, Church dogma is another thing. And, sadly, not all catholic theologians nowadays are really catholic.
The problem with Protestant religion, is that no Christian had a bible for the first 1,500 years of Christianity that matches the 66 book Protestant cannon. So by default obviously sola Scriptura is false.
He definitely has a greater theological and biblical education than yourself he has a PHD in theology. You have created your own church and follow conspiracy theories without advanced theological and biblical education.
As a lay Reformed Baptist I wish I could sit down with you over a beer and pick your brain. Love your stuff! I’m curious what you mean by “anti-sacramentalism”. I know this video is 7 years old…have you covered this more specifically in another video?
He means that Baptistic churches - Reformed Baptists may be an exception, I don't know enough to say - reject the idea that baptism and communion are sacraments. This is true, as well, of essentially all of the nondenominational "Bible" churches.
I appreciate your sincerity and love and compassion. But as a Wesleyan I look at the catholic church and I see them very often having grace and works and they are trusting in works as much as grace. I find that very difficult to see them as Christian's
Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about the works of the law. Don't be like the Pharisee of Luke 18:10-12 , who boast about doing the works of the law. 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are: extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’" Because you are created to do good works (what Jesus commands). Ephesians 2:8-12 21st Century King James Version 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto GOOD WORKS, which God hath beforehand ordained, that we should walk in them.
@@mariasoniamoreno3433 no it isnt talking about the works of the law as Paul isnt addressing law keepers. Roman's 11v6 if it is of works even slightly it's not grace. Grace is unmerited favour. If you do something even slightly to earn it it isnt grace. Where by the way was I like that pharisee. And I seen you write a comment about seeking your faith from what the church or learned catholics say. Would you not be better going to the scriptures?
@@matthewwilliamson484 1. With Luke 18:10-12, I meant to exemplify someone boasting about his works of the law. I didn't call you a Pharisee. 2. Do you have any apprehension about the Wesleys belonging to the Anglican Church originally, given the foundation of that church? "The English church renounced papal authority when Henry VIII failed to secure an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon in 1534." 3. Please, explain the meaning of "good works" in Ephesians 2:10 . And tell me why good works are even mentioned after they have been declared totally worthless for salvation in the previous verse? Ephesians 2: "10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto GOOD WORKS, which God hath beforehand ordained, that we should walk in them." Thank you.
1:48:00 not exactly, he says "if anyone PREACHES" another gospel, not "if anyone believes" another gospel. Just a small correction for the Bible teacher.
Please can I have a protestant explain this written by Iranaeus.... Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority
Athanasius and Cyril versus Arius and Nestorius. Arianism was spread to the Germanic tribes including the Balkans including Greece. Arianism in Germany inherited by Luther a German to Hitler who spoke about arian race.
Apostles of Christ and the fathers of the church and bishops did convene and had to deliberate and decide according to the topic they had. And they argued against heresy like St Nicholas disagreeing to Arius and Bishop St Nicholas stood and slap Arius because of his heretical teachings. And Bishop of Myra St Nicholas he slapped Arius out of love to Jesus and Mary. That was the Council of Nicea attended by 300 bishops including Bishop of Myra St Nicholas. And it was convene by Emperor Constantine
Roman Catholic Canon Law states that if you miss Mass on Sunday of your own free will and don’t go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation before you die, you go to hell. This sounds like very works-based salvation.
@SAMUEL JESSE There is only one Christ - Lord Jesus Christ. He is the truth. I will not let catholics who have other sacrafice than saving one, going to hell, i will be not in disobyidence to God, to Christ who is not limited. He is not Limited, Catholics need Him too.
@SAMUEL JESSE They own church lead them to belive not, and i will be don't lying to them, only a few there are saved and they need to get out from this either. So no, false religion is not saving faith of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, they will be our brothers when they will get save out of their church.
@SAMUEL JESSE Then God Bless you - those people who are don't are brothers and sister are waiting to be as such, go then - we much preach gospel further.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV
@@FRZELION , Protestants usually ignore what happens in Eph. 2:5. Justification is not just a extrinsic legal declaration, Justification is a legal declaration and an inner transformation. Faith alone (without the love of God poured in our hearts) is not a Christian faith. Paul never taught "faith alone" before or apart the gift of charity"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor. 13:2
@@Alfredo8059 I think you are using this verse in the wrong context... Paul was talking about 'gifts' He was pointing out that without love those supernatural powers are in vain.
@@youzhen91 , you are right: without love (charity) those supernatural powers (faith alone, too) are in vain: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Mat. 7:21-23 " I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." John 15:1-6 Faith is not a Christian faith before or apart from the gift of LOVE. Paul is very clear: "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." 1 Cor. 16:22 Paul clearly contradicts Luther's theology: "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that LOVE his appearing." 2 Tim. 4:8
@Brett R anti-Catholics ignore the fact that saints are our brothers and sisters, saints are members of the Body of Christ. The members of the Body of Christ pray for each other. Our brothers and sisters are not idols. The Catholic Church teaches to worship God alone. Catholics believe the Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). The Church has always fought corruption, sin and ignorance. Read Matt 13: 24-30 and you will learn Jesus told us to expect corruption in the Church until the end of time. Every attempt to create a perfect church in this life has ended in hypocrisy or tyranny. The Bible says the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Do you think you are the pillar and ground of truth?
No. If you go to Greek-Catholic church, it is still in communion on core teaching of the Roman Catholic and accept head authority of the Pope. Only Liturgy style was kept as an orthodox.
It's important to distinguish the term "Catholic" from that of "Roman Catholic". Catholic simply means "Universal Faith" whereas Roman Catholic denotes the faith of those that follow Roman Catholic teachings. Roman Catholicism is in error biblically, because it requires adherence to certain laws of it's Canon, known as "Canon Law" for complete salvation. However, the Word of God declares that a man is not saved by the law, but solely through grace. (Galatians 2:17).
This is what Trent said: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. It’s not quite what you are saying, is it.
@Brian Knutson Jesus didn't leave us a Bible when he ascended. There was never going to be a Bible. He left us 12 men and traditions. The Bible wasn't put together until 400 years after the Ascension by that evil Catholic Church. What did the followers of Christ do for 400 years? There was no Bible mind you. They practiced offering their sacrifice, like all religions, underground and lived by the traditions of men and the apostolic succession. This is history by the way. I am not speaking from a Catholic point of view.
ryno pb Nah we have a completed bible from the 300’s boi. Jesus told the apostles that they’d be given the Holy Spirit aka the spirit of truth which we them into the fullness of truth aka the New Testament. The canon of the Bible formed from there. The Holy Spirit led the early disciples into making the New Testament.
Rome can reinterpret itself all it wants to, but until they deny Trent, retract their anathema statements, then we still have to hold them to their blasphemous statements. The key issue for me is that individuals within the RC church can often contradict one another regarding what they believe. So while I find the RC church rightly called antichrist, I don't believe that condemns every single person in their clutches.
I find it interesting that a Lutheran talks about inconsistencies….look at the splits within the Lutheran community- talk about a beam in your eye. Those “inconsistencies” in regard to Rome- has the profession of faith changed since the fillioque? Has the real presence of the Eucharist? Any of the sacraments for that matter? Pointing to different philosophical points of view with in a Church of 1.2 billion people and not speaking about the catechism and the magisterium is leaving out the very beating heart of the faith- the core if you will.
Thank you Dr. Cooper! A thoughtful and sincere take on the issue. For a while I was convinced that “bash Catholics Sunday “must appear on the Lutheran liturgical calendar.
Oh, you must be referring to All Hallows Eve, or the October Sunday closest to it....the festival of the Reformation....often was used by Lutheran preachers as a " bash Roman Catholics" occasion....
@@geordiewishart1683 Yep, I'm sure the pope did it himself. The numbers that are used for that figure include everyone who died in the 30 years war (even those murdered by protestants - - the swedish intervention bringing the highest mortality years and essentially making Bavaria a wasteland through mass murder and deprivation of the peasants) including from the plague - - which was the majority of total deaths in the 30 years war. It includes essentially false guestimates - such as hugenot persecutions. The 50 million figure comes from the guess of 2 million killed hugenots - - despite an estimated 2 million in existance at their greatest extent. Additionally, they remained 7% of the French popluation despite persecution - declining from 10%. So 2 million is imaginary. It also includes wars that have little or nothing to do with the pope - like the 100 years war. It includes arguably defensive actions - - like the Spanish reconquest (keep in mind, the muslim states never stopped attacking the Spanish, assuming the reconquest was aggressive in nature based on the Spanish winning is poor history) and the Crusades (each crusade can only be judged independantly - - but the 1st was clearly defensive in nature and the most bloody). And in the context of these, every death by every cause is considered the fault of the Catholic Church. The Albigensian Crusade being arguably the least justified - though they rulers did assasinate papal envoys and were in open rebellion against the French king. The Albigensian crusaders committed several terrible massacres, but the popes reaction was telling. Pope Innocent had no control over the French nobility who engaged in the crusade - the crusade was specifically to depose several nobles, the bloodshed led the pope to completely restructure how heresy was approached thereafter. The 50 million figure comes from adding most medieval wars along with plague deaths during wars, along with invented deaths, along with protestants killing catholics, along with all war deaths in religious wars (regardless of any other factors), along with any random peasant persecutions of Jews. A note on peasant persecutions - - im sure the 50 million figure includes the jews persecuted and killed during pograms. During the first crusade, many rhineland jews were murdered - - the christians who did so were excommunicated, in one case the bishop had the hands cut off of all the attackers that were captured, etc. But these deaths too are laid at the feet of the Catholic church in your figure. You might want to listen to actual historians on these issues as opposed to your pastor. There are free history courses at your local library on the crusades, inquisitions, etc. It might help cure your ignorance.
Regardless what denomination one is, i think the true dispute is if one can lose their salvation or not. If someone thinks they cannot lose their salvation, they my not concern themselves with doing good works and waring against sin. If someone believes they can lose their salvation or they are in the process of being saved, they will be more concerned with obedience. Including obedience to the spirit of the law, love. Not love as a feeling but in action. ! speeks to the difference of one who loves his brother vs hates..being of christ vs the devil. But honestly, I dont think there are very many Christians who are keeping a score card on their works. I think for the most part most Christians who do works, do them because they feel compelled by love.
I am a Catholic priest and find your videos so refreshing and have to admit, you have helped me with many of the misconceptions I had regarding Luther and especially the concept of Sola Scriptura. I grew up Methodist but became Catholic because of an experience of Christ I had that my Methodist minister could not explain. Unfortunately his point of references were usually around covered dishes and choir specials. Thanks so much for your academic work and may the Lord bless you and your family abundantly.
Could you give an example of what you mean about Luther's points of reference? And it's sad and opposite of you, but I had to LEAVE the Catholic church because of a spiritual trauma in my teens.
@@doriesse824 ex-Baptist minister here, and I became a Roman Catholic. So we passed each other on our respective way out.
@@cinaedmacseamas2978how does a ex Baptist minister become Catholic? Apostolic succession? Authority of the church?
@@Convert2024 as Cardinal Newman stated, to immerse one's self in history is to cease to be protestant. That was my experience. I came to love Church history both in college and in seminary, and a study of how the early church was liturgical hsstened the process. Paul Johnson's History of the Jews was thus pivotal in that process, and Dr. Johnson was no friend to church traditionalists, at least in his critique of the Church in his History of the Church. Early Christianity was a Jewish movement and based in the Jewish temple, and the early Church leaders had been formed in their experiences by Jewish temple liturgy. Even in the synagogues it is based upon the Jewish temple service. The focus is on the sacrifice which is preceded by psalms. So the understanding, for me, shifted from one of no sacramental priesthood to one which retained a distinction between ordained priests and the wider priesthood of all believers. In Luther that distinction is blurred, yet it is a distinction which is stated explicitly in the Old Testament and within the five books of Moses, Exodus I believe. So I came to see that my own faith tradition, especially as a Calvinist evangelical of the English puritan tradition, had basically thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
@@cinaedmacseamas2978 that’s so cool. I’m glad your understanding allowed you to take the Protestant spirit away. I know without that people will not understand. That’s a blessing.my hope is that all of us drive toward John 17:21.
Roman Catholic here. Huge fan. You’re an incredibly thoughtful student of theology. Thank you for your Works! (-:
Repent and believe the gospel. Or you’ll perish
Lol .... a catholic tells a Lutheran....thanks for your WORKS....hahaha love it...that's awesome. BTW...I'm Lutheran but I have catholic in my family
@@Dilley_G45 That's funny right there. I tell you what.
@@alexking8802 we catholics have repent and we already believe in god.
What are you talking about ........you just sound like all protestants .....just repeating what they hear at their heretic cults
@@Mario-fs4ru dont you need a magic chair to make decrees?
I wish more Protestants were as well-informed and thoughtful as you.
@Dystopia Lutheran James White is the perfect example of this. A not very well informed Baptist.
I wish all Prots would convert to Catholicism.
@@gch8810White is NOT a Lutheran
@@gch8810 Baptists in general aren't exactly known for being well informed. I don't mean that to be mean, but rather that I wish Baptists would become more educated. Especially when it comes to historical Christianity. I think due to their lack of education they actually harm a lot of people and turn people away from the faith. This is coming from someone that grew up Baptist. Most importantly, Baptists seriously need to learn law and gospel distinction!
@@ihiohoh2708 well, I have good news for you - the reformed Baptist church I attend puts major emphasis on the distinction between law and gospel.
You speak truth with an open mind and a heart for Christ. Very humbled and joyed by your video!
Thanks man! I appreciate it.
What a joke you are. .....thinking of this heretic as being humble where he has videos “explaining himself” why he does not belong to certain denomination or other denomination......
he is full of himself...you failed to recognize that pride an arrogance hides extraordinarily in this type of “intellectual
Don Fernando Colomer Ferrandiz from the San Sebastian church in Spain, priest and doctor in philosophy explains exquisitely each of the 7 deadly sins and describes this type of individuals........the “intellectual faith”
My bible study leader teaches something he learned through another denomination that I embrace as a confessional Lutheran.
" Unity in the essentials, liberty in the non essentials, but in all things love". I think we hold true to that as Lutherans and you just helped me bring that lesson together. Thank you brother and once again why I'm now a Lutheran. Always solid theology.
"SOLA Fide" If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have charity, I am nothing." Luther misunderstood Paul. Paul never ever taught we are saved by dead faith. We need a living faith. Paul excluded the Law written on paper or stone (Gal. 3:17), Paul never excluded the gift of charity poured in our hearts. Supernatural love (charity) does not boast.
Luther made a little mistake and then started to re- read the Bible according to that mistake.
@@Alfredo8059 For the love of all that is good, Luther never taught that we are saved by dead faith either. I saw a previous conversation you were in on this video, and I really don't understand why you are still thinking that Lutherans teach this. You Roman Catholics cling to the "faith without works is dead" quote, which Lutherans have always affirmed to be TRUE, but yet there are many more verses that teach that FAITH ALONE is what does the saving. FAITH ALONE does not mean faith without any works. The very definition of faith in Christ is believing that we are sinners in need of Christ as our Savior. This means that daily repentance is inextricable from true saving faith. True faith itself is a gift from God that we are unable to conjure up within ourselves. This true faith brings with it repentance from our sins. Our turning away from sin or any other good work is not what actually justifies us though.
@@bethanyann1060 , thank you for your kind message. Catholics totally agree Luther's phrase: faith alone is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. But, According to Luther, the justification given by God through the sinner's faith is extrinsic; Christians are merely declared to be just; they remain what they were before, incurable sinners, "heaps of shit", no matter what they do. They were intrinsically corrupted through and through by Adam's sin, but they are not made intrinsically right with God by the redemptive work of His incarnate Son. You say : "our turning away from sin or any other good work is not what actually justifies though". You are clearly ignoring what the Apostle taught:
"If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[a] but do not have LOVE, I gain nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2 Its not our work its the LOVE of God. Faith ALONE (before or apart the LOVE of God is not even a Christian faith. Martin Luther clearly misunderstood Paul:
" And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." 1 Cor. 6:22. God bless you always
@Asaph Vapor , Luther argued that Christ himself, not love, is the form, or the essence, of faith.
Abraham, Mary, Cornelius believed with love. The demons believe without love (James 2:19). Martin Luther ignored Christians have to believe this teaching of Jesus: "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" Mat. 6:15 .
What is the faith that avails anything according to Paul?
"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."
@Asaph Vapor , "Who cares what Luther says", but Protestants read the Bible through Luther's construct. For 15 centuries no one believed in Sola Fide as Luther taught. Work based salvation is a heresy called pelagianism. D you think Jesus taught pelagianism to His disciples?
"“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."
According to Jesus, who are the branches of the vine? Are they Christians or not Christians? If they were never really Christians, then, how did they become branches of the vine in the first place? Does Jesus call non-believers "mine"? and if they are His, how then can they be taken away from Him? Who cares what Luther says, Catholics believe Jesus
Coming from an evangelical Wesleyan background, it is very helpful to put myself in other perspectives. I don't currently view the sacraments the same way a Lutheran does. In fact, I think that Lutherans have not only the right but the obligation to have closed communion of the Eucharist from their perspective. If I were Lutheran, I would think those who held to a symbolic baptism and communion as dishonoring God and potentially in sin. These very real disagreements should not be ignored altogether for the sake of ecumenism. Wesley himself believed in baptismal regeneration and in paedobaptism as an Anglican. There are certainly aspects of Lutheranism I find appealing.
Love to hear more from you.
I was a General Arminian Baptist for my first 12 years as a Christian, before going to a Confessional Lutheran Church and be confirmed there.
My problematic journey begins when the Arminian General Baptists and Reformed Calvinistic Baptists often dispute each other on serious Soteriological issues that I could not find any satisfactory solution......until God led me to study what the Lutheran Confessions have to offer in accordance to Scripture about Soteriology.
Open communion and closed communion do not mean what you think they mean.
Open communion, as given by John Wesley, was different than how it is done today. Basically many people in the Americas were traveling far from their home church. Possibly their church was a different denomination. Open communion just meant that John didn’t deny communion to baptized Christians (ie had a valid baptism) who were away from their home church or who had not officially expressed membership in that church. Since basically almost everyone in English/American society had a Christian baptism, it was ok to assume your random traveler could receive communion.
However, I’ve (I as a Methodist) seen Methodists these days turn it into “whoever wants to come, come”, which is very very bad. The unbaptized cannot receive communion, and there has been a resurgence of heretical groups like was not seen 200-300 years ago.
We have to be discerning in practicing “open communion” now, to the point that it may begin to look like closed communion.
And if you look at the way Wesley viewed salvation, it bears more resemblance to Luther than modern day Methodists.
Wesley said man may be saved if he wills, though not when he wills. Wesley also believed salvific faith was a gift given through the means of prevenient grace (like the hearing of the word preached), which is similar to Luther. Wesley believed that if man either drew close to or was exposed to the means of grace, eventually he would be offered the gift of salvation through faith.
His views don’t really bear resemblance to the modern semipelagian notion of “everybody has prevenient grace upon birth, we have the choice to start with”.
Wesley’s conversion experience (of receiving salvific faith) came at Aldersgate, after he had already become a minister. He finally felt like Christ had died for him, ironically after hearing Luther’s commentary being read about Galatians.
I appreciate the well-thought through approach to your presentation.
This is for all my Catholic brothers and sisters who are weak in the faith. Please study your faith from learned Catholics or learned people who converted to Catholicism after deep study of history and scripture.
The Catholic church has biblical justification for all our dogmas and sacraments. Don't allow a person who has been indoctrinated to hate Catholicism to "open your eyes" with the "truth" with lies and you will not be able to refute those lies. Instead, many uninformed Catholic brothers and sisters leave their church before they ever knew it. Wake up lukewarm Catholic! Learn, love, and live your faith!
I know my faith very well thank you.
I will remain catholic till my death
Judas arius nestorius luther Calvin were weak catholics. There are only a few of them. If you look at statistics there are 1.2 billion catholics. Where I was born in the philippines. There are nearly 90 percent strong Catholics. And in Australia majority still catholics
@@arnoldmaglalang5522 The Philippines is a stronghold of the Catholic faith. May the people of the Philippines remain strong in their love for our Holy Catholic Church.
@@mariasoniamoreno3433 true
I am a recent Catholic convert who grew up protestant. I find myself agreeing more with Lutheranism lately but still don't see the need to not stay in the catholic faith. This video has solidified my decision in a way. I would like to have a broader discussion with someone about this though.
I'm Catholic......I trust in Christ 3000 and loved this video ❤️
is that a marvel reference there?
To give some context. I was raised Catholic, but would not describe myself as that now. However, one of my studies was for a Masters in History (World Religions), which (as the name implies) takes a historical rather than a devotional or theological view of religion. Most of my studies were in Eastern religions, but I also spent time on Christian writings, the cultural background of early Christianity, Roman and Greek religions, and some basics of Koine. I have since expanded into something more like a 'history of belief systems' and therefore include things like liberalism, modernism, marxism , post-modernism and so on in a similar study.
What you have stated is a very fair description of the Catholic position (or perhaps its range of positions) on justification (or soteriology). My recollection of childhood instruction is that it 'Justification is by the grace of God'. E.g. People don't 'earn' salvation any more than a child 'earns' the love of its parents, but our actions might cut ourselves off from those.
I remember it being expressed in a more positive way at times. For example, I recall a rather wily old nun, who was instructing lay catechists, being asked why she spent so little time discussing doctrine as such. Her reply was that, there were really only two things that needed to be taught to children. One was that there is a God who loves them beyond comprehension regardless of who they are and what they do; and this was the theme of all instruction for the very young. As they became older, the second idea to be taught was that their actions in life were one of the means by which that love should be expressed and demonstrated to all.
While Galatians and Romans focus a lot on justification, I think the words in Corinthians "All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial" are also very interesting. That can lead to a remarkably radical interpretation, and an interesting take on moral relativism versus absolute / universal positions.
Well stated! I am a committed evangelical, and have never understood why some Protestants, particularly in the Reformed community, think that one cannot be Catholic and a follower of Jesus. We are not saved by our understanding of doctrine, however biblical that doctrine may be. We are saved by confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior. None of us trusts in Christ perfectly at any moment, but praise God that the blood of His Son cleanses us from all sin, including doctrinal error! "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:12
I'm a Calvinist (Presbyterian), and I couldn't agree with you more!
I'm very thankful for this brother's clear and percise language.
I'm an Independent Catholic and formerly Roman, and have enjoyed your videos on a wide range of topics. There was a joint declaration on Justification signed by Lutherans and Catholics in 1999, so we're really not that far apart anymore. Most Roman Catholics I know don't go around quoting the Council of Trent and some might have no awareness of that particular Canon. In light of the Second Vatican Council the church has had a better understanding of it's relationship to other churches.
We aren't 'Roman.' We are simply Catholic. There is no such thing as an 'Independent Catholic.' That's schism at best, and more likely involves heresy.
I don't support the Pope's error when he is mistaken. No Good Catholic should. Rather, we should prayer for him to be rightly guided. Popes can err, not only in pastoral advice or governance but even in matters of faith and morals. The popes are granted the charism of infallibility only when teaching ex cathedra. That isn't to say the pope won't often teach or discuss things that are certainly true or that we should ignore everything else the pope might say. If a pope says something against Scripture and Tradition, he should be corrected, prayed for, and if he refuses correction, shunned or refused obedience so far as is possible within what is lawful for us. Theologians debate whether a pope can fall into manifest heresy, and if God would depose such a heretical pontiff, and how the Chruch might act in such a case. @@JesusisKing89-fs2kb
Note that the joint declaration was signed by the LWF which is a very liberal group of Lutherans and are not really confessional and are not upholding the book of concord in that declaration
John 6:40: ""For this is the will of my Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him will have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”
@@ragnardanneskajold1880 John 6 is not about the mass. The Lords Supper had not been instituted yet, and Jesus cleary ties eating and drinking to faith.
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:35, 40
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 - nah, Jesus was crystal clear…..“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my Flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” ~ Jn 6: 52-58
No ambiguity. None. Zero. Are you saying Jesus didn’t know that the Mass was to come?
@@ragnardanneskajold1880 there is no ambiguity. It’s clearly about belief in Christ. Follow the entire argument. Christ isn’t a magical potion that gives you life by eating it. John 6 isn’t even about the Lord’s supper. In fact in the Lord’s supper, Christ says to do this in remembrance of me. Paul doesn’t mention John 6 when he speaks of the Lord’s supper as well. It’s not about eating and drinking. It’s about coming to Christ, i.e., trust.
@@KnightFel - everything about Christs redemption of man is mystical, supernatural. This notion of something ‘magical’ implies a slight of hand, a trick. This is not what Christ is or does and implying such is sinful.
In regard to YOUR interpretation of John Do not forget, the Bible is a Catholic book. The Bible was compiled, canonized, and interpreted by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church 1200 years before Luther.
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is composed of the Roman Church and Her 24 rites, all of the Eastern Orthodox, and all of the Oriental Orthodox Churches who constitute the entirety of Christianity for 1500 years, and ALL of them know that the Eucharist is the body blood soul and divinity of Christ. If you do not believe as such you are in error at best or heresy at worst; the majority of the sola scriptura crowd are the latter.
I would suggest you read into church history at length and depth and come to realize sola scriptura is a man made doctrine that is counter to the teachings of all the oldest of Christian Churches.
Lastly, Christ left us a Church not a Bible; the Church preceded the Bible, the Church gave the Bible to the world, the Church, not the Bible is the Bride of Christ.
What I observe from my Roman Catholic friends, and from reading the Catholic literature, they trust Christ for their salvation and they trust their works for shortening/getting out of purgatory. Seems to be a pretty clear line for them.
Works are our cooperation with Gods grace- the catechism of the Catholic Church is unambiguous- justification is thru Gods grace alone. Period. We cannot “earn” it. However, we as humans have free will and we must cooperate with and accept that gift of grace- works are part of that cooperation
That's right and wrong.
Rather than thinking of "shortening", on purgatory, think of Paul's first letter to the Church in Corinth: your work, built in stone or in gold, may be preserved from the fire of the Lord, and the workman rewarded-but it is the foundation, Christ, which saves.
But secondly, and I suppose this is my Byzantine tradition kicking in, Dionysius says and correctly, that the impression of a seal into wax can be only so perfect as the wax is suited to taking an impression. This is precisely the language I see used often in discussing baptism. We are impressed with the seal of Christ, the Divine Image restored in us.
What our works on Earth do is not to diminish God's wrath, or to earn brownie points. The work which is saved is not about others or about things. It is about making the wax of our souls more perfectly suited to taking the impression of the perfect seal that is Christ.
Since purgatory is all about cutting away the wax which will not take an impression, naturally it will lead to minimizing purgatory, but it's an interior disposition that's important, and in this life we can only temper that disposition through war on the flesh in the form of prayer, fasting, and giving alms.
I have found it very odd that the reformed community would hold to grace alone through faith alone by God’s predestination alone ( odd )… but in practice also proclaim by a perfect understanding of ‘correct’ theology alone.
If the later of those is the case we are all doomed.
People often conflate pet theologies with the gospel itself.
I am LCMS and we believe God calls us. We don’t make a decision for Christ. God does not want one person to perish. People are not predestined to hell; the Lutheran Church that belief.
I know there are weird people that like to add things into the gospel. Don't get me started on KJVonlyists... However, you're wrong to say that is what the Reformed community thinks or says. The Reformed tradition teaches a law and gospel distinction as well. Also, "Reformed" Baptists aren't really Reformed. So if that's where you heard that it makes more sense to me. Baptists aren't known to distinguish law and gospel.
@@margorice1 Double predestination is really that God predestines some to election and then passes over the rest. So elect are actively chosen, and the nonelect are passively chosen. I understand if you disagree, but saying people being "predestined to Hell" is not the accurate representation of the doctrine. People go to Hell because they are sinners and reject God. I think perhaps you have been misinformed from a supralapsarian view of double predestination rather than an infralapsarian. God doesn't want any person to go to Hell, but some do. While He may not want something, it doesn't necessarily mean that He will actively make it happen.
I don't know a single Catholic who trusts in their works. I was one for maaany years, and am surrounded by them. All their trust is in God's grace. Even good works done, as christ encouraged when He said let your good works shine before men, is, and can ONLY be done BECAUSE of God's grace
Peace to you who truly believe
Do they rely on good works to be declared righteous before God?
@Asaph Vapor they don't understand (and many Protestants to) that when you add works to grace you've destroyed grace
@@geoffrobinson You don't even understand what grace is. Grace is itself a work, the work of God accomplished through Christ in his creation and salvation of the world. Through the grace of the spirit we cooperate in the salvific work of Christ as members of his body. Apart from him you can do nothing. Faith without works is dead.
@Asaph Vapor You are afraid of the truth.
@Asaph Vapor you are an anti-Catholic ranter!! You are EVERYWHERE attacking The Catholic Church. Pharisee of Pharisees BE GONE!!
'To err is human; to forgive, divine.'.
Catholics must abandon their roman cult
Protestants remember salvation is about forgiveness. Protestants seem to ignore salvation is new creation, new life, inner transformation.
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
Snoop dogg in Starky and Hutch?! haha
So well said, thank you for sharing!
Protestants: It is by grace through faith you are saved, and this is not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Catholics: It is by grace you are saved, accessed through the established sacraments (works) of the RCC.
One of these statements is straight from God’s unchanging word, and the other is from the ever-evolving traditions of men. They cannot be reconciled.
I think you made a good point about there being different opinions withn Catholicism. When it comes to critical issues like justification I've heard Catholics present very different views just like there are very different views within specific genres of Protestantism. Sometimes people don't understand what their church teaches other times they disagree with others within their church.
@Dominus Vobiscum Yeah that's why I'm not a Catholic (among other reasons). Some Catholics disagree with that or interpret it differently though. I bet most Catholics have never even read it.
Hello Dr Cooper. I have been watching your videos for several months. I am impressed by your deep knowledge, clear thinking, kind approach, and careful speech. I have personal goals based on your example. I was struck by your observation in this video that salvation is by faith alone, not by a perfect understanding of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. I have never heard that before, but it is clearly true. Thank you for teaching me.
Our works are effects of the grace of Christ, and only in that condition they are necessary for justification and sanctification. That is the Catholic doctrine. When defining about justification, the Council of Trent speaks of our free will "moved and excited" by God. It is not the free will left only to its natural capabilities.
No, it is not free will left only to its natural capacities...but it is these natural capacities ameliorated and assisted rather than transformed. It is not all of grace and all of Christ. It is us working our way into divinization rather than being Spiritually born anew, brought from death into life. It is a relatively humanistic approach to soterioligy: we have the power within us. God will help us, but we must, in essence, take the initiative to save ourselves. It is decidedly a works-based salvation...and for that reason, Catholics scratch and claw to bring down justification by faith.
@@hanssvineklev648 obviously, there is TWO kinds of graces...The Grace that Excites and moves us to the Good works" and The Grace that ENTERS in our soul to help us in Good Works....
Ultimately, it is God that initiates, without violating Free Will.... Like a beautiful woman....You get attracted, but you are Free to approach or reject...If you approach, you get the ACTUAL grace which transforms you within and fills you with Grace...
I'm not Lutheran, Catholic or Calvinist but I found this video to be very insightful. Thank you for your thoughtful content!
Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God". This means that every single peacemaker, whatever background they come from, are the Children of God. Basically we all are brothers and sisters. I'm a committed catholic guy, however i prefer to be called Christian, for i believe in the unity. Talking denominations-wise makes it really convoluted. Pray for me sir
If faith only saves, then by necessity faith+works also saves.
Catholics don't believe works save you, but even if they did, you can't deny that their faith in Christ saves them.
First of all, if you dont have 100% faith in Jesus then it that's not the same as someone who believes in faith alone.
What if someone believes Jesus only died for one lie they told as a child, and believe that for the rest of their life they are earning salvation by being perfect? That's stealing from God's glory.
Secondly, many catholics believe works do save, because when you ask them why they will go to heaven they will say its because of their works. The Bible says if you don't believe salvation is a gift then you are making God a liar.
Matthew 7:21-23 talks about people who call Jesus lord (so they are Christians) but say that their works play a part in their being saved. Then Jesus rejects them.
@@edbotikx I’m curious to hear your thought on these passages
James 2:21-24 NASB
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? [22] You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; [23] and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Galatians 5:4-6 NASB
[4] You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. [5] For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. [6] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
@@christhayer5034 James 2 is about justification before man. James talks about showing faith by works, but he doesn't deny they have faith without works. And nowhere does James 2 say faith without works doesn't save the person. Inb4 you take verse 14 out of context
@@edbotikx the passage seems pretty clear faith without works is dead. This wasn’t even a topic of discussion or debate until the reformation because of the issues in RCC. You are trying to reason your theology in the text specifically sola fide. It’s suffice to say we are justified by faith but it’s a living faith. A faith that produces works so therefore it’s faith working through love. Resulting in the reality of faith plus works. The works do not save in themselves it has to be United with faith for we are created in Christ Jesus for good works. The only passage in the Bible that mentions sola fide says “James 2:24 NASB
[24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Therefore sola fide is a misleading and contradicts the Bible. Again the passage prior regarding faith.
James 2:19-22 NASB
[19] You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. [20] But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? [22] You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
Faith produces something real and tangible that is to say works. Salvation is 3 fold. Past, present and future. Blessings. Ultimately we aren’t saved until we are saved. Which translates to hope, perseverance, taking up or cross, loving God and our neighbor, working out our salvation with fear and trembling, abiding in Christ and He in us. Knowing that nothing can separate us from the love of God so long as we cling to Him for our hope and strength.
Fair enough
If anything was not catholic, it wouldn't have gone into the bible. The bible was catholic, is catholic and will be catholic and the gates of hell will not prevail against its catholicity. Sola fide as a doctrine is not Luther's genius. From Pope Clement I to St Bernard of Clairvaux the doctrine had been expounded along the early church's understanding of grace, Christ's redemptive work, and our own continual cooperation with redemptive grace through Christ. The centrality of testimony through works of love, of charity is the criterion of our response to Christ's redemptive work, just as believe in Christ through grace is our response to faith in Him. It is freely given in His cross, it must be freely received in our own crosses. Luther's doctrine, if unqualified (which stands as an all or nothing principle), is biblically untenable. Faith without works is dead.
I don't understand why Protestants believe in the Bible at all, since the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in 382.
They love the Council of Rome but not the Council of Trent! What's up with that?
I am sure that the Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian and all of the other ancient churches that predate the Church of Rome would be bemused by your opinion. The canon was fixed in the 5th Century before the Roman church emerged in its final form. I notice that you use catholic with a small c which negates your argument. Catholic with a small c means universal and has nothing to do with Rome. The Bible is indeed God's gift to the whole church. Also don't forget that the church at the time of Luther was rotten to the core. It was more interested in serving its own position of power and wealth rather than being true to its call to a ministry of service. As most people could not read or understand Latin then the church was able interpret scripture in a way that met its own ends. People were denied access to the sacraments and the church dictated who was worthy of heaven by the way they obeyed the rules. The church used fear of going to hell as a way of generating income. Indulgence selling to rebuild St Peters was the spark that triggered the reformation. Justification by faith as expounded by Luther was a major challenge to the churches position of wealth and power. If people found that all they needed to be saved was to believe that Jesus died for you and that you are saved through faith in his promises then was need for the church as a way of dictating your salvation.
@@x8lover I gave you the thumbs up because in so many ways I agree with what you have said. JP II recognised the ancient church in its original constitution, seeking brotherhood through ecumenism. 'Roman' signified nothing more than a synonym for the Church of the West. You have divided our spiritual communion as christians by reasoning on the ground of a lack of formal communion. No church today that originated from apostolic tradition denies the Roman Catholic Church's origin, nor Rome of the others, not from the day of Pentecost, c. AD 30s.
The Church founded in the name of Our Lord miraculously grew out of persecution. Rapid growth meant one thing, the difficulty of communication. Heresies, many of gnostic and pagan origins, adulterated the Word. The need to identify the true communion was
real. In Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Smyrnaeans c. AD 110, the Catholic Church, was officially recognised. For another 1000 years, there were no christians other than catholics.
I have no quarrel with your assertions of corruption and Luther's protest. I regret that it persists even today. What I cannot accept is your apparent belief that Luther was without guilt.
Luther was a catholic monk in the Augustinian tradition. He wrote and circulated 95 theses in good faith. Whether he nailed 95 theses to the door at Wittenberg remains a question. There are historical allusions to the fact that he was not even in Wittenberg that fateful day. And right until his dying moments, Luther never once mentioned, not even an intimation to his closest associates, that historic moment of the Reformation. It would have been in the disposition of anyone else to do so. Towards the end of his life, Luther would express disappointment and regret. Why then, allow a lie to persist?
Luther had no political muscle to defy Rome. The german princes, bent on denying the ecclesial authority, had no legitimacy. Fearing for his life, the need for collaboration was imminent. Hence, Luther allowed himself to be manipulated by the princes, against the church, which he had a vested interest to protect as a man of the cloth.
Throughout Europe, churches were pillaged, plundered and desecrated. Important manuscripts, christian art and relics were destroyed, culminating in the sacking of Rome. Yet, most of the princes who converted to Lutheranism remained secular humanists. One man remained true to Luther, his protector, Frederick the Wise, who supported the Reformation cause without denying the Church. Frederick died a catholic.
The fruits of the Reformation are open for us to judge. Brother in faith against brother in faith. How we have erased our common identity, if not on account of faith, hope and charity, at least in obedience to Christ's commandment to love one another. As for the doctrines established at the foot of the Cross, let us trace our theology to our common destiny of resurrection. Catholic theology is open to all.
@@wenshan9101 Can I suggest that you have a look at Bart Ehrman's book 'lost Christianities'' that will open your eyes to the fact that early church history was not that simple. There was as many different strands of Christianity in antiquity as there are now. There was not one church and a whole bunch of heresies. What we have now was the proto orthodox movement that was better organised and gained imperial patronage. Ignatius was a leading theologian in that movement. At the council of Nicaea the Marcionists were a strong voice and if they had won the argument our central doctrines would be very different. We would have a creed that confessed faith in two gods as Marcion believed that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New. Marcion devised the first canon but rejected the whole of the Old Testament sticking with the Gospel of Luke and some of Paul's epistles. Then there was the Ebonites who were basically Jewish Christians and if they had won the battle for supremacy we would all be Jewish. Early church history is marked by winners and losers with all of the losers being labelled as heretical. We then had the many quarrels between Rome and Constantinople about supremacy that eventually lead to the great schism. In the west what was to be the Catholic church came about because it was the only institution to survive the collapse of the empire.
We still have a common identity in as far as we all believe in the same doctrines and have scripture at the heart of our faith. Unfortunately Rome has for centuries refused to recognise other traditions as being part of the body of Christ. In the 19th Century Rome soured any relations it may have had with the Anglian church as it declared that its ordinations were null and void and so were its celebrations of the sacraments. This is still Rome's position although relations between the two became warmer over the past 100 years. Because I am not a Catholic official I am still excluded from table fellowship in a Catholic church even though it is Jesus who is the host and invites all to come and partake. Its my hope that one day tradition and practice will not be a barrier to all Christians partaking in table fellowship in any church. But I will never see it as Rome's position is too entrenched.
So glad you represented us Catholics here.
Beautifully explained! The Blood of the Lamb covers all of our sins (including theological ones), and still we need to keep asking Him for proper understanding with full confidence.
Dr Jordan B Cooper, Trent anathemized "justification by faith alone". The Catholic Church condemns pelagianism (work based salvation) and semi pelagianism (faith + works salvation). The doctrine of justification by faith is from Paul. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is from Luther. Please , notice Luther added a word to Paul. Protestants usually think we have two choices: faith alone or faith plus works ( "read Eph. 2:8-9 and decide"). The Catholic Church teaches we receive the free gift of charity for salvation (Eph 2:5). Then, Christian faith was NEVER alone. The Christian faith is nothing without the gift of love (1 Cor. 13:2). Please, don't say again " Trent anathemized justification by faith", that is not true. Trent anathemized justification by faith ALONE ( before or apart the love of God). That is quite different.
@Asaph Vapor , you conflate the Catholic Church and the local church of Rome. You conflate sins with doctrines, works an "good works" That speech indulges in wholy trivial, vague and directly nonsensical notions about Catholic faith. It is a shame such a storm of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and caricatures.
Catholics are totally aware of the perfect work of Jesus, but we do not ignore we were justified by his resurrection: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Gal. 2:20. Protestant usually think Catholics are trying to prove salvation by "works". That's the root of Protestantism error. Protestants should realize Luther ignored what the Church officially taught: ""It is quite possible that Martin Luther may have confused one theological opinion with the official teaching of the Church and initiated his program of reform on the basis of this misunderstanding" Protestant Oxford professor Alister McGrath.
@Asaph Vapor , good point. Pelagianism and semi pelagianism should be rejected. The Bible says that, before the grace of God saves us, we are “dead” in our sins (Ephesians 2:1.
Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism are unscriptural and should be rejected.
Now, the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is what grace is and what grace does. What it is and what it does. That is the key.
The Protestant misunderstanding of justification lies in its claim that justification is merely a legal declaration by God that the sinner is now “justified.” If you “accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,” he declares you justified, though he doesn’t really make you justified or sanctified; your soul is in the same state as it was before, but you’re eligible for heaven. A person is expected thereafter to undergo sanctification (don’t make the mistake of thinking Protestants say sanctification is unimportant), but the degree of sanctification achieved is, ultimately, immaterial to the question of whether you’ll get to heaven. You will, since you’re justified; and justification as a purely legal declaration is what counts. Unfortunately, this amounts to God telling an untruth by saying the sinner has been justified, while all along he knows that the sinner is only covered under the “cloak” of Christ’s righteousness. But, what God declares, he does. “[S]o shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Is. 55:11). So, when God declares you justified, he makes you justified. Any justification that is not woven together with sanctification is no justification at all.
Paul indicates that there is a real transformation that occurs in justification. This is seen, for example, in Romans 6:7, which every standard translation-Protestant ones included-renders as “For he who has died is freed from sin”.
in Paul’s mind, justification involves a real, experiential freeing from sin, not just a change of legal status. And it shows that, the way he uses terms, there is not the rigid wall between justification and sanctification that Protestants imagine.
According to Scripture, sanctification and justification aren’t just one-time events, but are ongoing processes in the life of the believer. As the author of Hebrews notes: “For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). In regard to justification also being an ongoing process, compare Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6 with both Hebrews 11:8; Genesis 12:1-4 and James 2:21-23; Genesis 22:1-18. In these passages, Abraham’s justification is advanced on three separate occasions.
Paul is obviously speaking about being freed from sin in an experiential sense, for this is the passage where he is at pains to stress the fact that we have made a decisive break with sin that must be reflected in our behavior: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (Rom. 6:1-2). “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness” (Rom. 6:12-13).
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." -James 2:24
"...the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." -Revelation 20:12
Even John Calvin himself, in his Institutes, confessed that one was not a heretic by mere association with Rome.
James 2:17-26 KJV
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Abraham believed by faith, and it was credited to him as righteousness. I don't think Paul means that the patriarchs foresaw every aspect of Christian doctrine that can be known after Christ. So yes, I would think the bible teaches you can have faith in God and be saved by faith while being mistaken or at least not haven fully realized certain points of doctrine.
Thank you, Dr. Peterson. Always thoughtful, balanced and conciliatory. Enjoying your explanatory videos greatly...and blessed by them. On an interesting and compelling side-note...recent scholarship on Pelagius has cast serious doubt on his supposed soteriological positions and the beliefs he held. I am not one who kneels at the desk of Augustine even though I highly respect another struggling brother trying to make sense of it all. See Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism. Be open to having much of the Augustine vs. Pelagius battle disintegrate. Respectfully, brother.
I thought they anathematized justification by faith alone, not justification by faith.
Exactly right! Thanks for your generosity of spirit.
Catholics don't trust in works, Christ requires works.
Work Righteousness was declared a heresy in 418 Council of Carthage - see Pelagianism.
St. Paul's definition of "works" referred both to circumcision and the boundary set of Jewish laws surrounding the laws God gave Moses.
See Tim Staples article titled:
"Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation?"
@Asaph Vapor , we should not conflate the LAW of God (Torah) written on paper or stone (Gal. 3:17) and the law of God (charity, a gift) written in our hearts. As you have heard from the beginning.
"What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise."
"And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.." 2John 6
@1517 "Good works "(God alone is good) are a gift of God ( Eph 2:10) The Catholic Church teaches that every "good work" has as its origination the grace of God. Every "good" (God alone is good) thing we have and do comes to us as a gift from God. Without the Lord we can do nothing (1 Cor. 4:7) "If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[a] but do not have LOVE, I gain nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2 Its not our work its the LOVE of God. According to Paul Faith ALONE (before or apart the LOVE of God) is not even a Christian faith. Martin Luther clearly misunderstood Paul: " And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2 "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." 1 Cor. 6:22. God bless you always
Missionary works and charity is good works and loving non catholics and enemies
Faith that leads to good works. Like Abraham faith and still he did what God ask him to do. He went walk in miles and followed what God said and he went to sacrifice his son. If you do not have faith it will be by Gods grace like the guy in the cross with Jesus. He said to barabas that Jesus was there and he is innocent. And Jestas admitted that he did a crime that is why he is being crucified and ask the Lord do not forget him when Jesus will be in his kingdom and Jesus answered today you will be with me in paradise. Jestas did not have faith. He did not have good works. He was convicted for what he did. And yet he was save by Gods grace.
"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." 1 Cor. 13:2; "Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, [a]goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." Rom. 11:22
Yeah I could never get 2 different Protestant groups to agree on this teaching. As a Catholic I gave up on trying to decipher all the different views on Justification. I’ve met people that believed you needed to speak in tongues to be saved. That you could never lose salvation. That if you had faith and left it you never really had it. You are right that Trent doesn’t agree with Lutheranism but neither do 99% of other Protestants. Baptism, Eucharist, Salvation etc. I would assume every Protestant could condemn every other Protestant group to hell under the rubric that Rome is. I’m glad you don’t condemn Catholics to Hell. I think like you said. It would require you to condemn all others. Good video.
Roman Catholics consider non catholics as separated brethren. Lutherans and calvinist protest
Saving faith is about an individuals heart before God, not group identification. I’m Protestant, but I know Catholics who I think are probably saved and Protestants who probably aren’t.
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
One more thing: to know what the Catholic Church believes one must go to the official documents, and not ask the first Catholic that one finds. Because not all Catholics have a good learning about their own faith, as happens also with the believers of the other confessions, that not all of them have a good knowledge of what their confession believes.
Martin Luther said faith alone can save one's soul.But faith without work is dead.
But who the heck handed the keys to the Christian bible to Luther? Jesus never mentioned anyone in the future like Luther
You should try reading Galatians
@@nosuchthing8 Jesus never mentioned the Bible either.........
I am protestant searching for truth and I wanted to know do Lutherans read the books that were taken out of the original bible? I couldnt help but see something in Hebrews 11:35 a reference I am not familiar with and when I search it up it talked about 2 maccabees a book I dont have in my bible
Most Lutheran laypeople never read the Apocryphal/Deutero-canonical/Inter-testamental books. Seminary students do. They're referenced a lot in our declarations of faith. My Lutheran denomination publishes them as a separate companion volume from the books of the two Testaments.
@@Mygoalwogel I want to try to attend a Lutheran Church. I've gone to RCC Mass 3 times and have catholic friends but I just dont know where to start. What i like about Lutheran is that they believe in the body and blood of Christ in communion something i am still learning about. I am torn to say the least
@@dianaperez6369 You can use this tool to find the closest LCMS church to you. locator.lcms.org/dashboard
The trouble is there may not be one reasonably near. Depending on what state you live in, you could try ELDONA, AALC or WELS. If you're not very conservative, you could try LCMC.
If none of these are nearby, you could continue attending where you currently are, and supplement with thewordendures.org podcast, Lutheran Public Radio (online) or Pirate Christian Radio (online). I've had times where I'd go to communion only once a month because of distance.
God bless your soul's seeking!
@@Mygoalwogel thank you so much God bless you!
Listen to this please
m.ruclips.net/video/uecmrlg8wm8/видео.html
The matter of Justification between Lutherans and Catholics has been settled - as of 1999, with signers of the agreement including other Protestants
That was only signed by nominal Lutherans. No Confessional Lutherans signed it.
The RCC getting in bed with wild apostates, who happily affirm the salvation of Hindus and Muslims, doesn't exactly recommend it to other Christians.
@@Mygoalwogel More Gnosticism. A reread of Paul’s first letter to the folks in Corinth talking about love and man’s incomplete understanding might be good for all faith communities to reflect on.
@@toomanymarys7355 That is nonsense.
John 10:14-15 “ I am the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father. And I lay down My life for the sheep.…”. There are of course some Roman Catholics who have put their trust in Christ alone for their salvation. The sad thing is that there is too many Roman Catholics who trust in Mary. I would simply tell them that Mary is not omniscient (as Christ is) thus she nor any other saint in heaven can HEAR THEIR PRAYERS. Pray to the Persons of the Trinity. Mary right now is wrapped up in the love of Christ her savior. We should be likewise obsessed with Christ!
Catholics do believe Christ alone, Christ is our HEAD, and Christ has members. Our brothers and sisters are alive in Christ. Christ loves we love each other, He loves we pray for each other. Mary right now is wrapped up in the love of Christ her Savior, we are all wrapped up in the love of Christ our Savior. Faith and hope are over once we die, love is eternal.
"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?". We can talk to each other by internet, God is much more powerful than internet, don't you think so?
" He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err." Mk12:27
@Asaph Vapor : These opinions are obviously your own interpretations.
How do you reach your conclusions when there are so many other answers?
@Asaph Vapor , Chirst was never alone (the Father and the Holy Spirit were with Him) Christ is not alone, once He was incarnated Head and body are together. Does "Christ alone" mean a beheaded Christ? A Christ without body is a "Christ alone" according to Protestantism?
Catholics agree Mary needed a saviour, it is written Mary declared God to be her saviour: "To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy". Jude 24
Protestants seem to ignore God is able to put enmity between the devil and the WOMAN. (Gen 3:15)
You say: "Mary needed a sin offering. She was a sinner" Mary did a sin offering to "redeem" her firstborn.
For the same reason Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent. Mary fulfilled the Law.
According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them.
The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn’t written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.
Asaph Vapor's SOLA(private interpretation of) Scripture. "Christ alone" means Asaph Vapor needs his Bible alone's interpretations. Does Asaph Vapor, as a good protestant, think Jesus + Asaph Vapor is "the church"? . The Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15). That is a good solution to evade the authority of the Church, Me and Jesus are the Church, then my interpretations are the pillar and ground of truth.
For us Catholics, our good works are gifts from the grace of God. Human merit is because of salvation. Everything comes from God. The grace of God can make our good works meritory, as can also renew us and make us new creatures.
I am LCMS, and have to draw you attention to Ephesians 2. V. 8-9. Jesus took all of mankind’s sins upon him once. When we die, our eternal destiny is decided. I find the doctrine of purgatory absolutely contrary to the gospel. In the Catholic Church during Eucharist, the priest calls Jesus down from the right hand the father to die all over again. When you attend mass your sins are forgiven but not the sins that occur between then and the Mass. so Jesus, always dying, remains on the cross. When a Catholic dies, they often die with fear. After all even saints go to purgatory. The living must pay to have masses said to shorten the suffering if those in purgatory. Nothing unclean can enter heaven. According to the RC church, the average stay in purgatory is @2000 years. I have a Catholic neighbor who does not respect my faith and even had a priest call me. My mother just died and her husband died and she is terrified that her husband and loved one who have gone before him are burning in purgatory. This is not good news. This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Every. Single. Word. Yes!!
Is the phrase "a person is justified by faith ALONE" anywhere in the Bible? Martin Luther added the word ALONE (ALLEIN) in his German translation of Romans 3:28. I checked numerous translations of this verse including the NRSV and ESV which Lutherans on the internet said were in usage by their churches/synods and that word ALONE is not there.
The ESV translation reads: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."
However, Luther was adamant and insisted:
"If your papist worries you about the word 'alone', just tell him plainly that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says 'papist and donkey are one and the same thing'; sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas [translated from Latin this phrase is 'thus I wish, thus I order, my will stands in place of reason']. For we must not be the pupils or disciples of the papists, but on the contrary their masters and judges. We ought to hammer and swagger on their donkey-heads, and as Paul challenged the sanctimonious fools of his day, so I will challenge these donkeys of mine." (The Reformation in England by Philip Hughes, Volume 1, page 19, London 1950)
In addition, Luther also stated regarding Romans 3:28:
"I am sorry now that I did not add the word 'all' so that it would read 'without all works of all laws', and thus ring out loudly and completely. However, it shall stand as it is in my New Testament, and though all the Papist-donkeys go mad about it, they shall not move me from this." (Martin Luther by A. Hilliard Atteridge, pp.19-20, London 1940).
Thanks Dr. Cooper! I am not a Lutheran or Roman Catholic. I was raised in a Pentecostal church which I left over disagreement over the central doctrine of tongues as "the only" initial evidence of Spirit baptism, though I believe in tongues, but not in the modern practice you typically see. Galatians and Romans are my two favorite books due to the centrality of theological importance, and I am a near "perfect" Calvinist at this point :) But I think you really nailed every point extremely well, applying grace at every opportunity WITHOUT assenting to error and heresy and wandering into ecumenicism. This may be the best balance I have ever heard on the topic "Who is my brother?" that I ever heard. Great job! I know we disagree on some things, but not the most important central things.
So sad you became a Calvinist that's totally demonic doctrine. It's a slander of who God is.
@@Eloign demonic? Explain? How does it "slander" God?
@@petertrast
Do you agree with Calvin that God wills that the majority of humanity is born "doomed from the womb"?
That God literally hates people before they're born? He created them for the sole purpose of being firewood?
@@Eloign ummm. no.
@@petertrast then you aren't a Calvinist.
Can you make a video that focuses on if prayer to Mary and the Saints and Angels can cause a Catholic to not be saved?
This is the central issue to me. I don't know if you can go to heaven if you worship Mary. I know a lot of Catholics say they don't worship Mary though. But they call her things like Advocate and Life and Hope and they say a prayer to entrust their eternal soul in Mary's hands.
I definitely think they could have a misunderstanding of Justification as long as they truly believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is Lord.
I just don't know about what looks like Mary worship
If we are justified through faith alone, then why should I attend church, participate in the Sacraments, and avoid sin altogether? Aren't I saved if I just believe in God and Jesus's sacrifice on the cross?
Kingfish179 if you have truly repented of your sins and have trusted in Christ alone, then as someone with a new heart you would hate sin in your own life, enjoy fellowship with believers, and participate in the sacraments. Even further, you would also love the unbeliever and share the Gospel with them. Haven’t you read this portion in Ephesians 2:8-9? “8 For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.…”
A person who has truly repented of his sin and exercise faith in Christ will give evidence of a changed life.Faith in Christ always results in good works.Works are not the cause of salvation.Works are the evidence of salvation.
the way I look at Christianity/Christendom, the non-Lutherans (Evangelicals, EasternOrthodox, RomanCatholics) are our brothers and sisters because of Christ - "being in Christ," "belonging to Christ," "baptized into Christ". But based on their confessions, they are NOT our brothers and sisters because they teach or preach a different Gospel or different Christ.
Evangelicals (or American Protestants) confess a different Christ ... who is not present thru the Means of Grace and whose Word is not efficacious (to forgive sins thru the Pastoral Office, Holy Baptism, or Holy Communion). This is a major denial of Pure Doctrine. Also, Evangelicals are notorious for mixing, comingling and confusing Law&Gospel, transforming the freeing Gospel of our Lord into a subjugating Law and making the Law sound like it is some sort of twisted 'good news.'
IN THE END, our different confessions show us not to be united, but, our Lord unites us. All Christians who are "baptized into Christ", who "are in Christ" and who "belong to Christ" ... are one, and are brothers & sisters with one another, thru the power of the Holy Spirit. But in this real and sin-filled life, our divisions are very real and also very sad.
After 8 years since the publication of the video, I have two questions: Does the Roman Catholic Church recognize the Lutheran theology of justification by faith? and consequently recognize the confessional Lutheran churches as true and valid churches and as brothers in Christ? Is Martin Luther still excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church?
church councils are called to confirm what the church already teaches. so the council of trent was mostly confirming there teaching.
In England Protestantism and freemasonry are the same religion, and it is somewhat bizarre to hear Protestants talking about Catholics like this.
I was thinking of becoming a Christian this weekend but I think I'll wait until I finish a PhD in theology first.
Lmao
What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose? How shall we answer him? Each of you (says he) asserts, ' I speak the truth.' (b) No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule. (a) But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then (c)if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and you interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)? And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment? And how should I be able (to decide), says he, I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to become a learner, and you are making me immediately a teacher. If he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretence and subterfuge. Let us ask whether he has decided (κατέγνωκε) against the heathen (that they are wrong). The fact he will assuredly affirm, for of course, if he had not so decided, he would not have come to (enquire about) our matters: let us ask the grounds on which he has decided, for to be sure he has not settled the matter out of hand. Clearly he will say, Because (their gods) are creatures, and are not the uncreated God. Good. If then he find this in the other parties (αἰρέσεις), but among us the contrary, what argument need we? We all confess that Christ is God. But let us see who fight (against this truth), and who not. Now we, affirming Him to be God speak of Him things worthy of God, that He has power, that He is not a slave, that He is free, that He does of Himself: whereas the other says the reverse. Again I ask: if you would learn (to be) a physician, * * *? And yet among them are many (different) doctrines. For if you accept without more ado just what you are told, this is not acting like a man: but if you have judgment and sense, you shall assuredly know what is good.
@@michael7144 , I think I have read this somewhere in the past. May I ask for the source so that I could check it again?
Hi Dr. Jordan Cooper. What works would you recommend for someone who wishes to defend Lutheranism against the papacy?
Martin Chemnitz' Examination of the Council of Trent.
Seth L you want the truth, here you go. This guy has no authority and you should not listen to him.
ruclips.net/video/6KV6PXSODgE/видео.html
I will grant that some Catholics are saved in spite of official doctrine, but this video misreads Galatians.
The logic of Galatians is that when you add works to grace, you destroy grace. You can't be justified. Because the demand of the law is perfection. Also, Paul called the Judaizers "false brethren". Not, "maybe you guys are somewhat confused."
You do get that in both Romans and Galatians, the inspired author does NOT say "good works" but instead "works/works of law (Torah)". The heresy is such because the ceremonial law of the Jews looked forward to Jesus' coming, and thus to practice it again is by action to deny that Jesus has come.
In Romans 2, we see that St. Paul is talking of "good works" and says that this IS how God will judge those in Him and outside of Him.
We say that grace is the gift of God, completely unmerited by us, but we need to respond to that grace - to say "yes", if you will. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to have faith to make an act of faith to begin with.
//You do get that in both Romans and Galatians, the inspired author does NOT say "good works" but instead "works/works of law (Torah)". //
The Torah contains all of the moral law. All good works are contained in the Torah.
//The heresy is such because the ceremonial law of the Jews looked forward to Jesus' coming, and thus to practice it again is by action to deny that Jesus has come.//
This isn't Paul's critique of why adding Torah observance doesn't justify.
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”- 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Paul's argument is not that ceremonial law is looking backwards, besides your incorrect limiting of "works of the law" to ceremonial works.
Paul's argument is that they can't justify because we can't do them perfectly. The verse he quotes from Deuteronomy is all moral law commandments btw.
//In Romans 2, we see that St. Paul is talking of "good works" and says that this IS how God will judge those in Him and outside of Him.//
We need to keep reading and not stopping in Romans 2. We have the conclusion of how both Jew and Gentile will be judged according to this standard in Romans 3:
For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
Romans 2 is the standard. No one will be justified according to that standard.
//We say that grace is the gift of God, completely unmerited by us, but we need to respond to that grace - to say "yes", if you will. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to have faith to make an act of faith to begin with.//
When you add anything to grace you've destroyed grace.
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 a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
A purpose of excluding works (and a reason why faith is a gift) is to remove the grounds for boasting. Your "but we need to respond to grace" destroys the very reason the apostle Paul tells us we are saved apart from works. Why does person A respond to grace and person B does not? It has to logically have something to do with person A, giving person A grounds for boasting. Thus, your system should be rejected out of hand.
@@geoffrobinson I hope you get this reply because I like what you wrote. I am a 67 year-old Catholic who believes - as far as I can tell - much as you do. I accept what Paul says in Ephesians 2. The main reason I am writing to you is I have read a lot - a lot!!! - about the Law and Faith. Yet I think the weight of my Catholicism prevents me from fully understanding or accepting by faith that Jesus' atonement/death on the Cross is a particularly incredible event that sets sinners free from judgment. Maybe I am not stating it correctly; however, I think you came as close as anyone I have read to explaining why works might destroy grace. I have read some tremendous theologians on the topic. IMO, Galatians and Romans are the best Biblical writings about The Law and Grace, but still there remains things that are still cloudy. Would you mind expounding some more? It would be greatly appreciated. I know that understanding is not the same as Grace, but it sure cannot hurt understanding what God did in Jesus Christ.
@@ronaldkulas5748 //but still there remains things that are still cloudy//
If you want to email me for a deeper conversation: operationstcyprian AT gmail dot com
So just a quick summary unless you have a specific question. Paul contrasts wages and gifts. A wage is something you get based on your efforts. Gifts come with no strings attached.
Grace isn't a power source or an enablement per se. It's unmerited favor. It's God doing something for you that you don't deserve.
Now, Paul has two arguments I want to highlight. In Galatians, Paul is making the argument that if you want to be declared righteous (that's what "justify" means) before God with works added, they have to be perfect. And they can't be perfect this side of heaven. So if you want to go that route, you're going to be condemned.
Bringing your works before God as the basis for being declared righteous is an extremely horrible idea because God demands perfection and we are far, far from perfect. We need to understand how holy God is and how deeply offensive our sin is.
The other argument Paul makes is that God wanted to exclude boasting. This means the possibility of boasting. That's why works are excluded and why justification (again, being declared righteous) is by faith. "For by grace you have been saved by God, and this is not your doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works so that no man should boast." If I'm over here working real hard and believing in my own power I have a reason to boast over someone who doesn't. If salvation is a gift from beginning to end, no basis for boasting.
Now, what did Jesus do on the cross? He took the punishment your sins richly deserved. Trust in that to be saved. What did the Israelites need to do to be saved from the poisonous snakes. Just look at the bronze serpent and be saved. That's it. Jesus said He had to be lifted up like the Bronze Serpent.
Email me if you wish to chat.
+Jordan Cooper -- 6:02 I'm not aware of Fr. Joseph A. Fitzmyer having written a commentary on the letter to the Galatians. Unless you were referring to some book in which he mentioned Luther and Galatians, can it be you instead meant to say his Romans commentary in the 'Anchor Bible' series?
resurrectionjose Yes, that is the commentary I was referencing. I must have mispoke.
Pretty good talk. You are correct on many levels. Some key books in my improved understanding of Catholicism were books such as McGrath's "Iustitia Dei" (3rd Ed.), David Aune's "Reading Paul Together," and Bruce McCormack's "Justification in Perspective." It has also been helpful to realize that Catholics read the same gospels and epistles which we do, and believe them. That including all the verses I used to quote regarding salvation by grace through faith, as accusations against them (to which Catholics say, "Yes!" unless they are poorly catechized, and/or don't read their Bibles.
It is difficult to run against Rome, when the early church fathers, and their successors for centuries followed in their steps. One can either join the heretics who imagine the whole of Christendom fell away (Torrence claimed he found nothing of Grace in the early fathers), only to be restored in the Reformation. Or the myth of a red thread of secret protestant-like believers down through the centuries until then.
Luther, himself, might be counted as a heretic, adding "alone" to the scriptures, and inventing his own Canon (he still had doubts about the Book of Revelation when he died). Moreover, his fluctuating spiritual insights (say with the peasant wars) seemed to flow from great vain certainty of his own interpretation, and how it played into his strong socio-political influence. His seeking acceptance from the East (the Orthodox Churches) belies his objective (or subjective?) need for a doctrinal and ecclesiastical lineage that could be traced back to the early church. It is still sought by some Lutheran and Reformed people / groups, today.
But the East still holds them at bay. Discussion yield mutual understanding, but no reconciliation on differing points.
I'm not sure why people speak of the church fathers as if they were monolithic on every issue. As a Confessional Lutheran, I agree with myriad of things many of them said, and disagree with some things as well.
Eastern Orthodox Church throws anathema on all those who teach Filioque and Iconoclastic related heresies. That covers all Latins and most of the Protestants.
Sadly I have to disagree. I say sadly because I'd be rejoicing if I could say catholics are going to heaven. But sadly Scripture, conscience, and reason withhold me from such audacity...
Well said brother, there is no true confession of faith in Christ, but faith in their own works. Certainly, it is possible that God will save catholics, or even unbelievers or muslims for that matter, but scripture states that to him that trusts in God who justifies the ungodly his faith is counted as righteousness. I am not aware of a roman catholic that would teach that God justifies the ungodly, by faith alone, because of it I would not give roman catholics a pass. God certainly can do that, but he has not revealed in his word a way of salvation, other than through faith in Christ so it would be wrong for me to say that roman catholics are christian brothers. With that said, it is possible that they will go to heaven, it is God that would judge those outside the christian church, and in my view most roman catholics are outside the christian church.
@Dominus Vobiscum I have to say my position has become much milder since then. However there are many catholics who aren't saved cause they trust in Mary or their works instead of Jesus, just as there are many Protestants who aren't saved because they trust the sinner's prayer or something of that kind instead of Jesus
James 2:26
faith apart from works is dead.
also Galatians 5:6
John 14:15 and it's pretty much all around the Bible especially the book of James, which is not apocrypha right? protestant brothers and sisters, catholic just means universal as Christ made the church to unite and remember that he also says not to judge and names the abuser as who? today's bible lesson is free, you just have to read the whole thing.
typo... accuser, not abuser. whoops
Trent is dogma. The RC Church hasn't recanted on any of it.
Trent is Catholic dogma. "SOLA fides" is Protestant dogma. The only passage in the N.T. that contains the phrase "faith alone" (greek, pisteos monom) is James 2:24. Pope Benedict XVI said: "Luther's phrase faith alone is true IF it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love". Faith in love is not what Luther taught. The fact that sin (faith without love) has consequences, eternal consequences, according to the Bible, is a problem with Protestantism.
Protestants should know Martin Luther ignored what the catholic Church officially taught: ""It is quite possible that Martin Luther may have confused one theological opinion with the official teaching of the Church and initiated his program of reform on the basis of this misunderstanding" Protestant Oxford professor Alister McGrath.
@@Alfredo8059 James 2:24
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
When you quote James 2:24, i think you forgot the word "not" 😁
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."
"and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." 1 Cor. 13:2
"If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be [a]accursed. O[b] Lord, come!" 1 Cor. 16:22
Neither James nor Paul ever tauught "faith alone" as Luther constructed.
It's not the Church's job to recant. That's your job.
Yes, Trent is dogma. Christian faith is never alone. Love is inseparable from faith. Luther was wrong ( 1 Cor. 13:2). The Protestant dogma was not infallible.
Thanks very much! Just became a subscriber of yours. For years I've believed that Catholic and Orthodox CAN be saved eternally. Trust and faith in the Holy Trinity alone, as revealed in accurately translated scripture, in one's heart language is essential.
I was born and Baptized a Catholic.. I went to both Catholic Grade School and Catholic High School And spend a seminar in a Catholic University.I trained to become a CCD teacher ( Like the teacher who taught the Catechism) . I went to church every day for years and years. I received the Lords Supper daily too. I went to bible study once or twice a week and Confession once a month. till i started weekly and for a time i went daily or every other. day. I never thought of any of that as Good Works. When i was excommunicated because i felt John Paul ll was wrong and publicly stated that ; i went to many different Churches. When i found something unbiblical i would leave and try another Church. Five years latter i went to a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and talking with the pastor was the first time i ever learned that the Catholic Church taught that salvation needed works. I always believed that Salvation was through the work of Jesus and that i was a poor miserable sinner .When asked by a Baptist once if i was saved ? My reply was only if Jesus was in a very forgiving mood the day i showed up. I was fully aware i could not earn my way to heaven. and that it was what Jesus did and it was a free gift to me. Most Catholics do not know what the council of Trent was and I had heard of it but never know what it said . I know now that the Catholic church teaches different but most Catholics avoid sin, fear sin , try to love their neighbors as themselves, and rely on Jesus not on works.
I disagree, I have never met a catholic that does not rely on his own works for salvation or that does not believe that people that go to heaven have merited it by their works. The catholic church is not even sure if the Pope is going to heaven, before they canonize a Pope they are looking for miracles or good works the Pope did otherwise there is no assurance of salvation. Sorry, but hardly any Catholic has trusted in Christ for salvation, and this is why if you ask a Catholic if they are going to heaven or not, not a single one would tell you that they are going to heaven because they have been cleansed from all sin by the blood of Christ. You must be the exception, since you say you always relied 100 % on Christ and 0 % on your own works to know for sure that you are saved.
@@billk8874 As a former Protestant who became Catholic, I recognize what you're saying about Catholicism as the same deeply mistaken view I once had. Please remember that you have been raised inside a religious culture that sees itself as embracing the gospel in opposition to Catholicism. That's who you are "protesting" against. It's part of your inherited identity to see Catholics as embracing "works righteousness." But that doesn't mean it's the truth. And, in fact, if anything, in my 20 years in the Catholic Church (after 40 as a Protestant), I've found it if anything more centered on God's unmerited Grace than any Evangelical Protestant group I was ever a part of.
@@gordonsavage Well, I was not raised protestant or evangelical. Regardless, I am speaking from direct conversations I have had with catholics. They certainly use the right words, like Christ, and some would even tell you that in Calvary Christ shed his bled for the forgiveness of sins. Yet, still none of these people believes Christ has saved them from their sin, otherwise they would not hesitate to say I know I am going to heaven with 100 % certainty and assurance because Christ took away my sin at Calvary. They simply are unable to confess the death of Christ as their sole cause of their own salvation, and because of it they do not know about their salvation, they are unaware of God's unconditional love for them. Everything is conditional on their behavior for catholics. They start by saying that at baptism original sin is taken away, but not all the sins that come after baptism, for which you need the sacrament of penance to take them away (which is a human work), and it goes south from there. Paul in Romans 6 says at baptism we died with Christ and we rose again with Him, we died to sin, we've been cleansed by Jesus. Catholics do not look at Jesus (although they say they do), they look at themselves all the time, whether they are obedient enough, whether they confessed enough, whether they did enough penance, whether they took the extreme unction before dying. It is insanity, the thief on the cross did nothing, looked and Jesus in faith and was told tonight you will be in paradise. There is nothing we can say, think, or do that can save us, Christ has done it all, but catholics do not believe it and because their salvation depends on themselves instead of Christ they have no assurance, no certainty of their salvation.
@@billk8874 Your words sadden me more than anything else. Clearly, you don't know anything about Catholic theology, nor the joy most Catholics experience basking in God's Grace, but you do know your own insular opinions, which is clearly all you think you need in this life. Good luck with that.
@@gordonsavage I love catholics, I talk to them all the time but it is clear to me that they do not know the love of God. They have an intellectual knowledge, but they lack trust in the promises of the gospel for themselves.
Your comment on this issue is well taken
I would have to particularly have to disagree with you on the Catholic view of Salvation. So Roman Catholics believe that salvation can be broken into two parts. Part 1 is event in which you either except Christ for the first time or re except Christ again. This is the piece that we believe is 1000% necessary to enter into the kingdom of heaven. The problem is that protestants have is with what happens after that. This is where works comes in. We believe there is a more perfect form of salvation in which we participate in Good Works and the Sacraments So that we may become more Christ like THROUGH THE GRACE OF GOD. I want to make clear that Catholics are not trying to merit their own salvation. Rather when we say +Works we are really saying +Trying to be more like Christ. It is only through the Grace of God that we will ever achieve this more perfect form because it requires God to convict us. So in short Protestants believe that what we consider the continuation of our salvation to the ends of obtaining a more perfected salvation is really the evidence of our salvation.
This is similar to the Protestant view of salvation but it needs qualifiers to see where we differ. We see salvation in 3 tenses. 1st) Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone. In justification we receive the imputed righteousness of Christ to our account. This is done outside of us NOT in us. (Rom 3:28; Rom 4:5) 2) Progressive sanctification: being conformed to the image of Christ and growing in the grace & knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.This is done IN us.(Rom 8:29; 2 peter 3:18) 3) Glorification: Upon death the completion, the consummation, the perfection, and the full realization of their salvation for those who simply believed in Jesus.( Rom 8:28-30).
My question is where does purgatory fit into the Roman Catholic order of salvation?
@@InTheSpirit12 Sorry it took my a while to reply.
I would suggest speaking with a priest because I'm not 100% sure how to convey this.
Purgatory is a final purification for those who have died in God's grace that has been opened because of the sufficiency of Jesus's death.
I'm not sure if this is adaquetly explains it but im trying my best here. I'm newer to the Catholic Faith so Im not the best apoligist
It's part of our idea of Glorification
@@thomasbryant2486 but on The Cross Jesus declared, " It is finished! " ...Catholic basically calls Him a liar by saying " no its not...Purgatory is needed, Your payment on the Cross was not quite enough"...
@@wbl5649 No. We believe he paid the price for sin. He opened the way to salvation. We also believe that something in us is fundamentally broken and that is what Purgatory is. Jesus paid the price and Purgatory is a final cleansing from sin before we enter heaven.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3 Chapter 3 Article 2 sections 1-4 make what I feel are a fairly clear and concise statement on Grace and Justification. So to the extent that the Catechism is a confession of their faith I think they’re consistent. Of course Catholic doctrine can be squirrelly to pin down as there is not one authority on these matters.
The whole point of the Catholic Church is that authority is vested in apostolic succession through the see of Peter. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. How do you mean there is not one authority? Do you mean the magisterium has not pronounced on every single question from every possible perspective? They have certainly defined everything necessary for salvation, and sufficiently for faith and morals.
@@thereaction18 What I mean is that there isn't one single compendium that contains all that the Catholic church believes. There's the catechism, cannon law, apostolic constitutions, papal encyclicals, and those things contained in the scriptures and in tradition that either aren't enumerated in other places, or are enumerated in many places. For the layman or protestant, it can be tricky to figure out what Catholics believe not just for these reasons, but also the fact that there are many diverging schools of thought within the RCC.
Thanks Pastor Cooper. As a Lutheran, I agree entirely. I hope that our brothers in American Protestantism will find this video helpful, showing that those in the Roman Communion are also saved by faith alone, even if they do not confess that truth. Their doctrine of justification can be very damaging, but not in and of itself damning. Solus Christus!
+Jereme Bernier I do not consider them brothers in christ because they don't consider us a valid church. Don't accept them for they believe you are damned for not fulfilling the catholic sacraments.
+Kenny Barringer
Here's the thing though... what they say about us doesn't matter, because it doesn't change it. A Christian is determined by whether or not one holds to the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union (as confessed in the 3 ecumenical creeds), we are Catholics regardless of what Rome says. BUT..... By this logic Roman Catholics TOO are Catholic regardless of what Protestants say.
We're all Christian but only one of us is Orthodox (heterodoxy vs orthodoxy).
+Aaron Carlson I have since writing this comment learned different things and I apologize for sounding rude. However, there are Catholics that mis represent what the church actually believes because many don't even know what they believe in. I have been told many times however that I'm going to hell by Catholics. What say you?
+Kenny Barringer well Papal Catholicism while elitist and opinionated doesn't teach that Roman Catholics are the only Christians on the planet (just like Lutherans :) ) --- so if you came across an A-hole who told you that only papists are saved... Not only is he lying, but he's misrepresenting the teachings of his church.
Aaron Carlson Well I thank you for that. How does the Church feel about hybrids? I agree with some of the Church's doctrine such as the sacraments (though I don't believe are necessary for salvation, they are definitely biblical) but disagree with the apostolic succession (though it can be proven historically, it's hard to prove it biblicly). I am sort of a mix of protestant and catholic.
And one more: one must not let the catholic theologians post Vatican Council II make one believe that the doctrine of the Catholic Church has changed since Trent. See the Catechism made under John Paul II as an official statement. Theologians are one thing, Church dogma is another thing. And, sadly, not all catholic theologians nowadays are really catholic.
NO! Practicing Catholics who adhere to the false dogmas of Rome ARE NOT my brothers and sisters in Christ. They need to be saved.
Some of them are already saved
The problem with Protestant religion, is that no Christian had a bible for the first 1,500 years of Christianity that matches the 66 book Protestant cannon. So by default obviously sola Scriptura is false.
This man is a novice.
He definitely has a greater theological and biblical education than yourself he has a PHD in theology. You have created your own church and follow conspiracy theories without advanced theological and biblical education.
The belief in Purgatory voids justification and salvation by faith.
James 2:24
James 2:24 is referring to those who pretend to be Christian in word but in practice they HAVE DEAD FAITH. Please read in context
As a lay Reformed Baptist I wish I could sit down with you over a beer and pick your brain. Love your stuff!
I’m curious what you mean by “anti-sacramentalism”. I know this video is 7 years old…have you covered this more specifically in another video?
He means that Baptistic churches - Reformed Baptists may be an exception, I don't know enough to say - reject the idea that baptism and communion are sacraments. This is true, as well, of essentially all of the nondenominational "Bible" churches.
I appreciate your sincerity and love and compassion. But as a Wesleyan I look at the catholic church and I see them very often having grace and works and they are trusting in works as much as grace. I find that very difficult to see them as Christian's
Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about the works of the law. Don't be like the Pharisee of
Luke 18:10-12
, who boast about doing the works of the law.
10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are: extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’"
Because you are created to do good works (what Jesus commands).
Ephesians 2:8-12
21st Century King James Version
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God-
9 not by works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto GOOD WORKS, which God hath beforehand ordained, that we should walk in them.
@@mariasoniamoreno3433 no it isnt talking about the works of the law as Paul isnt addressing law keepers.
Roman's 11v6 if it is of works even slightly it's not grace. Grace is unmerited favour. If you do something even slightly to earn it it isnt grace.
Where by the way was I like that pharisee. And I seen you write a comment about seeking your faith from what the church or learned catholics say. Would you not be better going to the scriptures?
@@matthewwilliamson484
1. With Luke 18:10-12, I meant to exemplify someone boasting about his works of the law. I didn't call you a Pharisee.
2. Do you have any apprehension about the Wesleys belonging to the Anglican Church originally, given the foundation of that church?
"The English church renounced papal authority when Henry VIII failed to secure an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon in 1534."
3. Please, explain the meaning of "good works" in Ephesians 2:10
. And tell me why good works are even mentioned after they have been declared totally worthless for salvation in the previous verse?
Ephesians 2:
"10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto GOOD WORKS, which God hath beforehand ordained, that we should walk in them."
Thank you.
@@matthewwilliamson484 Catholics do not put their faith in their works alone.
1:48:00 not exactly, he says "if anyone PREACHES" another gospel, not "if anyone believes" another gospel. Just a small correction for the Bible teacher.
Please can I have a protestant explain this written by Iranaeus....
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority
Athanasius and Cyril versus Arius and Nestorius. Arianism was spread to the Germanic tribes including the Balkans including Greece. Arianism in Germany inherited by Luther a German to Hitler who spoke about arian race.
Apostles of Christ and fathers of the church were in those meetings in councils. And they had Arius and Nestorius
Apostles of Christ and the fathers of the church and bishops did convene and had to deliberate and decide according to the topic they had. And they argued against heresy like St Nicholas disagreeing to Arius and Bishop St Nicholas stood and slap Arius because of his heretical teachings. And Bishop of Myra St Nicholas he slapped Arius out of love to Jesus and Mary. That was the Council of Nicea attended by 300 bishops including Bishop of Myra St Nicholas. And it was convene by Emperor Constantine
Roman Catholic Canon Law states that if you miss Mass on Sunday of your own free will and don’t go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation before you die, you go to hell. This sounds like very works-based salvation.
"Are Roman Catholics Brothers and Sisters in Christ?"
No
@SAMUEL JESSE There is only one Christ - Lord Jesus Christ. He is the truth.
I will not let catholics who have other sacrafice than saving one, going to hell, i will be not in disobyidence to God, to Christ who is not limited. He is not Limited, Catholics need Him too.
@SAMUEL JESSE They own church lead them to belive not, and i will be don't lying to them, only a few there are saved and they need to get out from this either.
So no, false religion is not saving faith of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, they will be our brothers when they will get save out of their church.
@SAMUEL JESSE Then God Bless you - those people who are don't are brothers and sister are waiting to be as such, go then - we much preach gospel further.
What is the back hanging from the bookcase? A Rosary?
Yes, Lutheran rosaries are a thing.
Show me in scripture where we are justified by “faith alone” ?
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV
@@FRZELION , Protestants usually ignore what happens in Eph. 2:5. Justification is not just a extrinsic legal declaration, Justification is a legal declaration and an inner transformation.
Faith alone (without the love of God poured in our hearts) is not a Christian faith.
Paul never taught "faith alone" before or apart the gift of charity"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor. 13:2
@@Alfredo8059 I think you are using this verse in the wrong context...
Paul was talking about 'gifts'
He was pointing out that without love those supernatural powers are in vain.
@@youzhen91 , you are right: without love (charity) those supernatural powers (faith alone, too) are in vain: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Mat. 7:21-23
" I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." John 15:1-6
Faith is not a Christian faith before or apart from the gift of LOVE. Paul is very clear:
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." 1 Cor. 16:22
Paul clearly contradicts Luther's theology:
"Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that LOVE his appearing." 2 Tim. 4:8
@Brett R anti-Catholics ignore the fact that saints are our brothers and sisters, saints are members of the Body of Christ. The members of the Body of Christ pray for each other. Our brothers and sisters are not idols. The Catholic Church teaches to worship God alone. Catholics believe the Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). The Church has always fought corruption, sin and ignorance. Read Matt 13: 24-30 and you will learn Jesus told us to expect corruption in the Church until the end of time. Every attempt to create a perfect church in this life has ended in hypocrisy or tyranny. The Bible says the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Do you think you are the pillar and ground of truth?
Simply Catholic. Not Roman. There are 24 different Catholic Churches. The Latin rite is one of 24. I go to a Ukrainian Catholic church
No. If you go to Greek-Catholic church, it is still in communion on core teaching of the Roman Catholic and accept head authority of the Pope. Only Liturgy style was kept as an orthodox.
What a waste of my time. Catholicism holds the true faith like it or not.
Asaph Vapor nor Bible alone...
@Asaph Vapor : You are wrong again.
@Asaph Vapor : Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?
Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? If so, how do you know that?
It's important to distinguish the term "Catholic" from that of "Roman Catholic". Catholic simply means "Universal Faith" whereas Roman Catholic denotes the faith of those that follow Roman Catholic teachings. Roman Catholicism is in error biblically, because it requires adherence to certain laws of it's Canon, known as "Canon Law" for complete salvation. However, the Word of God declares that a man is not saved by the law, but solely through grace. (Galatians 2:17).
The church came before the NT.
And?
This is what Trent said: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
It’s not quite what you are saying, is it.
Enjoy your videos. But you still have much to learn my young friend....you would make a great Catholic!!!
@Brian Knutson Jesus didn't leave us a Bible when he ascended. There was never going to be a Bible. He left us 12 men and traditions. The Bible wasn't put together until 400 years after the Ascension by that evil Catholic Church. What did the followers of Christ do for 400 years? There was no Bible mind you. They practiced offering their sacrifice, like all religions, underground and lived by the traditions of men and the apostolic succession. This is history by the way. I am not speaking from a Catholic point of view.
ryno pb Nah we have a completed bible from the 300’s boi. Jesus told the apostles that they’d be given the Holy Spirit aka the spirit of truth which we them into the fullness of truth aka the New Testament. The canon of the Bible formed from there. The Holy Spirit led the early disciples into making the New Testament.
@John Sluder Nothing wrong with praying to mother Mary. We don't worship her.
John Sluder you seem lost in you Catholicism.
I would tend to think that justification by faith and works contradict Romans 11:6, and hence it is affront to Ephesians 2:8-9
I think the better question is are Protestants Christians
I have wondered this same question myself, as an evangelical.
Rome can reinterpret itself all it wants to, but until they deny Trent, retract their anathema statements, then we still have to hold them to their blasphemous statements. The key issue for me is that individuals within the RC church can often contradict one another regarding what they believe. So while I find the RC church rightly called antichrist, I don't believe that condemns every single person in their clutches.
This was Calvin's position as well. Jordan is confused here.
I find it interesting that a Lutheran talks about inconsistencies….look at the splits within the Lutheran community- talk about a beam in your eye.
Those “inconsistencies” in regard to Rome- has the profession of faith changed since the fillioque? Has the real presence of the Eucharist? Any of the sacraments for that matter? Pointing to different philosophical points of view with in a Church of 1.2 billion people and not speaking about the catechism and the magisterium is leaving out the very beating heart of the faith- the core if you will.
Thank you Dr. Cooper! A thoughtful and sincere take on the issue.
For a while I was convinced that “bash Catholics Sunday “must appear on the Lutheran liturgical calendar.
Its not as though papacy slaughtered circa fifty million souls. Oh. Wait.....
Oh, you must be referring to All Hallows Eve, or the October Sunday closest to it....the festival of the Reformation....often was used by Lutheran preachers as a " bash Roman Catholics" occasion....
@@geordiewishart1683 Yep, I'm sure the pope did it himself. The numbers that are used for that figure include everyone who died in the 30 years war (even those murdered by protestants - - the swedish intervention bringing the highest mortality years and essentially making Bavaria a wasteland through mass murder and deprivation of the peasants) including from the plague - - which was the majority of total deaths in the 30 years war.
It includes essentially false guestimates - such as hugenot persecutions. The 50 million figure comes from the guess of 2 million killed hugenots - - despite an estimated 2 million in existance at their greatest extent. Additionally, they remained 7% of the French popluation despite persecution - declining from 10%. So 2 million is imaginary.
It also includes wars that have little or nothing to do with the pope - like the 100 years war. It includes arguably defensive actions - - like the Spanish reconquest (keep in mind, the muslim states never stopped attacking the Spanish, assuming the reconquest was aggressive in nature based on the Spanish winning is poor history) and the Crusades (each crusade can only be judged independantly - - but the 1st was clearly defensive in nature and the most bloody). And in the context of these, every death by every cause is considered the fault of the Catholic Church.
The Albigensian Crusade being arguably the least justified - though they rulers did assasinate papal envoys and were in open rebellion against the French king. The Albigensian crusaders committed several terrible massacres, but the popes reaction was telling. Pope Innocent had no control over the French nobility who engaged in the crusade - the crusade was specifically to depose several nobles, the bloodshed led the pope to completely restructure how heresy was approached thereafter.
The 50 million figure comes from adding most medieval wars along with plague deaths during wars, along with invented deaths, along with protestants killing catholics, along with all war deaths in religious wars (regardless of any other factors), along with any random peasant persecutions of Jews.
A note on peasant persecutions - - im sure the 50 million figure includes the jews persecuted and killed during pograms. During the first crusade, many rhineland jews were murdered - - the christians who did so were excommunicated, in one case the bishop had the hands cut off of all the attackers that were captured, etc. But these deaths too are laid at the feet of the Catholic church in your figure.
You might want to listen to actual historians on these issues as opposed to your pastor. There are free history courses at your local library on the crusades, inquisitions, etc. It might help cure your ignorance.
😂😂😂
Regardless what denomination one is, i think the true dispute is if one can lose their salvation or not. If someone thinks they cannot lose their salvation, they my not concern themselves with doing good works and waring against sin. If someone believes they can lose their salvation or they are in the process of being saved, they will be more concerned with obedience. Including obedience to the spirit of the law, love. Not love as a feeling but in action. ! speeks to the difference of one who loves his brother vs hates..being of christ vs the devil. But honestly, I dont think there are very many Christians who are keeping a score card on their works. I think for the most part most Christians who do works, do them because they feel compelled by love.