Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Justification: Protestant vs. Catholic
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 авг 2024
- In this video I offer an overview of a Protestant perspective on justification, with a goal of providing conceptual clarity on where it differs from a Roman Catholic view. And in case you are wondering, YES AT 55:33 IT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE!!!
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY BOOKS:
gavinortlund.c...
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/trut...
00:00 - Introduction
07:45 - Approaching Justification
11:08 - Justification and Human Psychology
14:21 - Where We Agree + Disagree
36:50 - Justification in Church History
Obviously it requires much more to show truth than what I'm about to say now, but honestly, your Christ-like approach, language and attitude alone towards Catholics vs. many of those who that critique you - is a convincing and strengthening your position in of itself. Keep it up!
Thanks Daniel!
Yeah, it's like...
Comment: We're saved by faith AND good works your horrible hypocritical heretic! Too bad we can't burn you!
Gavin: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Please help me understand where you're coming from.
Now who actually has good works? They guy who does or does not trust in them?
@@Mygoalwogel Yes I hear you. I am a Catholic and it can be a bit embarrassing. I have no objection against Gavin being firmly argued against if only most would do it in the same way he argues firmly against Catholic positions.
@@TruthUnites I do agree that your approach is very Christ-like which means that pointless vicious insults and rhetoric are unnecessary. That's why you, Suan Sonna, and Trent Horn are my favorite Christian apologists. Keep up the good work.
Agreed!
Very well said Sir. I was a Roman Catholic before converting to Protestantism. Very well taught Catholic and I get from where their beliefs are coming from. Usually, my protestant brothers are not so gracious in listening about these things. My Roman Catholics friends on the other hand are, well nonchalant...even historical father figures are fallible..,👍
May I ask what your reasons were for leaving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?
There is no common ground I’m afraid. If you hold to faith alone and perseverance of the saints.
@@EricAlHarb There is plenty of common ground. They have a different form of perseverance of the saints. They have more bells and whistles, but we can't discount over a thousand years of the RCC pretty much carrying Christianity. Yes there are complicated and corrupted reasons why and how they did, but our form of church is not perfect either.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I’m Orthodox. There is no common ground. We have different religions. IMHO.
@@EricAlHarb Well you're going to be surprised to see many protestants in heaven then.
I was raised Catholic, baptized, communion, confirmation, catechism every Saturday. I met the Lord in a Bible Study with a Campus Crusade for Christ friend in my early 20s. I immediately knew I was forgiven and was born again. The Bible came alive for me. I have never looked back for 50 years. There is one salvation through Jesus death and resurrection. Ask him unto your heart and know.
Thank you for sharing your journey of faith. It's wonderful to hear how you've experienced the presence of Christ in your life and how the Bible has come alive for you. As a Catholic, I can relate to the deep love for Scripture and the centrality of Jesus' death and resurrection in our faith.
The experience you describe of asking Jesus into your heart is a beautiful moment of personal conversion. In Catholicism, we see conversion as an ongoing process-continually turning our hearts to God and living out our faith in love and service. We strive to follow Jesus closely, knowing that His grace sustains us every step of the way.
I respect the path you've taken and the ways you've come to know and love Jesus. I believe that as Christians, we are united in our love for Christ and our desire to follow Him. While we may express our faith in different ways, our shared belief in Jesus as our Savior is a powerful bond.
As a Baptist myself, grew up Baptist, went to a Baptist Bible college, and currently ministering in a Baptist church, yet on my own time listening to speakers and thinkers from various persuasions such as Orthodox (Jonathan Pageau), Catholic (I actually found your channel by listening to Trent Horn's rebuttal), secular psychological (Jordan Peterson), and mild charismatic (Mike Winger), I've been challenged to think outside my Baptist bubble.
I haven't necessarily changed my own views, but I have changed how I approach other sects by simply not arguing against the caricatures of them I was taught earlier in my life; and in some cases, as this video helps affirm to me, that we're actually not so different in certain areas I thought we were.
And like you allude to, I've been kind of afraid of bringing this up among other Baptists because I've heard others hint that I might be liberal because I'm not as strict on, say, alcohol or the King James version. God forbid I get called ecumenical for saying "Catholics don't actually believe that."
It's nice to see someone else in Baptist circles talking about this, and I might even start my own YT channel to add to the list of Baptist voices on this platform.
Dear Dominus, thank you for your spirit of openness and enquiry. That itself makes the world a better place, and makes you more attentive to the workings of God among all his children.
Mike Winger is definitely not a charismatic lol. I think you probably assume that from him pastoring at a Calvary Chapel, but many Calvary Chapels are conservative. Pastor Chuck Smith, the big leader, is himself more conservative leaning.
Calvary Chapel just allows for charismatics, and has charismatic roots. You’ll also find some that are even cessationist, tho. Calvary Chapel allows for a broad view on the gifts of the spirit, but maintains conservative theology.
Also I’m a Baptist myself and you are far from alone. I think the Baptist Churches are going to see a reformation soon-ish in the next decade or two.
@@disguisedcentennial835 he's described himself as mildly charismatic, in that he believes the sign gifts can still happen today, though not as a regular practice. He's said as recently as a few weeks ago in a stream that he has on occasion spoken in prayer in a tongue unknown to himself (groanings which cannot be uttered).
If you don't think that counts as "tongues" in the biblical sense and therefore is not charismatic, that's fine, but he does. He denies cessationism.
Thank you Dr Ortlund from a Presbyterian. Really love and admire your irenic approach to tackling these issues.
Thanks Julian, so glad it was helpful!
I’m a returning Roman Catholic but I love your videos. I love understanding the other side. You do it with love and humility and I appreciate it. Thank you for your kindness. I hope the apologetic speakers on my side pay you the same respect.
I love your message of love, respect and humility. This is what this channel is all about, all of us Christians doing away w/ those divides and just finding unity and love for each other as all members of the same universal (catholic) body of Christ. God bless!
Many don’t, but many do. I think Ortlund’s favorite has to be Trent Horn lol
Trent Horn does. Watching the two of them, one would think they're personal friends whose kids play together. It's a beautiful example.
I’m a Baptist pastor in Tennessee. I’ve been binge watching your videos since I found them a couple weeks ago.
My concern is that from my perspective, Catholic people themselves don’t view themselves as justified through faith.
For example, the wearing of the brown scapular, with it’s Marian promises that if one dies wearing the brown scapular, he or she will not go to Hell. This betrays a very basic misunderstanding of justification, does it not?
How could someone believing anything even approximating the scriptural doctrine of justification by faith, simultaneously have faith in the brown scapular?
By the way, thanks for your videos, have learned a lot!
I am an even chemical who made his way into traditional anglicanism and later to the Catholic Church because I was left without a home and have returned to evangelicalism but I have to say the scapular as a Catholic is just something I never got into. I ignored it just like I ignore indulgences and deep thoughts about purgatory and other things that aren't in Scripture. Deep down I'm simply Evangelical and so I had to end up leaving the Catholic Church for the sake of integrity.
Amen 🙏🏻 any addition to the gospel of grace is a travesty. I think Gavin has been reading too much Catholic literature he’s unconsciously being indoctrinated 😅
I was in the Philippines and those scapulars were everywhere. I remember that, though I'm not Catholic.
@@SaucyDog420no, I think he's just trying to understand their positions better without straw manning them. However I believe that there are different levels of Catholics. Some actually believe the things Gavin teaches. But others believe what you said. That's wild.
Thank you for sharing your concern. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify how these practices are understood from a Catholic theological perspective.
In Catholic teaching, justification by faith is indeed central, and the Church teaches that we are justified by God's grace, received through faith, which is a gift from God. However, Catholicism also emphasizes that faith, to be living and active, must be expressed through love and good works, as reflected in the Epistle of James (James 2:17).
Regarding the Brown Scapular and similar devotions, it's important to understand that these are viewed not as alternatives to faith in Christ, but as expressions of that faith. The scapular, for instance, is seen as a sign of a commitment to live according to Christian values and to trust in Mary's intercession, as she leads believers closer to her Son, Jesus Christ. It’s not the physical scapular that justifies or saves, but the faith and devotion it represents.
The promise associated with the Brown Scapular is understood in the context of a life of faith and grace, not as a magical guarantee. Catholics believe that such sacramentals (like the scapular) are aids to living a faithful Christian life, helping believers to grow in their relationship with God. They are reminders of the believer's call to holiness and reliance on God's grace, not replacements for faith or a misunderstanding of justification.
So, from a Catholic perspective, the use of the Brown Scapular is seen as a complementary practice to the core belief in justification by faith, rather than something that contradicts it. It symbolizes a life lived in ongoing faith and cooperation with God's grace, rooted in the belief that it is God who justifies.
This tore down all my caricatures of Roman justification! Very interesting. Thanks Gavin!
It's good that they're changing for the better in a lot of ways. The caricatures should be torn down. But they do come from history, not from thin air:
Roman Confutatio to the Augsburg Confession: "For if any one should intend to disapprove of the merits that men acquire by the assistance of divine grace, he would agree with the Manichaeans rather than with the Catholic Church. For it is entirely contrary to holy Scripture to deny that *our works are meritorious.* [...] For where there are *wages* there is merit. [...] On this account their frequent *ascription of justification to faith* is not admitted since it pertains to grace and love."
So the original objection was that
1. Justification is by merit just as are wages.
2. Justification is not by faith (not only rejecting faith alone) but is the wage paid for the merit of acts of love enabled by grace.
@@Mygoalwogel Faith alone is fallacy, an abomination and the work of the devil. Many souls face damnation now for believing and teaching this atrocity.
@@RedWolf5 Please reread my comment above.
@@Mygoalwogel I did. Faith alone is an abomination, the work of the devil, not biblical at all, a complete fabrication.
@@RedWolf5Try reading your bible.
I was that Protestant that condemned Catholics for not holding to imputed righteousness and it's funny that you mentioned Richard Baxter because I also ended up condemning him after learning about his position. Thanks for being fair to the Catholic position Gavin. I will recommend this video to anyone dealing with protestant-catholic dialogue.
Don't let James White see this video or else he's going to come after you LOL
I have to agree with Mauricio that you've done an excellent job explaining both positions and showing that they are not as substantively different as the polemics often assert. At 19:10 of the video I quite agree that the historic position of the Protestant reformers is far too often mischaracterized and overstated towards a sola fide that really is no different from a propositional assent of faith and divorced from necessary ongoing faith/works (faithfulness). This is untrue and needs to be dropped from discussions regarding many of the Protestant reformers and their individual views and well as many of the confessions that arose from their teachings and traditions. I would continue to quibble with the courtroom motif as the primary lens from which to understand justification, but that's for a different discussion.
That said, has the language of "sola fide" and the various historical polemics against works of any kind as being antithetical to the gospel over the past hundred years done grave damage to a majority of Protestant denominations around the world today, particularly in many (most?) charismatic, fundamentalist and hyper-Calvinist circles? How is this to be rectified as it seems extremely damaging to individuals in their walk with the Lord as well as ecumenical efforts towards greater understanding and mutual pursuit of truth?
Great work overall and you have Catholic friends who have your back against potential attacks of some of the more vocal polemicists. God bless.
Side note, have you read Dr. Matthew Thomas's book on Paul and the 2nd century reception of Paul's works of the law? Extremely well done.
@@michaelbaumert4501 I have. Was this question meant for Dr. Ortlund?
@@StayFaithful13 Yes, I apologize for the confusion.
I don’t condemn Catholics for not holding to imputed righteousness. They fall under the anathema of Galatians because they add works to faith for acceptance before God.
I do love your irenic presentations Dr. Ortlund. You are a point of light in Christ’s Kingdom.
The sad part is how rampant the idea of faith as mere intellectual assent is in our modern easy believism context. Unfortunately, the caricature is very true in a lot of the large "protestant" context.
Thank you for your videos. Something to think about though I'm sure a lot of it varies from person to person in the actual personally held beliefs.
It can be, but I wonder if a lot of the churches teach that or if it's how the people interpret it. Maybe poor discipleship.
Finally got around to watching this video Around the 8 minute mark you briefly touch on the posture on should have when engaged in research and dialogue. Such a helpful framework and reminder as I’m currently writing a research paper on various views of the Law and the believer. As always, I’m thankful for your time, effort, and Christlike character, Gavin! Blessings!
Thanks a lot Justin. God bless you in your research!
Thank you for this, Gavin. The earthquake line had me CRACKING up!
It was a real earthquake! Clearly my earthquake detection skills need some sharpening.
That was a very subtle pun, bravo.
8:25 - this is so true. During my early Christian walk there was a season in which I was completely handed over to my own flesh and it resulted in me doing some of the worst things imaginable. This happened after I gave my heart to the Lord and after I did everything in my power to follow his direction - to this day I don't fully understand the spiritual dynamics of what happened. If I did not hold to the belief that it is faith alone that saves me then I would have given up. My faith was severely challenged and this went on for more than ten years. If I had any concept that my faith "had to be perfected by works otherwise it would be dead" in an immediate sense then it would have been all over for me - I am sure of it. Nevertheless I held on and through that same faith I was freed to love and so works followed. Today I can confidently show the fruit of my faith praise God. I am still a work in progress but the difference is remarkable.
Honestly my story is the exact opposite. I came to the conclusion that I could not have been saved given that I didn’t bare any remarkable fruit or change of life from anyone else. I still fell into the same sins and still had the same passions. I thought I was damned. I found a lot of relief when I discovered Orthodoxy.
The Orthodox Church does not teach that your dammed for the sins you commit after you begin your journey of salvation, that you are constantly falling in and out. That’s a mischaracterization. We may repent continuously for the same sin for the rest of our lives, just as long as we are picking our cross back up again and never giving up on the fight, we can be assured that we are actively engaging with God’s saving grace. We pray that He gives us victory over our sin, and we recognize that this is only in our hands at all and that He loves us and desires our salvation even more than we do ourselves. So whatever assurance we have is not based on faith but upon Christ.
@@delbertclement2115 I think I would push back against your final sentence. Your assurance (whatever that is) is your faith. Faith "is" the assurance of the things not seen - which in this case is Christ. As long as you have this you will always repent of your sin and thus it is your faith that saves you.
Dr Ortlund! I. Love. Your. Content. And. Style. Irenic discussion is a virtue that needs to be recovered and your channel does a good job at making it attractive: in its thoughtfulness wrt differences and insistence on peace and unity as the end :)
Love from South Africa 🇿🇦,
Jared
Thank you for making this, amazing. Absolutely love the Anselm quote. And really really good points you’re making about both sides, I learned a lot from this, it’s so uplifting and helpful to learn from you due to your humility, honesty, and charitable demeanor, loved this thank you!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
So hyped to watch! Ever since you talked about it on remnant radio I've been pumped
It's true that initial salvation, in the Catholic Church, is a free gift from God but then you have to continue to merit it, through works. For instance, if you miss Sunday Mass willingly you will be in a state of mortal sin and no longer 'saved'. If you can't get to a priest to confess this sin before you die, you will go to hell (despite believing, loving and trusting in The Lord). This is one of the main reasons I left the Catholic Church. This does not come from God and I finally realised it was a Cult's way of maintaining control over its parishioners. Grace, given out piecemeal is not the Biblical way of salvation although it took me decades and many years of fear before I realised.
"This does not come from God and I finally realised it was a Cult's way of maintaining control over its parishioners. Grace, given out piecemeal is not the Biblical way of salvation although it took me decades and many years of fear before I realised.
" how is this unbiblical?
@@Jk-ow8nyThe Bible explains grace as a free gift that's unmerited. If it can be taken away based on an action or lack thereof on our part, it is no longer grace as shown in scripture.
The Baltimore Catechism: Perfect contrition will obtain pardon for mortal sin without the sacrament of penance when we cannot go to confession, but with the perfect contrition we must have the intention of going to confession as soon as possible, if we again have the opportunity.
If you don't mind. Can I ask how often you went to confession when you were Catholic?
@@caseycardenas1668am I still saved if I die in the sin of apostasy? Or unrepented sin?
@@gto2111 apostasy would infer that you do not have faith.
Appreciate you doing this. I started reading Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and saw that my understanding of their official view on justification was simply wrong. You're right--we are much closer than many think. Even Sproul acknowledged that Rome didn't teach a crass works-righteousness.
RC Sproul has some very good teachings on Catholicism, and explains some of the nuances of their sacramental form of salvation. It's too bad that he comes to the conclusion that they teach a different gospel.
@@saintejeannedarc9460well, that’s because they do. Maybe you don’t believe that, but the official catechism says otherwise. It is another gospel. It puts you on an endless treadmill of penances, other sacraments, etc. You never know if you’re in a state of grace, don’t have a finished work of Christ, etc. Even Trent Horn says God may elect some to become Christians at baptism and then leave them so they don’t persevere and they end up perishing. That’s not biblical, the Roman gospel can’t give you peace with God through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). If you don’t believe any of this then you aren’t a Roman Catholic.
@@KnightFel It depends on what your belief system is overall. Some protestants believe in a once save, always saved, even if you let go and don't live for Christ. That isn't biblical either.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 if you let go and live in sin then you never were saved to begin with. Anyone who god holds, no man will ever be able to take away. That’s biblical.
@@michaelransom8926 I don't think it's quite the simple. Remember the prodigal son was still a son, even though he really fell into sin for a time. I'm not giving people license to sin, but we will fall at times, and sometimes pretty far. God is always there to pick us back up when we are ready. Even the most steadfast of Christians will have stumbles and small falls. it is life in this sinful world and sinful body.
Love seeing a new video from TruthUnites when I open up RUclips. Looking forward to watching!
"Disagreement in fasting does not destroy agreement in faith."
- Epitome, Book of Concord (EP X 3-XI 3)
13:55 - the importance of justification
14:50 - why definitions matter
15:42 - Catholic definition of justification
15:50 - initial and ongoing justification
16:53, 17:11 - Protestant definition of justification
17:56 - Does the Protestant position reject a final justification?
18:21 - Calvin on faith and works
18:39 - Luther on works
18:51 - Richard Hooker
20:54, 21:10, 22:04, 22:24 - James 2 and Faith
21:22 - Defining Faith
24:42 - “works of the law”, Galatians 3:10
thanks for doing the more detailed stamps!
@@TruthUnites Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
_________________________
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
_________________________
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
____________________________________
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary.
_________________________
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics.
_________________________
Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.
@@mynameis......23 tl,dr
29:11, 31:58 - Differences
“formal cause”
29:21 - Protestant position: we are imputed and credited with Christ’s righteousness - this is a “forensic declaration”.
29:33, 29:45 - Catholic position: “infused righteousness”. There’s a process where we are made righteous.
From Christ’s merited work, through baptism, and it consists of the Holy Spirit pouring sanctifying grace into our hearts, and then we cooperate with that grace.
The key to understanding this: this is a process of being made righteous.
A Protestant position emphasizes “declaration” of righteousness; Catholics emphasize that we are “made” righteous.
31:30 - Protestant’s take on imputation. It doesn’t just mean “innocent” or “not bad”; it means we have the righteousness of Christ, that we are “good”.
31:38 - The Protestant take on imputation: Jesus doesn’t just pay off our massive debt; He puts all of His money in our account.
32:15, 32:40 - Just because someone doesn’t have the doctrine of imputation of righteousness correct, doesn’t mean they don’t have justification.
John Owen, “… they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which in opinion they deny to be imputed.”
33:10, 33:27 - Another difference is the whole soteriological context of justification. The Roman Catholic teaching on justification comes in a context that includes other things: indulgences, penance, purgatory, the sacraments. The necessity of baptism, the necessity of confession after a mortal sin.
On paper, we can agree on a lot of things.
In practice, for how people are getting justified out in the world, there are important differences that we shouldn’t minimize.
Was so encouraged by this vid when I first watched it and felt the hope of the gospel again thinking about some of the points you made earlier today as well - thanks :')
Jordan Cooper has done some work on the Fathers and Justification and says that St Prosper of Aquitaine clearly holds the same position that later is affirmed by the Reformers.
I like the way you explain it as “one stream of the Catholic tradition” that was accepted before Trent
OOO YESSS unbelievable as it is ......I NEVER HEARD a protestant view on church history ...church fathers ...TRUTH UNITES REALLY FILLS THIS GAP ....thx and PRAISE GOD
Thanks for your work, Dr. Ortlund! I appreciate the spirit in which you teach.
Thanks as always! I have struggled to understand the differences, so this has cleared it up. I'm glad you feel there is good progress on the issue of justification. I'm not super familiar with the JDDJ but I've heard lots of criticism of it. I sometimes wonder if, unfortunately, many on both sides would rather criticize the language or word choices than pursue dialogue, however clunky and unwieldy it can be. Thanks for being a voice of Mere Christianity in a polarized sphere.
Gavin agree with your assessment of JDDJ. Very balanced. And great video all around. And I say amen to “the hub is Union with Christ”! The hub of our very life!
Gavin!! You’re a man after my own heart! I am a retired pastor and ended up later becoming catholic and EO for many years. I’m now no longer in those, BUT I also Never subscribed to their teachings on them being the “Only true churches“. That never made sense to me and Especially coming from our background. We are made righteous by faith and grace in Christ, not by works. So I stumbled with a lot there.
But, also I learned many things there too and they were beautiful ancient faiths! But, it’s so good to be back home. They are double standard though too because they will always say they are not the ONLY true church, but only they have the more complete picture or “fullness”. (which I now disagree with). Then but other days, they say they are “the only true church.” Or they say that “ we know where the church is, but they don’t know where it is not.” 😂 basically Trying to play both sides. But then other times they say, “no you cannot be saved outside of their church.”
But then for example, different orthodox churches attack and demonize each other. They say the other ones aren’t true orthodox or true Christians. Or that they aren’t “in communion” with them. 😂 I mean it’s beyond insanity. But being a life long evangelical and ex Baptist, I knew better and that mentality never made sense to me. So, You just have to be IN CHRIST!!
Anyway, good words. I always loved your channel even when I was in those churches. Hope to meet you or visit your church someday.
God bless brother!
What kind of church do you go to now?
This is the best video I’ve seen on the topic! Thanks!
Truth DIVIDES. Jesus was/is TRUTH and he divides more than any person in history
lol you’re not wrong
Yes it does. However we should make sure we really are divided on certain things so at least we know the truth of the situation and don't straw man each other.
Of course it does.
However, Jesus also brings more union than anyone else in history. John 17. Psalm 133. Ephesians 2.
Looking forward to this. As a "simple" layman, I've listened to content from Evangelical, Lutheran, and Catholic apologists on justification, and find a hard time distinguishing the differences. Not to mention the Catholic church and (some) Lutherans now agree on justification (how ironic). To me, that's emblematic of our legalistic focus on our differences. At the end of the day, the different definitions of justification all have the same desired outcome, becoming like Christ and radically changing how we live our lives. In other words, striving to be a Saint.
That seems like what is most important to me; What is the desired end result of your preferred definition of justification? Maybe that's too "mere Christianity" for some, but I think it certainly holds up to Biblical and Traditional muster.
(Allow to preface by saying I DO regard the Reformation teaching on Justification as correct, Biblically)
I've often felt that the Lutheran definition (while CERTAINLY not being in contradiction to the Biblical text) puts more of its weight on its implication for pastoral care. Forensic Justification and even how we apply it methodologically is derived heavily from practical experience, and thus -- in some sense -- is necessary for us, and everything else has to be reshaped to fit around it.
No surprise, Luther's reform came out of a need for existential comfort. Just an observation. That being said, we need to remember that not everything (in fact, not much) in the Bible is about individual, existential relief.
Christ is the center of Scripture, and insofar as Justification is simply our doctrine OF Christ's person and work, we can allow it... but if our subjective experience and comfort take center stage as a _supreme_ good in its own, we've made an idol of it.
@@vngelicath1580 Well put. It does appear to me as well that Martin Luther's definition was more reactionary in the context of the corrupt Catholic teaching at that moment in history. But a more fleshed out definition with all the implications is necessary (whether that's Reformed or Catholic). And spot on about the balance between Christ's completed work vs. subjective comfort.
@VDMA LCMS I watched that debate and that is partially where my question came from lol. I did get the impression there is some differences in the nuances, but it was almost comical that it was branded a "debate". As you put it, a "dialogue" is definitely more applicable.
If your acceptance before God in any shape way or form is due to your performance
1) you won’t get the same anticipated objection Paul raises in Romans 6 so you aren’t teaching the same thing
2) your system allows for boasting so it goes against Romans 3 & Ephesians 2
3) as Galatians 3 explains you won’t be declared righteous because your works you rely on will never be perfect & that’s God’s standard
I hope that clarifies the main difference between Rome & Scripture.
@VDMA LCMS Agree VDMA. The JDDJ was also not a magisterial document from a Catholic perspective. It was only informally noted with approval by JPII, he did not formally adopt it in manner to make it part of his ordinary magisterium. Although Catholics are obliged to pay it respect because of who was involved , Catholics are not obliged to agree (or even give religious submission of will and intellect) with its conclusion that all church dividing differences have been resolved. I don't say that as some sort of "Traditionalist" -this was the considered and published view of Cardinal Avery Dulles - about mainstream as you can get. Don't get me wrong, I think it was very good work and did clear away some misconceptions and bore good fruit , but it is an illusion that it has substantially resolved all significant differences. As Cardinal Dulles said, "there is more work to do."
Thank you very much Dr. Ortlund. I was somehow edified by this. I can especially relate to the part where you explain the importance of getting the gospel right as this has profound existential implications. Without the gospel, I absolutely have no idea how I could possibly bear the intolerable weight of this thing called existence.
I appreciate too the quotes you share from the church fathers and the early protestant reformers. Through you, I am more convinced now that my tradition - the Restoration Movement - somehow got things right. For we hold these two together: sola fide and a high sacramental view of baptism. Everytime I Iisten to Chrysostom and Luther, for example, I always find myself saying, “Hey, that’s what I believe!” My surprise, of course, is due to fact that both Catholics and Protestants accuse that my tradition is out of touch with historic Christianity. I now find that that isn’t true.
Gavin, I cannot say enough how much I appreciate your channel and especially your videos on RC. As someone who grew up Catholic, had a born-again experience as a young adult, then later (10yrs ago) had a crisis of faith and seriously had to reconsider the claims of Roman Catholicism, much of what you have done here in your videos lines up well with my own conclusions. Having said that, I wonder if you have missed a vital element. To date, most of what you have done is looked at RC claims from an atomistic perspective. You have taken main doctrinal disagreements and done a spot-on job, especially from a historical perspective, of demonstrating that the historic protestant position on pretty much all of these points actually is best attested by the long tradition of the church leading back to the first century. I totally applaud you! Thank you for your tiresome work. Nevertheless, RC is not atomistic, but a deeply all-encompassing system which makes it impossible to fully understand unless one sees how all the individual parts are integrally connected to the system as a whole. Now forgive me if I missed it and you actually did reference this somewhere in your presentations , but on this I would suggest "Evangelical Theological Perspectives on post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism" by Leonardo De Chirico, "Same Words, Different Worlds" same author, or even, "Roman Catholic Theology and Practice" by Gregg Allison. I know, I know, more stuff to read! Yet in my experience engaging with RC priests and family members over the years, getting a larger vision of the structure as a whole is absolutely vital. Anyway, keep up the great work Gavin!
Good point. Made me think.
@@littleboots9800 It might be part of the problem, that we overthink it.
Always giving me a lot to think about. Thanks Dr. Ortlund.
Have you done a video on the Protestant view of apostolic succession? That would be an interesting video topic
Thanks, and yes I have!
@@TruthUnites I will check it out! Thank you
Here's the historic protestant view.
ruclips.net/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/видео.html
Dr. Ortlund, once again your talk was an answer to a prayer. I so appreciate your approach and your charity. I often try to keep Exodus 20:16, Matthew 6:9-15 and John 13:34-35 in mind when listening to this type of teaching - thank you for living those words.
I can't help but feel like the Reformed view of Perseverence of the Saints is essentially coupled with the Reformed understanding of a single justification (and now I am extremely curious what John Chystostom may have written about this). I am aware that Lutherans do not hold the same view on perseverence, which is perhaps why Lutherans and Catholics were able to find some common ground in their joint declaration. This could also just be my limited experience and even more limited education talking :)
Praying for you and your work and for all of my brothers and sisters in Christ. ✌️
so glad it was helpful! :)
You do such a great job and working to correctly and charitably represent both sides. I very much enjoyed this video.
Pastor Gavin, you have been a source of edification and encouragement for me ever since I found your channel. I truly appreciate your refreshing perspective on many topics and thank you putting in the time and effort to share your evidence and thorough research.
Thank you also for your ability to clarify defining terms on justification, imputation and early church history. That helped open a perspective that I needed to revisit.
On this topic, if we simply go to the basic Catholic source doctrines, canons, and dogmas I can’t help but note a few sources below (not all) and humbly ask why these were not addressed. It is my position that we as Protestant Christians are not brothers and sisters in Christ with the broader Catholic Church.
COUNCIL OF TRENT -
“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema,”
(Canon 14).
“If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema”
(Canon 9)
In the Roman Catholic perspective, salvation and justification (which can also be lost) is granted to you via all holy sacraments and penance:
Justification can be lost by sinning. To regain the grace of justification, you must participate in the sacraments, baptism, and perform penance (CCC 1446, Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. i).
1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."47
- [ ] baptism (CCC 2020, 1247)
- [ ] 1247 Since the beginning of the Church, adult Baptism is the common practice where the proclamation of the Gospel is still new. The catechumenate (preparation for Baptism) therefore occupies an important place. This initiation into Christian faith and life should dispose the catechumen to receive the gift of God in Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.successive sacred rites (CCC 1248),
- [ ] NOT by faith alone (CCC 1815)
- [ ] 1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it.80 But "faith apart from works is dead":81 when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.with service (CCC 1816).
In taking these in context, it seems we are certainly divided on this topic. Salvation is an essential of the Christian faith. In harmonizing scripture is like to highlight just few select verses from HIS Holy Word that I am happy to exegete together:
Galatians 2:16 ESV
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Romans 3:28 ESV
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 5:1 ESV
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 4:5 ESV
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Romans 4:3 ESV
For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Philippians 3:9 ESV
And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-
Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
James 2:24 ESV
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Ephesians 2:8 ESV
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Romans 11:6
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Furthermore, if we also observe the essentials of the Christian Faith, it seems that we are not unified as the “Called Out Ones.” The Catholic position from my understanding is that we can lose our justification, we can lose our salvation (see above Catholic sources Council Of Trent CCC 1446).
I look forward to any comments or response. 🙏🏾
It seems to me that both Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are overly concerned with bringing a charge against the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith by stating that “faith without works is dead” (Jam. 2:26, NASB). But the original Reformers’ explanation of this doctrine does not exclude works. It just states that faith is the engine of the kind of works that God delights in. They follow Paul, who says, “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28, NIV), but then a few verses later says, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law” (v. 31, NIV). Why does he speak this way? It’s “because of the law that requires faith” (v. 27, NIV).
Great list!
@@TharMan9 I'm not sure about the Orthodox (I believe they have a whole other distinction between essence and energies) but Catholics at Trent definitely were set on anathemitizing the reformers. You are correct, the Reformers required a faith that brought about good works, but simply said that this faith alone puts you at right standing before God. Catholics say you become more justified before God with your works. If anyone can explain to me how that works I would like to understand. I don't understand how you can be infinitely more justified.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
@@maksimkorolev1467 Yes, I know the theological stance of the Orthodox is a bit more nuanced on this. But I still think they share a similar attitude, because I’ve experienced as much in my discussions with them on RUclips, as well as with a family member who is Orthodox. One thing that seems to link the Orthodox and Catholics here is the centrality of the sacramental system for achieving final salvation, but that’s a whole separate discussion.
@@maksimkorolev1467 awesome point! Canon XXIV makes it very clear.
Returning to this video after a while and while as a Catholic I appreciate your work, it is difficult to watch your content purely because you get so agonisingly close to understanding Catholicism but still don't get the heart behind it and miss some key pieces...
For example, the instant justification spoken of in John Chrysostom. As Catholics we believe in instant justification, just not as a forensic statement but as a spiritual reality that comes into being at baptism - at baptism we are immediately both fully justified and fully sanctified, but as we retain free will we wonder away from that state through the course of our lives and by the Grace of God return to His arms when we seek forgiveness.
I'm a member of a Baptist church, and I think the average protest could learn more about sanctification. One pastor said that once you are saved, sanctification is your main focus. The problem is that justification gets all the focus a lot of the time. I've heard people reading scripture, then pause to promote sola fide before finishing the reading. There's also a big problem if a protestant reduces faith to intellectual assent.
Very refreshing and balanced. Thank you!
Thanks Gavin! I'm a Catholic and I've been doing a bit of a dive into this topic since the debate between Jimmy Aiken and James White. It's interesting how some of my Protestant friends have seen the debate. I think this confirms Jimmy Aiken wasn't completely out of line as it seems some Protestants want to say. Jimmy really seemed to want to figure out where he and James White had agreement before getting into the disagreement and James did not want to acknowledge any agreement.
Not gonna lie, I've been on a mission to prove to myself that the earliest church did not have priests, but instead I've been frustrated by the fact that priests and a sacerdotal, sacramental system seems to be explicit in the earliest fathers. Also, Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer's new book "The Early Church Was The Catholic Church" , which intentionally covers material before the year AD 200, is quite impressive.
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12
St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters.
Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian.
There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome.
These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid.
Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said:
"I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today."
Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent:
"We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent."
ruclips.net/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/видео.html
All the early Christians were Catholic. The Catholic way, was the only way for 1500 years
@@Mygoalwogel Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
_________________________
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
_________________________
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
____________________________________
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary.
_________________________
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics.
_________________________
Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.
@@Mygoalwogel I'd be a Protestant rather than a pagan catholic.
Dr. Ortlund: I appreciate all of your videos that I have watched and listened to on issues vs. Roman Catholicism and EO and church history. One of the best parts of this video, IMO, is the quotes from John Chrysostom on justification and how to deal with feelings of guilt and accusation, etc. I loved those quotes and he sure sounds protestant to me. (even though I know he has other issues that are not Protestant theology.) ( I have not had time to listen to your other videos.)
Your character and attitude is very godly in the way you approach people, so the fruit of the Spirit is obvious to me. I agree that we Calvinists need to work harder in that area. I am a Calvinistic Baptist, but try to treat RCs and EO (and others - Muslims, Atheists, etc.) with respect and stick to issues and not go ad hominem, etc. Therefore, I agree with your irenic spirit and efforts, etc.
However, I was surprised that you don't see the RC Church as falling under the anathema of Galatians 1:6-9. It was they at the Council of Trent that anathematized all of Protestantism, especially justification by faith alone, but also many other doctrines - if a person does not accept their "Mother Church"' 's view of Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Apocrypha, Tradition, Church authority to have the final interpretation, we are anathema. Calvin even wrote ( I am going by memory) - something like, "well then, the debate is over" (Rome said basically, "this is the final word and no more debate").
The "works of the law" is not just the ceremonial laws like circumcision; rather it includes and all human effort. (Galatians 3:1-5 - "having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" 0thers have pointed out that Galatians 3:10 and I would add also Gal. 5:2-4 demonstrates that adding works as process and effort (with 3:1-5) and merit also puts them under the anathema of 1:6-9. Romans 2 and Romans 7 make it more explicit that "works of the law" includes the moral law, not just circumcision and ceremonies.
It is only Vatican 2 and post Vatican 2 theology and attempts at ecumenical dialogue that have confused the issues. (It seems to me.) they confused things by the entire arguments of Protestants as "separated brethren", etc. and the contradictions of Post Vatican 2 theology to "no salvation outside of the Church". Since 1963, the RCC tries to come across as "nice", but the anathemas of Trent still Officially stand - they cannot change them without violating their own claims of Infallibility. (Popes and Councils) From Trent to Vatican 2, they were more consistent to their own doctrine and dogma. Since Vatican 2, they seem to be deliberately unclear in order to keep up their efforts of unity in this world - the only way to have real unity in the RC understanding, is for everyone to submit to the Pope. I think one of the clearest ex cathedra statements of a Pope is 1302 Unam Sanctum of Boniface VIII. It is a massive contradiction to the whole NT.
You are right that RC has the categories of "initial justification" and "ongoing justification" and "final justification". but the final justification in RCC system is not until after Purgatory.
Gal. 2:16-21; Romans 1:16-17; 3:21-28; 4:5, 5:1; 8:31-34 along with the gospel of John, Acts, Philippians 3:9; Ephesians 2:8-9 - they all point to justification being punctiliar at a point in time.
In Protestant theology, we can say, 1. "We have been saved" (past justification at conversion), 2. "we are being saved" (ongoing sanctification) and 3. "we will be saved" (glorification -at death and judgement) - But justification is the first one (we have been saved) - the other two are Results / fruits of the first. The problem is the RCC says that there are potentially thousands of up and down points of being saved, loosing it, and then gaining it back. (the tread mill of sacramentalism and externalism - doing the physical ceremony works ex opere operato - the church's authority to dole out grace through sacraments, ceremonies, relics, penances, prayers to Mary, etc.
Biggest problem I see is that the Biblical data is that there is no such thing as those 3 categories For Justification - we are justified at the point in time of repentance and faith (conversion) = "by faith alone in Christ alone". "ongoing justification" is in Protestant theology, sanctification. and will be saved is "glorification".
The RCC says that water baptism is the point of "initial justification". But everyone looses it later by mortal sin. children have to go through confirmation, and adults have to continue to go back and forth to penance / confession / eucharist / etc. in order to maintain the justification. Every one keeps on sinning in some way, so there is never a point of being justified and never assurance.
it seems to me that both the RC church and EO 's emphasis is salvation by connection to the external church / external physical things - (baptism, ceremonies, rituals, icons, statues, relics, prayers to Mary, Eucharist, Transubstantiation, priests, Popes, bishops in history, councils as infallible, adherence to certain dogmas developed much later in history, etc.) rather than the Spiritual truths of the gospel.
What do you think of R. C. Sproul's books, "Faith Alone" ? and "Getting the Gospel Right" ? and "Are We Together?" - IMO, he demonstrated clearly that the Roman Catholic Church after Trent (1545-1564) at that point became a false church / false religion. Other good books on this are James White's "The Roman Catholic Controversy" and William Webster's "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History". And the 3 volume set: "Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" by David King and William Webster.
I hope my comments are understood as based on texts and principle and not any ad hominem type argument. Sorry for the length of this.
Ken, thanks for the thoughtful comment and for engaging the video! I appreciate where you’re coming from, and I agree that the differences between Catholic and Protestant on justification are very serious matters, especially in light of the anathemas of Trent. The specific question addressed in my video is: is the Catholic teaching on justification such that Catholics are committing the same error as the Judaizers and cannot be saved? I think that not only the distinction between initial and final justification but also the different definition of the word “justification” at play today complicating factors. I think we have to recognize that different language with respect to justification is a tension we find in the New Testament between Paul and James (though not an irreconcilable tension). So let me start with some clarifying questions: do you think that Saint Augustine preached another gospel and is thus damned? Because he also used the term justification to refer to the process of transformation. What about Richard Baxter or other protestants who reject imputation (which RC Sproul says is a denial of the gospel)? And finally, do you think that modern Catholics who understand the Catholic teaching and embrace it such as GK Chesterton and J.R.R. Tolkien are damned?
Hey Ken,
Just wanted to engage with this point in your post above:
"But justification is the first one (we have been saved) - the other two are Results / fruits of the first. The problem is the RCC says that there are potentially thousands of up and down points of being saved, loosing it, and then gaining it back."
So in Catholic theology, if you are engaged in Mortal sin, then yes, you can potentially lose your justification/salvation. The conditions for mortal sin are fairly clear. Blasphemy, murder, theft, adultery. Violating one of the ten commandments. But any of these sins can be forgiven if you repent and receive the sacrament of confession.
Clearly, you are not going to agree with this. I'm not trying to convince you. But I do want to point out the advantages of this arrangement from a psychological and spiritual perspective. Ideally, it keeps the conscience of Catholics very acute. At least those that are practicing their faith. It makes it harder for us to give excuses for our sins. It keeps the sense of sin alive in our hearts. It also makes us keenly aware that every time we sin either mortally or venially, it requires an act of intercession on behalf of Christ, to obtain pardon and absolution for our sins. Thus it makes us more keenly aware that grace obtain by Jesus Christ's act of propitiation on the cross is necessary for us on a daily basis. And as a result, it makes us realize more deeply how dependent we are on Christ Jesus for salvation.
There is a temptation to scrupulosity that a good confessor can help us avoid. But scrupulosity is just the flip side of pride and presumption - on one hand we trust too little in the power of Christ's saving grace - on the other we presume too much on Christ's forgiveness and end up excusing very wicked and evil acts. Our sins should make us all the more dependent on grace and more aware of Christ's constant intercessions on our behalf.
So my question for you, a proponent of a Gospel of forensic assurance - How do you keep a lively awareness of your own sinfulness? Doesn't it become easy to excuse your sins, or not even engage with a detailed examination of conscience to see where you are falling short? I mean, these are the very things that Christ came to take away! How do you maintain a proper horror of your own sinful inclinations so you can bring them to the Lord so he can make you clean?
I can tell you as someone who was Catholic... in that church you are never sure of your salvation. To even speak of being sure is a sin ( presumption ). You will find yourself endlessly in and out of God's saving grace. Going to confession... sinning, back to confession to be back within saving grace. It's exhausting... never good enough. That's kinda the point of the atonement isn't it? Of course we can never be good enough.
A true Christian will always struggle with sin... but we shouldn't live in despair in some lost / saved cycle
A sin is a sin and will beget more sins, it will not go away, until you repent and confess with your heart. Thankful that we have a sacrament to go to.
What form of Christianity did you convert to?
@@jamesrey3221 We have God to go to, when we sin. Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins. I do understand you find forgiveness through a formal sacrament.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Yes, we want a positive feedback that we are absolved from our transgressions, when we sincerely confess to Christ thru the priest who absolves our sins in the sacrament of penance.
This also gives us divine resolve to not sin again. We feel a sense of relief, satisfaction, closeness to God, holiness and the loss of fear of death, when we exit the confessional
@@jamesrey3221 I do understand the utility of a formal confession w/ a priest. I have heard priests admit, that you can also confess your sins right to God. The priest is just the vessel by which that forgiveness and comfort is imparted. There would be an extra layer of comfort in being absolved by a priest, esp. if that is what you are used to. I do trust God to forgive my sins directly though. If my conscience is heavy, there is a scripture, "confess your sins one to another". So we sometimes need to unburden our conscience to an actual person. For a protestant, this is any trusted person. I know the Catholic church used to do public confession too. In front of the whole congregation, yikes. Thankfully they changed this and did a 180, and now a priest is sworn to confidentiality.
I think Gavin there is a lot of misleading material here. Rome, historically, has not merely used a different definition of justification from that which Protestants use. Rather, she has denied that the Protestant conception is a possibility, calling it a legal fiction. The Reformers were extremely clear in their definition, and the Roman church knew precisely what was intended.
you dont know how much i love you. Since i listen to orthodox or catholics, i fear my salvation.
There is no fear in love 1 John 4:8. One must repent because there is no love without contrition.
The orthodox Church sold actual indulgences* for the forgiveness of sins, which could be gifted to other people. The Ecumenical Patriarch fully acknowledges this fact and has honored Christos Yannaras, the scholar who documented this abuse.
*Orthodox Compline prayer to Mary:*
_On the terrible day of judgment, deliver me from eternal punishment and make me an heir of your Son's glory_
In the divine liturgy, Orthodox priests sometimes take communion without offering communion to anyone in the congregation.
Patriarch Nikon I insisted that his liturgical innovations were “necessary for salvation,” and excommunicated and condemned the Old Orthodox churches for rejecting his public heresy. All other bishops accepted his heresy. The Russian Orthodox bishops today were all ordained by his invalidated succession.
Moscow and Constantinople have been in schism since 2018 over sheer politics.
I live in Taiwan. There are only two Orthodox parishes in the whole country, both in the same city, established as late as 2001. There are still no Taiwanese or fully Mandarin language masses or sermons. The only Taiwanese who have taken any interest are English-speaking former evangelicals. In contrast, evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics can be found in every village of every islet. Orthodox are so bad at the Great Commission because they only care about chronological uniformity, and ignore "disciples of all nations." Their church only understands half of the definition of the word catholic.
Don't take the orthodox claims too seriously, but join them if you want to. They are *4* churches where the Bible is taught.
@@Mygoalwogel I always dislike these sort of arguments. It's like saying sexual abused discredited rcism or televangelists discredit protestants.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I actually think they do discredit the Reformation. The disunity is a strong argument against us. However,
1. the OP fears for his salvation _not_ because of a sin against the first table nor the second table, but because EO, OO, and RC sometimes claim that salvation is only possible in precisely one of these Churches. Only one of these Churches is the true Church. All others are heretics and schismatics, and graceless.
2. You point him, not to the working of the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth, nor to the forgiveness of sins, even of heresy in honest ignorance, but to simply repent. You confuse law and gospel in the most crass way.
3. Before blindly believing the ultramontanist claims of one of these three, it's good to be aware of the worst. I'm agonizingly aware of the inexcusable state of my denomination. It's harder to see the inexcusable state of OO and EO because it's so remote. All we usually see is the propaganda.
Great video, Dr. Ortlund! I always appreciate your charity and desire to deal with the actual doctrinal positions of the Church. At the 47 minute mark, I think it would be helpful if you have another video (perhaps already done?) discussing your hermeneutic for how you propose assuming aspects of the Church Fathers that you ultimately accept and when you can properly ignore any aspects you do not accept. The question that keeps coming to me is when is there enough evidence overall in a Church Father to allow you to point to examples of agreement over and above any (potentially and significantly) more areas of disagreement?
The attempt to clarify common ground in the understanding of Justification among Christians is really beautiful to me. It seems God did not so clearly spell this out that we have no disagreements. I wonder why. God knew we would have these disagreements and could have clarified everything in scripture. I often wonder more what God left OUT of the scriptures as much as what he included. On so many important subjects, he surrounded it with a certain amount of mystery. Maybe the search for answers involving discussion with other Christians is beneficial for the church. Who knows? I guess we all get to find out later.
I don't believe the reformation will be over anytime soon.
Thank you so much for this video! I have been waiting! 😊
I am not all the way through yet, but I wanted to ask- in the differences between Catholic understanding and Protestant understanding, would you say that even though Catholics believe in initial justification by faith (and saved by grace and not works), they would say that you have to maintain your justified status through works? That you can lose your justification status? In other words, that justification is a moving target?
As a Protestant, I personally believe that once you are justified there is no condemnation now. That justification is not a moving target but secured.
I love what you said about the book of James and the use of the word faith. My pastor did a sermon series on the book of James and he called it “A Faith that Works”. I loved that because true faith (thar of surrender and not just mental ascent) will produce good works.
I also love that you brought up Union with Christ as the hub of the wheel.
That idea was shown to me in Marcus Johnson’s excellent book One with Christ and it has made all the different in my understanding of the nature of salvation. Union with Christ is so key!
I also just wanted to note that a lot of former Catholics that I run into in my church will say that they were taught salvation by works. They will sometimes be emphatic that they were saved out of that into a righteousness based on faith view. So I always find that tricky to deal with.
That the justified will perservere is held by some Baptists and Presbyterians.
But it isn't held by all Protestants, not by Lutherans, Methodists, and many others. They'd say you can lose your acquittal before God, on the basis of faithlessness.
This still differs from Roman Catholicism. Protestants who deny the perseverance of the saints nonetheless hold to the view that justification consists in the remission of sins and the declaration of righteousness for Christ's sake. They'd still hold that there is a distinction between justification and sanctification, or being declared righteous and becoming saintly, arguing that the latter is not the basis for the former, though the two do come together.
In short, if it is faith that receives Christ, then if we lose faith we can't be said to be in Christ.
@@joycelilyandrewes8667 I agree. Thank you for your comment. I do understand the differing views within Protestant circles. I am a member of the Evangelical Free Church of America denomination and I hold to a more Reformed view of perseverance of the saints. I should have clarified that.
I can help a bit with this. What Catholics believe (or what they ought to believe) is that justification if conferred in Baptism. And this is something which a person receives as a free gift when they put their faith in Christ and repent of their sins. At that point a person moves from "Not Saved" to "Saved."
Moving forward, it isn't necessary to do good works to maintain salvation - as if there's a monthly subscription charge - or as if your justification is steadily leaking out of you.
What must be done is continue to have faith in Jesus, and to not commit (what we call) "mortal sin". Mortal sin is a term for sin which is so grave, that in the act of choosing to do it you fundamentally turn your back on God. It is a kind of moral apostasy.
That said, if a person does commit mortal sin, that person need only repent (and go to confession if possible) and they are restored.
You don't have to maintain justification through a certain number of good works on the Catholic view. Good works increase justification, which in turn merits a greater reward in heaven (due to the promise of God, not because good works done in faith strictly merit such a reward). It is possible to lose justification according to Catholicism, but it's done by committing a mortal sin against God.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 thank you for helpful insights
When are you and Trent getting together to dialogue/debate, Dr. O? Any theses lined up?
Also, regarding works of the Law, the question I ask is "are there any works better than works of the Law?". It is in the Law that we learn to love God and love neighbor, yet we can't do those things without grace. But, even works done in righteousness (i.e. works in a just state) are not the grounds for our salvation but rather grace alone (Titus 3:3-7)
No clue. He mentioned he had several other debates into the late spring, so I imagine it will be a while. I'm guessing late spring or summer.
Right, and on the Catholic view works done in righteousness would not be grounds for our salvation either, which is by grace. Works done in righteousness would increase our reward in heaven due to the promise of God.
This was a great video I'm interested in hearing your views on Calvinism in the future and if you believe in it.
Will touch on that in a live Q + A I’m doing next week!
Super helpful! Great work Gavin
Thanks a lot Michael!
Hi Gavin - you mention on a couple of occasions that the Protestant concept of Justification is to be ‘made righteous’. I’m not sure if you misspoke on those occasions but I was of the understanding that we are ‘declared’ righteous when Justified and then Sanctification is the process of being made righteous.
This is great. Thanks.
I also recommend Anthony Rogers on Church Fathers and justification.
@Thoska Brah Thanks for pointing this out; I hadn't spotted it. I was particularly referring to his Church Fathers teaching , but I think you have a valid point because his Galatians teaching is forceful too. I think it is good to hear from different teachers. I trust Anthony, Gavin and Mike Winger to teach what they believe to be true. But that doesn't mean I have too agree with them. Their having different approaches and opinions while being sincere is healthy for my learning, I think.
... not that I have decided what I think. Have you?
@@ProfYaffle thanks for your kind comments lately!
@@TruthUnites like so many others, I am truly grateful to hear your less condemning interpretation - and I hope it will help unite the Church
This is a problem of terminology. Protestants are accused of saying that works are not necessary for salvation. We have never said that. Faith without works is not faith, but merely belief.
Satan and his minions believe that Jesus is the King, but they do not trust and love Him. They do not give Him the glory of praise, nor do they try to emulate his goodness. They do not pray for his blessings or his mercy, and they do not follow his commands. In short, they are completely without faith, but they believe. More than that, they know, whereas we must struggle with doubt. And still, they refuse to repent and do good, instead being bent upon the instigation of evil at every opportunity. They believe.
Faith, on the other hand, is more than mere belief. Faith does trust in Jesus and love Him. And when we love someone, we try to be like them, emulating their actions and their attitudes. We adopt Jesus' values and do as He does. We love the Father in Heaven because we see Him as Jesus sees Him. We believe when He tells us that He loves us, because we know what we have seen. And we expect that He will not change his love for us because his nature is eternal. In short, we trust Jesus to be worthy of our love. That is real faith.
But as I already said, we adopt his values and do what we have seen Him do. Because we love Him, we do good works. We have repented of our previous inclination to follow evil, no longer choosing our own advantage over others, and reject the temptations to do harm for the sake of our own gratification. Rather, we seek to help others, to do what is right and just, and encourage others to do the same. Those are good works flowing from our life of faith. And the greatest work, which we do for love of Jesus, is to tell others how they can come to know Him, too. Indeed, that is also the best thing we can do to love and help our friends and neighbors, and it fulfills one of his commands at the same time.
However, we are not doing "good works" for their own sake, to make ourselves worthy of going to Heaven. Our works can never be enough. Rather, Jesus claims us as his friends, and gives us his seal of approval, presenting us before the Father wearing his own cloak of righteousness, having already washed us clean of the sins that marred our lives here on Earth. By our repentance, and confirming our faith by baptism, we have gained the grace of his mercy, and He has cleared our record with his forgiveness. This is not a result of any of our works, but only of our faith and his grace.
I have tried to show here how faith and works are related. We don't do faith, and we don't believe in works. Without grace, we would have neither. But faith and works are like the two sides of a coin. If you have one, you have the other. God can see our faith, and know how strong it is, so as to give us exercises to increase it. But we cannot see our brother's, or sister's, faith as an objective observation. All we can see is how it changes our behavior. If we continue in our old habits of sin, and neglect to love and help one another, how can we say that we love and follow Jesus? But if we give our time and efforts to the service of others, and try to avoid the occasions that tempt us to sin, then our good works make it clear to those who see us that we have faith.
We are saved by Jesus, when He chooses us to receive the Gospel, and grants us his grace to believe and respond with faith. We are saved by grace through faith, not by works making us worthy. Jesus makes us worthy by removing our sins and giving us his righteousness. By our faith, we love Him and try to be like Him, but that is the result of faith working within us. We don't build our faith by works, but because of our faith we seek out opportunities to do good works. Faith is first, but we know it is real when we express it by loving others. If you have a coin, you have both the head and the tail.
I pretty much agree with you. Ones faith is ones relationship with God. Its building ones life upon God and having fellowship with God. I also agree that there has been misunderstanding.
@Truth Unites Hello, I am a Calvinistic Baptist whose previous exposure to Protestant-Catholic polemics has been primarily James White, R.C. Sproul, and others who have disagreed with the ECT statement from the 90''s. I appreciate the irenic tone and the intellectually satisfying answers that you offer for understanding the RC tradition. @UCtWDnUokOD--s2aFxLT5uVA
I have struggled a lot recently with how to think about the claim by some Protestants that Roman Catholic theology constitutes a false gospel (cf. Gal. 1:6-9). I am curious as to how, specifically, you see the Judaizer heresy as materially different from the Roman Catholic theory of justification.
Also, if the RC theory of justification is not inherently a false gospel, what should our posture be towards Roman Catholics regarding evangelism? At what level would a Roman Catholic have to disagree with Sola Fide/Imputation for us to be compelled to evangelize him rather than fellowship with him?
Thank you!
Also I have no idea how the @UCtWDnUokOD--s2aFxLT5uVA thing got there.
Hey Cole! Thanks for the comment. Very briefly, I would say that there are differences between the Judaizers and contemporary Roman Catholic teaching in that contemporary Roman Catholic theology makes a distinction between initial justification and final justification, and also uses the term justification to refer to the entire process of salvation including moral transformation. I’m not aware that the Judaizers did that. I’m also influenced by the fact that I know many Catholics whom I simply cannot deny walk with Jesus in a saving way. In terms of evangelizing, I would say that the basic question is simply whether we think the person is regenerate and understands the gospel. There are many Catholics who need to be evangelized, as many Catholics would acknowledge, and frankly there are many protestants who probably need that as well! Hope this helps.
@@TruthUnites Hey Gavin I have a question. Even though Roman Catholics view justification as “initial” and “final” don’t they believe in an analytical or material view of justification? That being that in order to a persons entrance into heaven and being declared just at the bar of Gods judgement they must be actually righteous (of course by cooperation with grace and infusion of righteousness/transformation)?
I think it would be excellent to create a more detailed video exploring John Chrysostom's perspective on justification, including addressing potential objections. 😊
Thank you so much, Gavin! I love your idea of "the core" in justification, I think it helps a lot in the dialogue. I have also recently read some roman catholic apologists say "Luther was right in his sense", because justification and faith are used a lot differently by the two sides, but there is common ground that "it is by grace". Im concerned about "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" statements, which would mean that it is necessary in the roman catholic perspective to submit to the Roman Pontiff and to live with the sacraments of the church and so... how is it possible to take part in ecumenism? What do we make of these requirements as protestans and how does that effect the view on "sola gratia" by roman catholics?
It might be helpful to read the catechism of Catholic Church and the decree on ecumenism by the Second Vatican Council for clarification on this question and the broader Catholic view of ecumenism. The Catholic Church still teaches the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but also affirms that through their baptism and faith in Christ, Protestants are indeed justified and are in an imperfect communion with the Church. Submission to the Roman Pontiff is not considered absolutely necessary for salvation, but only necessary under certain conditions.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 In a way, they've come closer to the Protestant notion of membership in the (Invisible) Universal Church, in that baptism-faith is membership in the mystical body... so yes, they've moved away from a pure institutionalism (however, they see institutional fellowship with the Bishop of Rome to externally manifest the sign of _fullness_ in the Church).
Basically, they've changed from a flat membership plan to a tiered model. Papists are the Gold members, Protestants/Orthodox are Silver, and Jews/Muslims/Hindus are Bronze.
@@vngelicath1580 I think you're mostly correct in your assessment, but the only things I'd quibble with is your tiered model example as that puts the focus and emphasis on who is in and who is out. In Lumen Gentium 14-16 in particular the Church came at it from a very different angle. Since we can have certainty that those who are in communion with a local Bishop who is in communion with the Bishop of Rome are manifestly part of the Church, what does that mean for other Christians, Orthodox first and Protestants second and their relationship to the Church, albeit imperfectly and not formally. I would also not go so far as to claim that it was any substantive movement towards the "membership in the invisible church model" (an invisible marking of the Church has always been held, mirroring the human body where we are both physical and spiritual in one being, similar to the Body of Christ, the Church) as much as it was explicitly giving some marks and boundaries to those who are not in otherwise perfect communion with the Church. Baptism was identified as an objective marking for self-professing Christians of indirect membership in the Church through its sacramental unity. For those who are not yet baptized, a baptism of desire for Catecheumans and a baptism of blood for martyrs was formally identified. For those who are not professing Christians, if they are indeed ultimately saved through God's providence, it would be necessarily through submission to their conscience as a listening to the aboriginal vicar of Christ in the soul, as articulated by St. John Henry Newman, which binds them to the Church. Lots more I could say, but I hope this much is helpful.
@@michaelbaumert4501 That is helpful, and I think frankly, that there is major consesus between Catholics and Protestants on the understanding of the Church... the only definitive distinction is how we approach the role of the Bishop of Rome (or any particular bishop) to this schema. On the whole, we agree more than we disagree: the mystical body includes those who believe and are baptized (desire/blood), this body while mystical is also enlivened by participatory incorporation in the "true body" of the Eucharistic feast (the meal of the Sacrifice) and the sacramental assembly, more generally... etc
Part of what I was getting at was the matter of how under the new Constitution of the Church, the emphasis is less on the full Roman Catholic hierarchy as such, and more on the local diocese as the fullness of The Church lived out in the local context (the caveat being that a relationship with the Roman Bishop is a sine qua non for full ecclesial reality).
@@vngelicath1580 If you haven't read it, you might also find Dominus Iesus helpful which goes into even greater detail. It is also a magisterial document to my understanding as JPII formally approved and adopted it.
As a Catholic, I see justification as an ongoing process, as Gavin describes our position. Paul uses the legal analogy of justification and ledgers, and I think it is an important analogy. But I think instead of seeing it as wiping away my debt before God, it is making me debt worthy or perhaps it is better to say, credit worthy. After baptism, our relationship with God changes to that of Father with son. A father has no legal obligation to his son, but his obligation is one that is based on love. Thus a father will always come to the aid of a son who repents and asks for his help.That is what grace is - the open offer of the Father of mercy, forgiveness, and help through Christ whenever we fall into sin. The more we correspond to God's graces, the more we grow in justification. Imagine a filthy and dirty person. That is us. Then imagine grace as being clear and pure water washing away the dirt. That is God's ongoing acts of forgiveness and mercy that he continually pours into our hearts until the dirt and filth of sin is completely washed away. And not just the dirt and filth that is external to us, but the dirt and filth that is internal to our hearths, which is the source of all of our good or wicked deeds. We have moved from the system of law to the system of grace. And we must maintain ourselves in grace by continuing in the righteousness that God has infused into us. Yes, we may fall, but under the system of Grace, we only need to repent, seek the sacrament of confession, and continue on our way. The God of the law demands perfect righteousness - a standard that no one can keep. The God of Grace does not demand perfection - only to continue in faith, hope, and love. This God is not continually lording it over us, waiting for us to fall and then to pounce on us and cast us off into hell. He is waiting to catch us, to cleanse us, to intercede for us, to lift us out of our spiritual leprosy. He is always there for us when we come to him in repentance, asking to make us clean again. And he is always there with the ready response, "I do wish it, be clean." Jesus does not merely declare the leper to be clean. He makes him clean in reality!
My Catholic friend and I often end up talking past each other on this topic. I try to explain that I have no objection to works being in some sense "necessary". It really gets down to causes and effects. I believe that although our good works are "necessary" in some sense, my occasional good works are the result (effect) of my justification rather than any cause of it. Before Martin Luther's epiphany on the meaning of "the just shall live by faith", he was living in constant terror of hellfire because he knew that he was a sinner. Ultimately, the only way to have peace with God right now, is (by grace) an abiding trust in the finished work of Jesus. That's what joins us to Christ. In Him I lack nothing. That's the source of peace!
Peace is going to the sacrament of confession...
@@jamesrey3221 According to the bible, we're justified by grace, through faith in Jesus. Being justified brings peace, joy, love, and all the benefits of sonship in Christ. But I do acknowledge that hundreds of millions of people in the Catholic faith will feel a sense of peace through their participation in the sacraments of the RCC.
@@jettoth3 yes, nothing gives us more peace of mind and satisfaction than knowing that we are absolved by our sins by God Himself, thru an ordained priest. -
Only a priest can do this, not even an angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, can consecrate the host, absolve our sin and divinely unite couples in matrimony.
St. John Chrysostom: "On the Priesthood"
"For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels."
@@jamesrey3221 Jesus said, "I am the way". John Chrysostom essentially said, your priest is the way. If Jesus is the way to the Father, then Jesus is our mediator and high priest. If we have Jesus as our mediator and our priest, why do we need to confess our sins to a sinful human priest? Why do we need to "consecrate the host"?
@@jettoth3 True, Jesus is the way, the only way.
This is what the Holy Eucharist provides, at every celebration of the mass, the ultimate worship and union with Christ Himself. St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
"They (Gnostics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist it the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again."
The very thing, that Protestant cherishes the most: the Real Presence of Christ and our real union with Christ, ‘accepting the Lord Jesus as your personal Savior’ in the most real, total, complete, personal, concrete and intimate way!.
The apostolic succession’s authority to “bind and loose” is to join heaven and earth. With no authority to “bind and loose” meant no transubstantiation. No transubstantiation meant no joining of heaven and earth really, truly, and substantially.
For Protestants, Jesus’ institutions necessarily became mere externals and symbols without true mystery; contradicting what Jesus intended and accomplished.
The difference between Catholic's and Reformers' justification is whether righteousness is infused in us (Catholic) or imputed on us (Reformers). The Catholic view makes us righteous, which means we are also legally declared righteous because we are indeed righteous. That of the Reformers does not make us righteous per se but we are "legally" declared righteous on the basis of external/alien righteousness of Christ.
Luther believed that it is impossible to become righteous. He wrote "If I were righteous and without sin, I would have no need of Christ as my Propitiator." (Luther: Lectures on Galatians, chapter 1-4, written in 1535, English translation from Luther's Works, Vol. 26, page 35). In contrast Scripture says through Christ we are made righteous (Rom. 5:19). We cannot become righteous by ourselves, our righteousness does come from God. In order to make us righteous then it must be infused. Scripture refers to a number of persons as righteous: Noah, Daniel, Job (Ezekiel 14:14), Joseph (Matthew 1:19), Elizabeth and Zechariah (Luke 1:6), Abel (Hebrews 11:4) and even Lot (2 Peter 2:7). Without naming them the existence of righteous persons is testified by Scripture in many places (Psalms 5:12, 34:15, Matthew 5:45, 1 Peter 3:12 etc.).
Because, according to Luther, we cannot become righteous, he introduced (double) imputation concept as he wrote: "His [Christ] righteousness is yours; your sin is His." (ibid, page 233). Luther wrote the implication of imputation as "Thus a Christian man is righteous and a sinner at the same time [in Latin simul iustus et peccator], holy and profane, an enemy of God and a child of God." (ibid, page 232).
However, Ezekiel 18:20 says "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.", which means both righteousness and wickedness are not transferrable. Ezekiel 33:12 says " the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins", which means we cannot become righteous and sinner at the same time. But if a wicked person turns away from sin and does what is right, he will live (Ezekiel 18:21-22, 33:19-20). "a righteous man falls seven times and rises again" (Prov. 24:16). "Righteousness delivers from death" (Prov. 10:2). This explains why Catholics believe that we must be made righteous in order to go to heaven. Mat. 25:46 says that the righteous shall go to eternal life.
These are good points. What do you say then though was the purpose of Christ's death if we can make ourselves righteous?
Protestants point out that these men in the old testament were not sinless and the NT points out strongly that perfection is required for God.
Also, Luther only came up with double imputation because Paul's writings don't make much sense otherwise. For example, take 2 corinthians 5 "
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." We don't believe it makes sense from an infusion standpoint.
@@maksimkorolev1467 If you read what I wrote you should note my statement "We cannot become righteous by ourselves, our righteousness does come from God. In order to make us righteous then it must be infused." Scripture says through Christ we are made righteous (Rom. 5:19).
I also explained that being righteous is not equal to being sinless. Those whose names I listed as righteous persons were sinners. According to Scripture (1 John 3:7) he who does what is right is righteous, NOT he who is sinless. When you wrote about perfection requirement, I believe you refer to Mat. 5:48. The verse does not say perfect righteousness. Scripture also says: "be holy as I [God] am holy" (1 Peter 1:16) and "there is none holy like the Lord", yet the Reformers did not teach imputed holiness.
As I wrote double imputation concept contradicts Ezekiel 18:20 that says "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." 2 Cor 5:21 does not support double imputation - if you think it does then it contradicts Ezekiel 18:20 cited above. According to imputation concept you do not become righteous, so how can you apply "becoming righteousness of God" to you? Neither do your sins imputed to Christ make Him a sinner. Lev 16 talks about yearly atonement made by OT High Priest who must offer animal as "sin offering". "sin offering" is one word in Hebrew that is also translated as sin (Gen 18:20, Exod 32:32 etc). That sacrificed animal prefigures Christ who is "sin offering" offered by Himself as the High Priest of the New Covenant. Thus 2 Cor 5:21 talks about atonement. We become righteousness of God because through Christ we become partakers of divine nature (2 Peter 1:3-4).
@@justfromcatholic I see. Thanks for the clarification. So the way I understand it is the righteousness is from Christ, but we must cooperate to receive it (infused through sacraments) but then we ourselves become righteous. And when you sin, do you destroy/remove that righteousness? So that you need it re-infused? And what's the view before the New Covenant took place (were the Jews partaking of the divine nature before Christ)? Thanks!
@@maksimkorolev1467 Ezekiel 33:12 says "the righteous shall not live by his righteousness when he sins". Thus we do lose our righteousness through sinning or we cannot be both righteous (even it is understood as alien/external one, following imputation concept) and sinner at the same time.
Moved and enabled by grace we repent. That is why Christ gave the authority to forgive sins to the Church, through which we get our righteous state back. Righteousness may come from faith (Rom. 4:3 etc) and from doing what is right (1 John 3:7). What we receive through sacrament is (in Catholic belief) sanctifying grace, the grace that returns our righteous state back (Reconciliation and Last rites) or place us in righteous state for the first time (Baptism). It is distinguished from actual grace - the grace that first moves and enables us to have faith, to do what is right (including repenting).
You mentioned cooperation between grace and our freedom. If you belong to Reformed church, Calvin and others teach that only in regeneration grace works alone, without our cooperation - or known as monergism. Once regenerated, we can freely cooperate with grace (known as synergism), to have faith and to do good works etc. Before regeneration we can only do evil freely. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that whenever (actual) grace works in us, we freely cooperate with it. Without grace we can only do evil freely. This was declared in 529 AD Council of Orange, almost one thousand years before Reformation. Luther position on the same issue is not the same with that of Calvin.
As far as I know the Jews do not believe that we can become partakers of divinity. It was not mentioned in OT and it could be even scandalous to them.
@@justfromcatholic thank you! I'm familiar with the Reformed teaching, just trying to figure out what the catholic teaching is.
So the grace in reconciliation, is that distinguished between venial and mortal sins? I know venial sins are reconciled by the treasury of merit. Is that considered grace? Because within the treasury is the merits of Christ that also allows for the merits of Mary and the Saints to participate (by God's grace. I understand that everything occurs from God's grace). But still this grace allows for the participation of the treasury. Is this merit considered grace or something else? And this treasury is filled partly by merits that the church considers supereragatory only after the death of the saint? Is this what the canon refers to when it says that justification can be increased, or is it something else?
Thank you!
I agree with Dr. Ortland that Catholics should have no problems with Protestants trying to use earlier sources (both Ancient and Medieval) to justify things such as sola fide. As a Catholic (before the Council of Trent condemned the proposition of sola fide) that proposition could seriously be argued and debated. Just as Arianism, Monothelitism, Monism, etc. could be held by individuals before the Church Councils declared anything on these matters. It is the same issue as Thomas Aquinas not believing in the Immaculate Conception, and arguing against it. People within the Church can have a plurality of views on various topics until a Council or Ex Cathedra statement defines the issue.
Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed! GC. 563.1
Thank you for calling it Popery.
very helpful video! Glory to God
So I guess the Council of Trent is no longer a thing…? As long as Trent stands, the Roman Catholic Church has damned the Gospel.
I’ve been working on a paper on the history of justification. Your video helped me organize my thoughts.
We really do have a lot more in common than popular perception
I find Zachariah 3 more ontological then legal..the dirty garments were actually removed..and the clean garments weren’t placed over the dirty garments
Great video!!can you do an elaborate one on the “New perspective on Paul?”
If you don’t have the imputed righteousness of Christ how can you possibly have justification🤔
Can you have justification without the imputed righteousness of Christ? How can you be made righteous without first being justified from The handwriting of ordinances against you?
I think st John Chrysostom in his homilies on rom 3 and 4 and gal 2 and 3 does comment on faith alone, but he also comments on works. He sees works as a natural extension of faith, not opposed to it. He sees works as fruits of faith not mere evidence of it. If you affirm this, then that is great, that is the Orthodox doctrine.
And so I don't believe there is a diversity amongst the fathers on justification it's an artificial division that is being created imho.
Actually it is the reformers that affirmed that works are the fruits of faith that are produced by a living faith, as james 2 puts it. It was the Catholic Council of Trent that anathemitized this view (in response to the reformation) and said that you increase your justification through the works, instead of them merely being fruits.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
When are you considered "righteous" or justified before God? If justification and sanctification can't be separated, then what performance is good enough to grant entrance into God's Kingdom?
@@maksimkorolev1467"Actually it is the reformers that affirmed that works are the fruits of faith that are produced by a living faith, as james 2 puts it"
Actually, no, the Orthodox put forward this view and the Protestants in response asserts works were mere evidence of salvation. This was covered in the response from Patriarch Jeremiah to the Lutheran theologians and the Council of Jerusalem 1672 vis a vis the Calvinist confession of Cyril Lucaris.
@@maksimkorolev1467 Every moment one remains faithful to God, he is righteous before God. When he is faithless, he is not. Faithful and faithless are not merely intellectual in the Greek, they pertain to works as well. I debated Turretinfan on this you can check it out on my channel.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology great, I will check it out.
How is "faithful" defined? For example, top commandment is love God with all your heart, but that seems impossible to achieve at any instant if not continuously. Would this person be unfaithful?
As a traditional Catholic you fail to convince me, period. I could care less if you agreed on this or that, fact is, your protestant faith is based on the corrupt translation/abrogation/perversion by Luther. Therefore we do not even have common scripture. In addition, we have kept tradition and faith from the desciples on through the early church fathers until this day. Your beliefs came about 1500 plus years after Jesus Christ. So no we don't agree.
Which traditional catholic sect are you?Union of Utrecht Catholic Church, Union of Catholic Apostolic Churches, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, Genuine Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church, Russian Old-Orthodox Church, ‘Nikonite’ Russian Patriarchate, Pomeranian Old-Orthodox Church, Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia, Old Calendar Orthodox Church, ‘New Calendar’ Church of Greece, Oriental Orthodox Church, Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East.
It’s not about convincing, you sophist. It’s about truth
Roman Catholics might agree that good works are evidence of our justification, but to them it’s not only evidence…
Council of Trent:
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
I’m a simple man. If I ask you how your position is different than the Judaizers and you say something like “we don’t believe in adding a Jewish ceremonial works” or “the Judaizers believed in works done without the Spirit” justifies… then you fall under the same anathema as the Judaizers.
It seems to me that those wouldn't really be the differences. The differences would include the other matters that I mentioned like the distinction between initial and final justification. As I understand it, the Catholic position affirms that a non-Christian who believes the gospel at 9:00 am and is baptized at 10:00 am and dies at 11:00 am goes to heaven. So in terms of how salvation is initially acquired, I don't think its a faith + works system. I do NOT mean to downplay the remaining differences, but it does seem to me to be different from the Judaizers. Thoughts?
@@TruthUnites I'm not sure how close Protestants and Catholics are when you consider the requirement of the mass. In the end, you must keep up sufficient works (your end of the salvation "deal") or lose your salvation, not really something Luther or his contemporary reformers would agree on. Ultimately your works justify you in Catholicism, rather than faith, regardless of verbiage to the contrary. Everything is about merit. Not trying to be mean or anything, but where does merit enter Protestant (reformed) theology? Good works do NOT equate with merit to the Protestant.
@@TruthUnites I see no indication from Scripture that Judaizers didn’t believe in initial justification. It was you had to do stuff afterwards to stay in. The NPP paradigm is the Roman paradigm & the Judaizer’s paradigm in the parts that count.
The important part is looking at Galatians 3. The Judaizers said you had to obey the Torah to be saved. That mandated you keep the entire Torah. Why would this condemn someone according to Paul? Because you can’t keep the Torah perfectly which is the standard.
Catholicism add works which means you would have to keep the moral law, and that’s impossible.
So all the distinctions Rome makes can’t obscure the problem. Wants you add works there’s no half measures. You’ve committed yourself to perfection for justification.
I can see no defense of Rome that wouldn’t also acquit the Judaizers.
@@aGoyforJesus OK, thanks for clarifying. Is there anything explicit you see that indicates a distinction between initial justification and final justification with respect to the Judaizers’ theology? Or is that something you see as implicit in Paul’s characterization in Galatians? Also, I’m curious about what you would make of Protestant groups that believe that salvation can be lost if good works are not maintained or the sacraments are not observed. Would you see these groups as similarly falling under Paul’s condemnation?
@@TruthUnites //OK, thanks for clarifying. Is there anything explicit you see that indicates a distinction between initial justification and final justification with respect to the Judaizers’ theology? Or is that something you see as implicit in Paul’s characterization in Galatians?//
Not explicit but the book of Acts & Galatians don't indicate anything that would say otherwise. Gentiles got saved? That's fine. Now, you have to obey the Torah to be saved. (Acts 15:1) It's clear from Galatians 5 that the Judaizers believed in grace. They started with the Spirit by grace and now have to maintain by works.
Again, every Protestant in the Reformed/Lutheran world who doesn't hold to Catholics falling under the Galatians anathema ignores the logic of Galatians 3:10. The reason they aren't justified is because if you add works, they have to be perfect.
// Also, I’m curious about what you would make of Protestant groups that believe that salvation can be lost if good works are not maintained or the sacraments are not observed. Would you see these groups as similarly falling under Paul’s condemnation?//
If your acceptance before God is based on your performance, you fall under the anathema. If you're saying these works are indicative of having genuine faith, that's another matter.
This is a great video, thank you. I really learnt a lot on this subject from P. Cary's book "The Meaning of Protestant Theology". Perhaps you could do a video on the idea of the development of doctrine? It would fit well with your interest in theological retrieval. Also, many debates with RCs end up in them invoking this idea as a sort of justification for their various positions (on Mary, purgatory, papacy etc)
I LOVE Dr. Phillip Cary! He's one of the reasons I'm Lutheran.
Since wading into the Catholic and Orthodox beliefs and comparing them to scripture I have noticed a few things. One of them being I do not think we are defining things the same way and that is why we misunderstand each other on some things. Your video confirmed my suspicions.
Catholic here. Former Baptist of 30 years. Thank you Gavin! Unfortunately the Baptist environment I grew up in did not resemble at all how you put forth the Baptist belief. It was very much all you have to do is say you believe and it didn't matter how you live. I do appreciate you discussing the similarities of Catholicism and true protestantism. Something I was unaware of until I became a Catholic. Keep up the great work ❤
Ps when you said to think of someone from the other side who you really respect my mind drew a blank, you would be the first name that comes to mind. No one in my family or community that I knew practiced the faith the way you do, it was very shallow.
That surprises me about growing up Baptist. There are many branches now, and some are very liberal. Baptists are usually pretty into clean living in my experience. The same could be said of Catholics, that they go through the motions in church, and then step out and live their lives how they will. Not always for sure. Lots of finger pointing on both sides.
Please do Justification vs. Eastern Orthodox next. 🙏🏻
Wonderful video.
I think that both Roman Catholics and Protestants lost something during the Reformation, just like both East and West lost something of value during the Schism.
There is only one time that Jesus show us ' justification ' and that is in Luke 18: 9-14.
1Clem 32:4
And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are
not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or
understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of
heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men
that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and
ever. Amen.
I agree with you on the confusion sometimes from the fathers. Clement says this about justification, but earlier seems to emphasize works. Its not always systematic in the way we have theology today. Thanks for this topic.
The Fathers are the Fathers. They aren't Papist or Protestant -- the Fathers represent a more unified whole and it is the various factions that have "split up the inheritance" in the divorce.
The Protestants understand this reality.
Some are papist some are the pope of Rome eg Clement who tertullian and IRENAEUS list as the 4th bishop (starting with St Peter). There weren’t any denominations but no doubt some disagreements, so in that respect internal Protestants, and heretical writings about, but no schism at that time from catholicsm, based on the number of bishops and writings loyal to the bishop of Rome catholicsm would seem to be the most established church from what I have gathered from them.
Hey Gavin! I was wondering if you would ever make a video about the concept of natural moral law theory from the Protestant perspective. This is a concept I’ve been so confused about- wondering if you know about it!
Jordan Cooper’s The Righteousness of One is good on soteriology in the early church, showing many precedents for the Protestant position.
You're only saying that because it's absolutely correct.
So there!
I like Dr. Cooper. A good scholar and nice guy.
I am Reformed, but I think it's a bad idea to draw on Karl Barth given his well-documented and committed adultery. Out of all people, Karl Barth cannot say "I'll show you my faith _by_ my works."
But don’t the Catholics teach that you must “cooperate with Grace” or else you will lose salvation. Therefore, they believe faith gives initial justification, but it’s up to us to hold on to justification when scripture says the father holds on to us and not the other way around.
But doesn’t church stand or fall on the doctrine of justification?..the best witness for the reformation claim so..
You should talk with Mikhaila Peterson to give her a good perspective of protestantism.
Good works are the fruit of salvation, not the root of salvation. Now, it's all about figuring out what the works are- Matthew 5:17-20. Trust and obey
Good works is a product created by the fruit.
The fruit encompasses obedience to the sacraments .
The reality of fiscally partaking of the divinity that is not just a representation but a reality, just as the fruit becomes a reality by and through a living faith.
Seems like the result is the same...the question is can a believer fall away by leaving the faith or by loosing faith and nit continuing in it?
Why do protestants tend to add the word "alone" in the letters of Paul to the Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians? Whereas, it is plainly stated in the Scriptures that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law in Romans (the same Paul that told us our works "play a role" in our final salvation in Romans 2:6-11), saved by grace through faith in Ephesians 2, justified by faith in Christ apart from the works of the law in Galatians 2. It is important to note that Paul is condemning "works of the law" here and not all type of works (i.e good works which are commanded by Christ and the apostles for our sanctification and "final justification/salvation"). James simply taught in the 2nd chapter that we are also justified by works and used the example of Abraham and Rahab in the Old Testament. Aside from that, James told us that good works complete our faith. The usual Roman catholic objection of sola fide is the only instance where faith alone occurred in the Bible is found in James 2:24. It concerns me since it would be better to frame the statement: We are justified by faith alone to We are justified by faith that works. Why don't we state it that way since the term "sola fide" creates a lot of confusion and misunderstanding among Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. Correct me if I'm wrong though. God bless your ministry!
_'Why do protestants tend to add the word "alone"'_
Fair question. Just a couple of quick bits of context: 'alone' was not an original Protestant addition, but had appeared in prior Catholic Italian and German language translations. Furthermore, the addition is argued as a grammatically necessary one for the translation to convey what the Greek grammar demands. In other words the 'addition' isn't a theological one, but a grammatical one (as is the case all the time in translations into other languages). This isn't me saying if any of these arguments are right or wrong, merely that it shows the matter is not as simple as "Protestants add 'alone'". God bless!
Justification is by faith apart from works, but never faith without works
Gavin-I’m wondering on your take on a version of imputation rooted in the Totus Christus? Namely, suppose that “to be righteous” is just to be “an heir of the covenant blessings, an heir of eternal life, adopted, forgiven, etc”; thus, justification is the declaration that those things are true. Suppose that imputation happens through union with Christ in the following sense: as part of the Totus, you become “Gavin-in-Christ”, and so swept into the history of Jesus. Insofar as you sin, you’re forgiven by appropriating the atonement through repentant faith. God declares you an heir of eternal life because Jesus is the heir of eternal life, and you are part of his life and history through union with him. So you share the status (not necessarily the “merits”) of Jesus, although that status was merited by Jesus.
And so just as a branch comes to be identified with the status of a Vine its engrafted into (that’s a great Vine-that affirmation includes the branches), you share the status of Jesus
Clarification:
I could be wrong, but drawing too much similarity between the historic articulation of Justification by, say Lutherans, and what the Roman Catholic Church defines as Initial Justification isn't exactly called for. As far as I am aware, they are similar in that each happens by grace and faith alone, sans merit.
However, the Roman Catholic in no way sees Initial Justification as a Declaration of Righteousness, but it is, rather, an Initial Grace that frees the Sinner so that he is then able to co-operate with Infused Grace in a forward move of Justice toward God, leading the Final Justification.
Again *as far as I understand* Initial Justification is simply a setting free so that man can move toward becoming righteous in Final Justification. Am I incorrect in this?
Hey Marcus, thanks for commenting. I think you are right that the Catholic view doesn't see justification as a declaration of righteousness; that would relate to my first of the two differences I pointed out, the formal cause of justification. As to whether it is SIMPLY a setting free to become righteous, I cannot say. I can see why someone would say that but I also see other language in the Catholic tradition.
I'm trying to get the right balance in noting we agree on some things and disagree on others, particularly as many Protestants are not aware of the distinction in Catholic theology between initial and final justification and thus think of the Catholic view as simply "faith + works."
I may also argue on gavin's usage of Gal. 3:10 that paul is pertaining on the all aspects of the mosaic law and not circumcision. But if we will see the context of Gal. 3 it revolves on the topic of the initial justification of a
Abraham as you can read:
The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.”
Galatians 3:2-3, 6-8 NRSVCI
thats why Paul also close associate it again on Galatians 5.
Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law.
Galatians 5:3 NRSV-CI
which he used this legalistic practice of the Jews in upholding Ceremonial laws to make a contrast on his point about the moral law.
Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law.
Galatians 5:3 NRSV-CI
thats why please don't try to remove the context when paul use the quotation dorm the old testament in order to prove your point that even the moral law is part of the works of the Law. because Paul even says we are justified by our works and not only james:
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Romans 2:13 NRSV-CI
which echoes James notion:
But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves.
James 1:22 NRSV-CI
and if you want an explicit proof try to check also 1 John:
Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.
1 John 3:7 NRSV-CI
because the law of the spirit or the law of Christ is very different from the works of the law. for it revolves on the moral Law, which we are now freed from the old ceremonial law:
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
Romans 8:2 NRSV-CI
which we must get the whole picture of James 1 regarding this law of Christ.
for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like. But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act-they will be blessed in their doing.
James 1:24-25 NRSV-CI
and which paul also tells us about in Galatians, in order for you to see the whole context of it bro.
Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
Galatians 6:2 NRSV-CI
One way to see where the protestant formulation of justification by faith alone is lacking is how they interpret the Sermon on the mount. In many places Jesus makes a direct connection between what one does in this life and where one spends eternity. “If you forgive men there trespasses your heavenly father will forgive your trespasses.” This is a condition for receiving forgiveness. The protestant will say it’s just evidence of regeneration. Yes, but it’s not merely evidence it is also a condition. I’ve listen to countless hours of protestant teaching on passages like this and they are problem passages as far as I can tell for their paradigm.
There are Protestants (if we understand that word to refer to non-Catholics) who do not believe in justification by faith alone.
@@jncon8013 The thing is, that they lost the priesthood, that consecrates the sacraments. no confessions, no eucharist, no holy orders, no anointing of the sick, etc.
@@jamesrey3221 What exactly do you mean by losing the priesthood? We don’t operate under the priesthood that the Israelites did in the OT.
There are plenty of Protestants that confess their sins to one another, that partake of the last supper, that believe in healing the sick, etc.
@@jncon8013 Without a priest, there can be no sacraments. Not even an angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, can consecrate the host, absolve our sin and divinely unite couples in matrimony.
Just like exorcism, who do you call when the devil comes, a Catholic priest.
@@jamesrey3221 I’d call on God to forgive my sins, God to bless my marriage, and God to deliver me from any encounter with an evil spirit. Not a priest. You don’t need a human for mediator for any of that.