Reviewing The Debate With Fr. John Whiteford | On Justification by Faith Alone | With David Louis.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 май 2024
- Lucas sits down with David Louis, who also discussed with Fr. Whiteford the doctrine of Justification by faith alone, to review the recent debate Lucas and co-host, Wesley had on this topic.
David's RUclips channel: / @apologeticsfromtheatt...
Support by becoming a Patreon member!
patreon.com/Me....
#protestant #easternorthodox #justification #solafide #wesleyan #methodism
Method Ministries puts out content that is focused on teaching the Biblical Method of God's Word, to spread Scriptural holiness throughout the land, and to teach Scriptural Christianity. If you're looking for an online ministry that can help you with this path then subscribe to the channel!
Also subscribe on Spotify and Apple!
Follow on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter. 
Кино
Don't leave without liking this video and subscribing!
In one of your podcasts, I believe it was Wesley, who said "We are saved by Faith Alone, but not by a Faith which is alone." That is nonsense, because a faith that is not alone is not faith alone. You are committed to defending an unbiblical slogan created by Martin Luther, more than you are to Scripture, which literal states we are not justified by faith alone.
Also, in my definition on the show that you were on, I did leave one step out of my full definition of how we are saved. I should have said: "We are saved by Grace, through Faith that works by love, but not by Faith alone, because Faith without works is dead, because works work together with faith, and by works faith is made perfect." So we are not saved by faith, but by Grace through faith that works by love.
I never said we are saved by works. We are saved by grace, because it is impossible that we could merit our salvation. But God does place conditions on receiving salvation, and Faith and Repentance are conditions set by Christ Himself. And after initial faith and repentance, true faith and repentance work together with works, and by works, faith is made perfect.
The Protestant position is that the condition of justification is faith, and the nature of that faith will work. There's a distinction between condition and nature, rather than a conflation. There's no contradiction. Wesley himself taught this.
You used language such as, "I'm trying," "continually striving," when I asked you if you're justified, and when our during James 2 discussion, I pointed out that James is talking to false Christian who believes in easy-believism, and isn't telling Christians they need to work for their salvation," and your response was, "He 100% is." This is the Protestant point of contention: the denial of Sola Fide is to teach you're working, meriting your salvation, and when pressed, you use the language that reveals this is indeed your positon.
@@methodministries When you say " The Protestant position is that the condition of justification is faith, and the nature of that faith will work," the problem is that this is exactly what the Orthodox also believe. We just don't believe in the anti-biblical slogan that you are committed to. Faith that is not alone is not faith alone. To argue otherwise is complete nonsense.
I never said I was striving to be saved. I said I was striving to bear the fruits of repentance, as Christ, St. Paul and St. John the Baptist commands us to do. You asserting that I said I was striving to be saved is dishonest. I never said that.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 The EO clearly does not agree with the Protestant position on Justification. Hence our debate. Your works don't justify you before God or work in conjunction with your faith to be right with Him.
If you want, I'll invite you on my show to have a further discussion on this with you and myself to further hash out our disagreement if you'll accept?
@@methodministries I would be willing to consider doing a show with you, as long as we can agree on the terms. You can email me, or message Tyler, and have him give me your email.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 Understood. I'll reach out to Tyler again. It'll be on my channel btw.
That was a very long episode for you to ultimately conclude that one must have works in order to have a faith that justifies.
Haha. No honest person watching this thinks that's what we did.
@@methodministries It is literally the last point that your guest made.
As for the alleged quote from St. Augustine, David Louis said this was from his commentary on Psalm 31, and his commentary on Psalm 31 makes no mention of James at all. So if you are going to argue from the fathers, make sure you give references that actually exist.
And the fact that James Dunn demonstrated that James is commenting on Romans 3 and 4 us conclusive proof of your error here.
The timestamp is 56 minutes: Augustine clearly mentions James. He's on our side here. Augustine also taught Original Sin, the Western version of it. Not the Eastern. He's on our side.
@@methodministries I realize James was mentioned in the quote. I am telling you that the quote is not found where David Louis said it was to be found. So where is it to be found?
@@methodministries And St. Augustine taught that original sin entailed inherited guilt which Wesleyans explicitly deny. So he is not on your side there.
@@methodministriesName one Augustinian scholar who agrees that Augustine believed in faith alone. Have you even read his Confessions? No reasonable person can read that work and come to the conclusion you have. You are quote mining and you aren’t even embarrassed, much less ashamed, to do so. This is why you’re losing people to EO. You make these claims that are easily disproven. People aren’t as stupid as you imagine them to be. Keep it up though - it’s leading people to the truth.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 You're wrong. Wesley believed in guilt, but this guilt was taken away by Christ on the cross and is extended through Prevenient Grace. Wesley, like Augustine, held to a Western doctrine of Original Sin. Augustine is on our side.
When Romans 3:19 :Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." This does not say that all the world is under the Law. It says that those who are under the Law have not kept it. In Romans 2:12 he says that gentiles are without the Law, and but those under the Law will be judged by the Law. Gentiles are under the moral Law, but that is not the sense being used in Romans 3:17 or 2:12. St. Paul showed that the Gentiles are condemned already in Romans 1.
Here is what Wesley said about Romans 3:19:
"Whatsoever the law - The Old Testament. Saith, it saith to them that are under the law - That is, to those who own its authority; to the Jews, and not the gentiles. St. Paul quoted no scripture against them, but pleaded with them only from the light of nature. Every mouth - Full of bitterness, Rom 3:14, and yet of boasting, Rom 3:27. May become guilty - May be fully convicted, and apparently liable to most just condemnation. These things were written of old, and were quoted by St. Paul, not to make men criminal, but to prove them so."
And by the way, pointing out that the interlocutor in James 2 is someone who misunderstands how faith works does not prove your case, because St. Paul is responding to an interlocutor in Romans too, who likewise misunderstands how faith works.
Romans 3:19 explicitly says, "Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and ALL THE WORLD may become accountable to God." Paul's point here is to say that even the Jews who didn't keep law are guilty, therefore, the whole world will be too, for even the Gentiles show the "law" written on their hearts as argued previously in Romans 2:14-15: therefore, by the law given to the Jews, "ALL THE WORLD" is guilty of breaking it (morally).
Wesley himself taught that the "works of the law," is the moral law. His notes on Romans 3:20, "By the works of the law - On this ground, that he hath kept the law. St. Paul means chiefly the moral part of it, Romans 3:9; Romans 3:19; Romans 2:21; Romans 2:26; etc. which alone is not abolished, Romans 3:31. And it is not without reason, that he so often mentions the works of the law, whether ceremonial or moral; for it was on these only the Jews relied, being wholly ignorant of those that spring from faith. For by the law is only the knowledge of sin - But no deliverance either from the guilt or power of it."
You have no agreement with Wesley on Justification by faith alone, as he clearly disagrees with you.
The interlocutor does prove the point the Protestant position, because as stated, James is not telling Christians to work for their salvation in addition to their faith as you say. As mentioned, if you want to argue otherwise, you need to deal with the exegesis of this passage rather than repeating your claim.
@@methodministries Wesley does not agree with your interpretation of Romans 3:19. St. Paul proved the gentiles are under condemnation without reference to the Law (the Old Testament). You are ignoring that St. Paul is talking to an interlocutor with the same issues as the one in James 2. So if your argument proves justification means something different in James 2, it proves the same thing in Romans, which doesn't make any sense.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 You should read my response again above on Romans 3:19. Also, Romans 3:10-17, Paul quotes from the Psalms and says both Jews and Gentiles have fallen. They're guilty, and their justified by faith, not works, which Wesley agrees, the works of the law is the moral law. I provided you the quote. I don't understand your need to claim Wesley is on your side when he clearly wasn't. To say otherwise is ahistorical. I recommend Kenneth J. Collins work, "John Wesley, A Theological Journey" for further study.
@@methodministries But in Romans 2 and 3, he is showing that those under the law have failed to keep it and so are also condemned. Romans 3:19 does not say the gentiles are under the law, only that the law shows that those under the law are also condemned. As Wesley says, St. Paul showed that the gentiles were condemned apart from the Law.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 I agree you with on Romans 3:19 that the law there is the Mosaic law, and repeating myself above, Paul says the purpose of this is so "all the world may become guilty before God." Why is the whole guilty by this? Answer: because by the law given to the Jews, it reveals the sinfulness of man, which can be seen by the moral law written on their hearts in Romans 2:14-15, and in Romans 3:10-17, as well as Romans 1:18-32, which is why Paul then concludes, because both Jews and Gentile are condemned, they're not saved by works but faith, which even Wesley agrees, is the moral law there. This is why context and exegesis is so important.
I am not sure if this is closer to Fr John or the Method Ministry position, but my take on this is that works are not merely a result of faith, but part and parcel of what faith is by definition. Works are contained within faith. Put as simply as I can: Faith works.
So when Paul says "Confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and you will be saved," that confession is not merely a piece of information to give intellectual assent. "Confess Jesus is Lord" entails not only believing the content and saying the words, but acting in light of that truth. Jesus is Lord means serving Him, as Lord.
It seems to me this is in line with what James is saying, and the idea that James is addressing an interlocutor does not change the principle he's articulating.
The whole reason why Baptists can't stand Methodists is because of our distinctive theology of the three Grace's and they call us back sliders. They'll say that our theology is just as devilish as the Latin church because of the preaching of sanctifying grace. Guess what, guys, Methodism isn't easy Christianity like it is for Baptists. It's not clueless Christianity like Calvinism where one hopes they're one of God's elect but they're constantly left hanging. We should pray often. We should be careful about what's in our hearts when we take communion. We should be fulfilling our duty as God's imagers and fulfilling the Great Commission. These are works whether you like it or not.
Cutting the clip where you end by asserting that I don't even know if I am saved is dishonest. I never said that the works of repentance merit salvation. I also never said that I do not know if I am saved. I believe that I have been saved, that I am being saved, and that if I continue to trust in Christ with true faith.
And my car with conditions analogy is simply to prove that something can be given with conditions, and that meeting those conditions does not earn the gift. Salvation is by grace, but we must have true faith and repentance.
Ephesians 2 certainly is contrasting faith and grace. We are saved on the basis of grace, through faith, but as St. Paul and James both make clear, it has to be a true faith that works by love.
Ephesians 2 is clear; it's not by works. When pressed if you've done the works you think you must do to be saved, you use language that is not sure, such as, "trying," "continually striving." These are your words. There is no dishonesty.
@@methodministries It is dishonest because you yourself concede that there must be works for faith to be genuine. You asked what works I have done. I answered your question. I never said that I was earning my salvation by doing them. To suggest that I was is dishonest,
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 Reasons unbeknownst to me, you seem to not be able to understand the Protestant distinction between faith and works. An apple tree will produce apples, but the apple is not the tree. This is quite easy to grasp.
@@methodministries I never said fruit was the tree. I simply said that true faith is not alone, and faith that is not alone is not faith alone. Faith works by love... St. Augustine quotes that in his treatise on Faith and Works, by the way, exactly in the same sense that I do. The faith that is the means by which we receive God's grace must be accompanied by repentance, and will bear further fruit (faith itself being a work, according to Jesus Christ, and repentance also being something that we actually have to do). St. Paul says that we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Where is the fear in trembling in your description of Faith Alone? Where is the "working out" part?
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 I don't like saying this because people often say this loosely with various doctrines, but I must; it sounds like you don't understand the Protestant doctrine of Justification and the distinction between faith and works, justification and sanctification. Faith is the only condition for Justification. To say that true will produce works is not to teach that we're saved by faith + works, as you assert. Even if you disagree, you must understand this crucial point of contention to have a profitable discussion. We're saved by faith not works. Faith is the condition. The works is the nature of that condition. But they're not the same, just as an apple isn't an apple tree but the fruit of that apple tree.
The protestant dichotomy between Faith and works is just plain stupid.
Tell that to Paul in Romans 4 & 5.
@@methodministries Do you understand that "believing" is also a noetic work? You can't separate your faith from your incarnational activity in the world. We are called to feed the hungry, to love one another, to forgive, etc. because your mental state is reflected in your actions and your actions solidify your mental state.
You are using an atheistic anthropology, so it doesn't matter how many times you read the Bible, you will read it with atheistic eyes.
@@issaavedra Read Romans 3-4. Jesus' apostle, Paul, who wrote an infallible work (Scripture) made a distinction between faith and works.
@@methodministries And his words and concepts happen to be the same as those of your modernist anthropology and theology.
@@issaavedra Your welcome to offer a different exegesis.
To think that an almighty creator of a universe cares if people believe in it or not is just bizarre. "Oh, you don't believe in me huh? Well I'll show you, I'm gonna burn ya in hell forever. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo
Wake up, grow up, and wise up people. In that order.
I love how Flowers lives rent free in all calvinists heads.
I think they charge him, but I could be wrong.
@@methodministries Haha. Contrary to your guests gross misrepresentation, Flowers has said many times that he affirms God knows the future as well as the future free choices of men, he simply doesn't feel the need to explain "how" he knows. Which is fair. I can affirm God created something from nothing without holding a view as to how He did it.
All that aside, I should express how well you did in this debate. I think Fr. Whiteford was a sub-par interlocutor for a number of reasons, but other than that it was a great discussion.