Thanks Taylor. Couldn’t you argue that the Catholic Church Augustine is speaking isn’t the same Catholic Church today? Meaning indulgences, Marian dogmas, papal infallibility didn’t exist.
Finally a Catholic that can disagree with us Protestants AND be completely honest about history without giving whitewashed history! That gets my subscription! 👍🏼
I know this isn't squarely on Luther v Pope, but it's so strange to hear someone outside of the Lutheran tradition be able to present it so well that you sound Lutheran to me. If I were to add anything, the reason (that I understand) we see concupiscence as sin is that we see Christ as the standard and, while He was tempted, we do not believe or teach that He had "a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason". Thus if Christ is the Standard/Mark and He didn't suffer 'sensual desire contrary to reason' then concupiscence is a missing of the mark, or 'sin'. I'd imagine that one might disagree, and say that Christ did have concupiscence but was, by His Divine strength, constantly victorious over it (as Luther held was true for The Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary); but then concupiscence would be part of the New Creation? I know there's fuzzy bits for me here too, but it's refreshing to hear a clear rejection in plain language (an added bonus that you don't stoop to Luther's polemics).
Thanks! Our Lord certainly didn't have concupiscence. But I don't think that is a good reason for thinking concupiscence is itself damnable sin when it is not consented to. Nevertheless, this particular question is very subtle, and the practical reality of sin, even in the justified, due to our perpetual failure to perfectly resist concupiscence, even if only venially allowing our heart and mind to wander, makes the "Simul Justus et Peccator" a sympathetic doctrine, especially from a pastoral standpoint. I do of course hold the Catholic position, which is that the formal cause of our justification is the infused love for God' that inheres within us, and I think the Lutheran concerns about depending on Christ alone, abandoning any claim to merit/works, etc, are compatible with it, even integral to it.
@@taylorbarrett384 Yeah, this is our disagreement and exactly what I mean. Thank you for being a breath of fresh air (so many modern Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox I've heard and read condemn Lutheran teaching then affirm the pastoral practise that is our application of Lutheran thought "go to your pastor/priest/Confession/Holy Communion/etc. and trust in God's work/Word there"). As to the pastoral standpoint; I've been taught essentially, if theology isn't pastoral it isn't really Christian.
What do you think about the following? Just as a protestant can have faith that the books of scripture are true without accepting the Catholic Church, and it is true faith, those Catholics who have faith in the magisterium have an extra barrier to error when the magisterium binds them to believe something that they would otherwise remain agnostic on and disbelieve. You might say at that point they would disbelieve the magisterium, and that is an option for them, but it is an abandonment of faith just like disbelieving the Bible is an abandonment of faith if one finds an error one can't resolve in scripture, or disbelieving the goodness of God if one is convinced by the problem of evil. In either case, since faith is a (supernatural) habit, and habits are strengthened by actions, the response that is required is to make an act of faith in X teaching that you are doubting. Protestants don't have an infallible magisterium, so when they are about to deny a truth of the faith that would already be taught by the magisterium, they may hold the two in tension in their mind and make the assent of faith by God's grace. Also, I think that the kind of doctrinal unity in Ephesians 4, given that the Holy Spirit through Paul indicates that this matters a lot to God, and the Intellect and will of Christ are united to the intellect and will of God, though separate, so it seems reasonable to assume that doctrinal unity is what Christ is wishing for in John 17, in addition to the unity of brotherly love. Christ's union with the Father isn't just a unity of love but a unity of intellect, and the unity of love and intellect with God is realized in heaven among the saints by the beatific vision. Furthermore it isn't just Christian disunity of will that is a scandal for non-believers, but Christian disunity of thought. You probably hear all the time, as I have, "Christians don't even agree with themselves, so how do they expect me to agree with them?" from atheists. Anyways I think your thoughts in this video are very perceptive. Thanks for your thoughts and God bless! Let me know if I get anything wrong.
I agree with everything you said, though I would point out, unanimous doctrinal unity is a reality in no tradition. Catholics have more of it, but are not in agreement with each other about everything; Protestants have less of it, but agree with each other about those things necessary for their communal worship of Christ together in Spirit and truth.
@@taylorbarrett384 Yeah you are right, Catholics don't have the unity that Jesus desires for us completely. This is obvious on the brotherly love level, so it can also apply to the doctrinal level. I think that I would say that some Protestants agree with each other about things necessary for their communal worship of Christ together in Spirit and truth. I think that some of them go astray who otherwise would not if they were guarded by the magisterium, but that does not undermine the fact that many Protestants have the Holy Spirit and are in Christ, invisibly connected to His bride, and worship in Spirit and Truth, while getting some things wrong, even crucial things like not baptizing infants.
I humbly admit I am no scholar and may have a deficient understanding of these matters. Is keeping the Sabbath not considered a commandment of Divine law (as far as ommitting the ceremonial customs but retaining a moral law to dedicate ourselves to the Lord), why would it not be considered mortal (with full knowledge) to reject our Saviour on the day he offers himself to us? To reject being in the presence (or partaking of the Eucharist ) of the most precious gift willingly, seems to me that you reject Christ. I would perhaps have the view that one may be less culpable (i.e. not mortal) by being poorly catechised and thus lack the knowldge to the gravity of the situation. In my opinion it would not seem that Canon law is not contradicting Divine law but there is an element of culpability towards it being mortal or venial. Would appreciate your thoughts. God bless.
The command to honor the Sabbath - Saturday, not Sunday - was a temporary prefigurement which pointed, not to a new day of the week, but to Christ Himself. Moral law does postulate the necessity of worshipping God, but how we fulfill that is a matter of conscience. Ideally, we worship Him every day, perpetually, by finding our Sabbath rest in the Sabbath Himself, Jesus Christ. Setting aside a day of the week to meet together and worship is good, but its not divine/natural law. Not attending one Sunday would not be a grave sin, but a heart that lacked any desire to attend at all, could not be said to be in grace and have love for Christ.
As a Protestant I have never found the arguments of Trent Horn to be compelling (and often his arguments are actually quite poor). He does generally seem a nice and charitable guy though. That being said I wonder how much he thinks these things through or if he throws it out in the pop level Catholic apologetics sphere because he knows many lay folks that are not philosophically trained will eat it up.
As a Catholic I have never found ANY arguments of ANY Protestant to be compelling (and often their arguments are actually quite poor) they do seem charitable and nice tho . That being said I wonder they think these things through or if they throw it out in pop level Protestant apologetics sphere because they know many lay folks that are not philosophically will eat up… Forget the councils for a second and find out what the apostolic father taught..
The shallow state of Catholic Answers apologetics is so bad now that they actually have people thinking they can't believe something unless a pope or council says they can. Trent is a nice guy but he's also a sophist that makes a living deceiving people and crafting maddeningly pathetic arguments that discourage any meaningful dialog. I appreciate you calling him out and genuinely hope he ups his game. Unfortunately, I think it's the trend with CA.
The way you describe that Protestants as long as they are repentant they will be saved. That is also a more generous take than I have ever heard from Catholic apologists. I often hear that Protestants just in essence have a mere small possibility of being saved with the Vatican 2 Seperated brethren or invincibly ignorant appeal. I have even heard Catholics say the only way is on judgement day some Protestants might go through a green light that like beams them up which is a special exception not the norm for Protestants. I'm curious have you ever heard this about the green light?
no, never heard of that, and if that was truly Catholic teaching, then every Protestant who knows they have a salvific relationship with Jesus, would have absolute concrete proof that Catholicism is false. Lol. But fortunately, that's not Catholic teaching. Even if some medieval Catholics may have thought that way about non-Catholic Christians, The current Catechism describes Protestants as those who "are justified" and who share in "the life of grace.".
@taylorbarrett384 I'm not saying it is Catholic teaching, it seemed to be some kind of obscure thought and I don't even have a source for it other than an article I can no longer find and a few Catholics that told me this online years ago.
I don't think that you described the problem correctly. Of course faith comes first, that is God's gift. Now the question is in which "system", if I may use this word, you have a guarantee of having a complete and accurate canon? If we look in the protestant "system". There isn't such. A motive is not enough, I agree, its not sufficient. If a Samaritan gives you the Torah, and that is your first encounter with the scriptures, how do you know, there aren't other books, until you actually encounter them? You might live in a system where you will proclaim all these "motivs" about the Torah, but, what if you actually meet a christian who gives you a Bible, start reading it and now you realize that you experience the same "motivs " with these other books. Now lets say you later encouter an Ethiopic Christian who gives you an even bigger Bible and sudddenly you experience the same things with the book of Enoch and Jubilees. So where should we stop? Unless there is a church that claims to be divinely protected from erring and giving you a guarantee that this particular canon is the correct one, then you have no guarantee. Now you might ask, how do you know the church is protected. That is a different question. And this is not my point. The point is, which "system" is claiming to have a protection external to the Bible. In other words, when I ask the Catholic Church, how do I know this particular Bible is the complete one, I have an answer - the canon is handed down infallibly. Now what answer can I get from a protestant church when I ask somebody there? No one can guarantee me this. The problem is "within the church" or "system". As a protestant you cannot rely on anybody being protected from erring.
Actually the Catholic Church has not infallibly said that the 73 book Canon is complete. Nowhere has it said that the books from the larger Orthodox canons are not Canon. Apologist Jimmy Akin has made this point several times over the years. Regardless of what system you ascribe to, there will always be grey areas, mysteries, areas you don't have full understanding. That will be true of us even in eternity.
@@taylorbarrett384 I dare to disagree. I studied the canon quite extensively. The church claims to have a closed canon. I disagree with Akin. He doesn´t put forth anything to support his opinion. On the contrary I studied even EO scholars who also claim the Catholic Church is the only one that claims for herself a closed canon. Check out: "Did Councils Contradict Themselves on the Book of Esdras? Part 3" The relevant passage starts from 2:05:58
@@taylorbarrett384 Moreover a church cannot simply add books later on. That would undermine its faithfulness. Either you have an apostolic tradition or not. The church cannot claim infallibly that the 73 books is the apostolic tradition and later on claim that lets say 75 books is the apostolic tradition. This means the church erred in one instance. Both cannot be correct.
@@davidszaraz4605 I'm happy to read any text you can cite from the Magisterium where a claim is made about the Canon being closed. Otherwise, I see no evidence to support the notion that it is. The Council of Trent did not say, "only these books are Canonical."
Dude, I have pretty much the exact same story...except I turned all my family protestant then went back to the Catholic church smh. Its cool to hear someone else thats had a similar journey in so many ways.
@@taylorbarrett384 one could approach the question from a purely historical lens... "Which early Christian writings are most likely to represent apostolic teaching?" I haven't read any of the earliest protestant expressions of 'sola scriptura' but I imagine that being faithful to Christ's teachings as pass on by those He called and sent out (apostles)... that was probably their aim. And I think that many Catholics also share that aim.
As much as I love and appreciate your honesty, and agree with your conclusions...the Jews (mainly Pharisees), NEVER considered the "Oral Torah" to be infallible. Authoritative, yes. Infallible, no! This is a really important distinction.
@@ReformingApologetics Yes they did. They made the same argument many Catholics and Orthodox make today. "You depend on the Oral tradition for the written one, so you have to accept both." This equality between the oral and written already implies the infallibility of the written. Also, google "oral torah infallible" and you will see many Jews to this day consider it infallible.
I think Sola Scriptura really collapses into Sola Apostolica, which the Church at least in theory has always held to, as every tradition claims to be following what the Apostles taught. Sola Scriptura is basically just a historically modified version of Sola Apistolica. It’s just that now, the only record we have of the Apostles teaching is in scripture. Whereas before you had their oral teachings when they were alive.
I’m guessing the classic Catholic Answers response would be … We would make a distinction between a book being viewed as scripture vs viewed as a historical document. The gospels, epistles, and other early Christian documents are treated as historical documents and give reasonable evidence of a man named Jesus who died and resurrected proving he was God. Likewise we can see evidence of him establishing an infalible authoritative church. Once one’s personal objections have been cured by these motives of credibility, all that is left is the grace of God to move the heart of the individual to supernatural faith that he could not obtain through reason alone. After the supernatural assent of faith, he has assurance in Christ and his church to proclaim which books are considered scripture as opposed to all other books. I’ve heard this being called a spiral argument because it although it seems circular because we begin with the Bible and end with the Bible, it is avoided because we begin with the Bible as mere reliable history and end with the Bible as infallible scripture.
If we can't begin with the Bible as Scripture, then regardless how probabilistically reliable you might judge it, you still are left with uncertainty about whether Christ actually said the words he is reported to have said. And if God can give grace to move the person from probability to certainty, he can do that directly about the Scriptures themselves just as well as He can do it with regard to the Church.
YOU MAY GO TO HELL IN OR WITH YOUR EXPENSIVE TRUCK... PEOPLE ARE STARVING AROUND THE WORLD AND YOU BRAG ABOUT AND ARE FULL OF EVIL PRIDE HAVING AN EXPENSIVE TRUCK...OMG !!! SELL THAT JUNK AND FEED THE POOR AFRICAN CATHOLICS WITH THE PROCEEDS TO PLEASE CHRIST....
Although Trent did have a special caveat that it was possible by "special revelation " to know that you will persevere to the end i.e assurance of salvation.
There are strong responses against the Catholic position on 1st Clement. Paul says whoever they were or seemed to be (i.e Cephas) it makes no difference to me God doesn't show partiality...He makes a point to say he didn't go to Jerusalem at the first (and not Rome rather he goes to Arabia). He rebukes Peter to his face (of course Catholics say he wasn't acting in his official capacity and is a sinner nevertheless it seems to me a glaring double standard as it's not accepted as evidence against the papacy but best believe if Peter had rebuked Paul the Catholics would be using it as evidence for the papacy). Paul says he got his gospel directly from Christ (not from man i.e Peter) and nobody taught him i...along with the fact that none of the others corroborate the papacy and Peter says In Scripture when writing to a local church he appeals to them as a fellow elder (not as someone with universal jurisdiction and supremacy).
I think some of the scripture provided is perfectly harmonisable. The rebuke for example, can just be indicative of St. Paul saying Peter should act up, precisely because He is supposed to be an example. The fellow isn't un-Catholic. Besides that the pope is pope, he still is a fellow bishop if I'm not mistaken.
@@sotem3608 you have to make a positive case to PROVE the papacy supremacy and universal jurisdiction...the burden of the proof is on the one making the positive claim...its not enough to claim these things are "harmonizable" or that they don't persay disprove the papacy...if we are looking for positive evidence to be able to affirm the papacy in a courtroom we wouldn't say it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt...Paul by his statements and that the other elders also don't corroborate universal jurisdiction and supremacy is telling indeed.
@Sotem you say it doesn't disprove because He is ALSO a fellow bishop...but you need POSITIVE statements from Peter himself indicating he thinks he has universal jurisdiction and supremacy...so the fact that he doesn't make those kind of statements AND that he makes statement that he is a fellow elder is indeed indicating he didn't think of himself as having supremacy universal jurisdiction etc i.e the categories vatican 1 claims for the papacy.
@Sotem it's clear from Paul's statement s he doesn't think Peter has authority over him and that he went to Arabia not Jerusalem indeed indicates Paul knew his authority and revelation directly from God so he didn't need to check with anyone or some central authority to make sure first.
I had an experience where as soon as I heard the catholic claim of apostolic succession I was convinced. Nothing else made as much sense of scripture....I took my time to still research the ECF and the catechism, but I was so strongly drawn to it. Over 1 year as a catholic with no regrets.
@Taylor Barrett I grew up charismatic and was apart of the international house of prayer (I did their 4 year ministry school) in Kansas city for a few years, then bounced around a few non denom churches during and after college.
@@1984SheepDog Oh ok. I spent some time in KC last year and a Catholic friend of mine I studied with at the Dominican school did the school of ministry at IHOP KC back around 2016 if I remember correctly. How have you incorporated the charismatic and pentecostal theology into your understanding of Catholicism?
@@1984SheepDog so how have you incorporated your experiences of the Spirit by faith apart from being Catholic, receiving Sacraments, etc, in the Pentecostal/charismatic context, into your understanding of Catholic theology?
I always enjoy your videos. I love that you describe your conversion as "I met Jesus"... I did too! I have also felt a "draw" to the Catholic church... but I'm not sure that it was a draw from God. The Catholic church looks kinda bad from the outside, but once I have experienced some regenerate Catholics and a beautiful service at a Monastery, that made me reconsider. Then, some of the apologetics I found were pretty convincing, especially for someone who grew up in the shallow waters of evangelicalism. But I kept digging and eventually found the work of Ortlund, Cooper, Nemes and others. And I went beyond the Catholic apologetics (bait) and learned more about the actual history and practice, which were a splash of cold water to my trajectory. Our family has been re-reading the New Testament to see how some of the claims I have been learning about (Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon) align with the DNA and emphasis of the earliest Christian writers. So far, that process of getting back to the apostolic deposit, is pretty forcefully pulling me away from the Catholic church... and to be honest, the common evangelical expression too. The Catholic analogy that is often used is the acorn to oak tree... but I am not seeing that at all. I do see God's working in history and even in members of the Catholic church...
I think the evidence for papal supremacy, infallibility and succession is not that great. There's something to be said for a certain kind of authority for the bishop of Rome, but the extravagant claims the papacy has made at times should be repudiated, and certainly there are no grounds for demanding that other churches assent to them when we eventually reunite with each other. I quite like what John Paul II said in Ut unum sint: "Intolerant polemics and controversies have made incompatible assertions out of what was really the result of two different ways of looking at the same reality. Nowadays we need to find the formula which, by capturing the reality in its entirety, will enable us to move beyond partial readings and eliminate false interpretations." Of course this applies in many areas other than the papacy. That said, I'm not about to up and leave my church for another one, though I don't condemn people who do. Benedict and Francis both recommended that Protestants remain as such rather than being in any haste to "convert", since we need people in every church sympathetic to other churches and working for ecumenism.
Do you think Catholics could find a way to word the Papacy that would both honor Vatican 1 while simultaneously allow for Protestants and Orthodox to accept the doctrine? What is your current denomination?
@@taylorbarrett384 I'm a Catholic. I think Ratzinger's proposition that Orthodox and others should not be required to hold more than was already agreed in the first millennium of the Church is a good starting point.
Glad to be subscribed to you. I think the overselling of the typical catholic pop apologetics is what led me out of catholicism. Had sort of a mere christianity upbringing that leaned pentecostal and was initially so moved by catholic arguments from steve ray and others that i converted. Stayed catholic for about 5 years but left within the past year after I realized that their silver bullet answers were not really silver bullets at all. Their triumphalism then seemed to me to be dishonest and irresponsible and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Trying to give all christian denominations a fair shake, but its hard to find catholic apologists that dont trigger my temper these days.
I completely understand. Dealing with the professional pop apologetic arguments has become an exercise in sanctification for me. I spend a lot of time tracing the history of particular arguments they make and it's shocking how relatively novel many of them are. It's a case study in how quickly and easily history can be rewritten.
I have several Catholic friends and my wife is Vietnamese "cultural" Catholic 😆...I grew up anglican and now im member of an outstanding non denominational...i was born again April 10, 2011. I have studied a great deal of Catholicism and devoured all the James White vs Catholic answers stuff...any Catholic apologist you can name i have probably listened to at length (i even read Trent Horn Case for Catholicism and read Dr. Pitre books, Scott Hanh, Steve Ray, etc etc etc.) I studied church history under Dr. Mayhew and have read Augustine, Aquinas and much of the Fathers...The more I investigated the more i found my Protestant convictions further confirmed and solidified.
@Taylor Barrett For instance Luther and Calvin quote Augustine a lot (thus they find a lot of their theology in him). On Mary you have considerable examples of Fathers that do not affirm what later became Marian dogmas (of course this is admitted by Catholic apologists and explained away by saying they just speaking private opinion as private theologians and not for "the church" which I don't find convincing), or that Aquinas seems to reconcile Paul and James 2 on justification the same way Protestants do, or that Augustine later in life denied Peter as the Rock, etc.
I also read Newman's doctrinal development book and was less than convinced...It seemed more like an ex post facto attempt to smooth over the rough edges of history and account for the absence of certain doctrines early on (nor am I convinced of Steve Ray's little according analogy or that these things were in seed form and developed until they fully blossomed rather they look like accretions).
@Taylor Barrett I heard you mention you tend to like Protestant Scripture interpretation as you find it to often be the natural reading...I would definitely agree with that....I find sometimes Catholicism seems to be forcing a reading of the text that I don't think is natural (rather they have a preconceived doctrine that they must justify thus they attempt to read or force the text in a way to make it fit). I suppose all sides can be guilty of proof texting to fit their view but it seems to me (generally speaking and I don't mean this uncharitably) the Catholic side has a stronger tendency almost to want to simply utilize Scripture to try and support its agenda while the Protestant love for Scripture is more likely to lend itself to letting the Scripture truth/interpretation speak for itself.
I can relate a lot to what you are saying, thanks for sharing. Personally I got confirmed this easter, coming from a very devout Protestant background, also very anti-Catholic. Actually what first started moving me, where bad arguments against Catholicism, they actually budged me towards Catholicism. Right into the bad Catholic arguments 😂 like the where is Sola Scriptura in the bible kind of arguments. Now I've realised how tough these matters are, and how much nuance comes to play, it will take time for me to fully settle on the matters, but I do believe Catholicism is the way to go! Anyway God bless!
We didn’t hear Joe say that we are forgiven WHEN we forgive. Here is an example that I think explains the Catholic and Biblical view: Once I did a brother wrong. Felt terrible about it. Wanted to go to confession. But I thought I probably needed ask for forgiveness of my brother before I made my confession. The priest I asked agreed and that’s what I did. Joe also quoted: “But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions. Teaching About Fasting.” Matthew 6:15 NABRE Seems to contradict what you are saying unless I misunderstood you.
I would have to go back and listen to my video again to give you the best possible reply, but no, I don't recall Joe ever saying that you are forgiven the moment you forgive others. I was discussing that idea because it's related to the subject. As far as the Catholic view, your Priest could have absolved you prior to you going to your brother if your heart was already contrite.
@@taylorbarrett384 Based on Matthew 6:15 and Matthew 5:23-24 it seems like we should be forgiving and asking for forgiveness with our brother before we come to the Lord for forgiveness. Wouldn’t that also be in line with being sincerely repentant?
@@PatrickSteil Let's just think of a real world example. You already gave us one. The other day you were in a position of needing to apologize to your brother. Did God want you to wait to ask for mercy until you actually got the opportunity to apologize? Such that on your drive over to your brother you forbid yourself from seeking mercy from the Lord until you actually apologize? Or is your heart and mind already sufficiently disposed to receive mercy - and God more than willing to grant it - the moment you have actually made a decision to apologize to your brother? Think it through, my man.
@@taylorbarrett384 Appreciate the conversation. I have thought it through. This isn't a question of whether or not God's Mercy is available to me at any time. The Catholic Church teaches that if you are in the process of RCIA for example and have never been baptized and you desire baptism and then die in a car accident, your desire to be baptized is enough. Same principle applies here. God will have mercy on me if I was to die on my way to ask forgiveness of my fellow Christian brother. My intention was correct. And it shows how serious I am about repenting of my Sin against my fellow Christian to want to go and ask His forgiveness first before asking for God's forgiveness. In this case it is fitting because my major sin was against my brother and indirectly against God. What if the Priest absolved me first and I promised to ask for forgiveness from my brother, but then never got around to it. Am I still forgiven by God? I would not be surprised to find out that because of another sin of laziness or whatever I didn't ask for forgiveness that my forgiveness would also be rescinded. This isn't a legalistic argument or a church law argument, I am making an argument that if we are to be people that Honors our relationship with both God and Man, that it is fitting and appropriate that we should go and ask forgiveness from our brother/sister who we have wronged (if possible) and THEN go and ask forgiveness from our Lord. If that person has already passed on, then obviously we can only ask their forgiveness through prayer, but that would also be fitting.
@@PatrickSteil Yes it is true that if you were forgiven first, and then later retracted your repentance, that you would at that time have forgiveness retracted as well. I do think, however, that you are misinterpreting Jesus' words about bringing a gift to the altar while your brother still has something against you. But even if you were accurately interpreting them, and everything you've been saying in this comment thread completely correct and exactly how the Lord views it, nevertheless, you still wouldn't be contradicting what Martin Luther taught about Faith Alone and the Lord's prayer, nor would you be providing support for Joe's comments in his video. The point in question is whether forgiveness is offered *because* you've forgiven others, not whether it is required that you forgive others in order to receive forgiveness.
@@taylorbarrett384 I just watched a video from Dr. Kreeft that was a trainwreck... I was a little surprised. (but I also watched a video from Jimmy that was helpful)
The argument that "forgive us as we forgive others" disproves "faith alone" is a misreading of Jesus Christ's and the Apostles' teachings. Forgiveness, according to Jesus Christ, is a vital component of the Christian life, and forgiving others is a reflection of God's forgiveness of us. This is not to say that forgiveness is a requirement for salvation or that it eliminates the need for faith in Jesus Christ. Indeed, Jesus Christ and the Apostles made it plain that redemption comes by faith in Jesus Christ, not via acts or actions such as forgiveness. In John 3:16-18, for example, Jesus states, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it through him. Anyone who believes in him is not condemned; however, anyone who does not believe is already condemned because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." This text underlines the necessity of salvation via trust in Jesus Christ. Similarly, in Ephesians 2:8-9, the Apostle Paul says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast." This verse affirms that salvation is a gift from God, acquired by faith in Jesus Christ rather than via deeds. While forgiveness is essential, it is not a prerequisite for salvation or a substitute for faith in Jesus Christ. Forgiving others, on the other hand, is a natural development of faith and a reaction to God's forgiveness of ourselves. Church Fathers such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas underlined the centrality of faith in Jesus Christ as a tenet of Christianity and affirmed that forgiveness is a product of religion's transformational power.
Thank you for your charity. As a Protestant I find you to be a breath of fresh air from the often weak arguments and misrepresentations of Catholic apologists within their polemics.
for these Catholic Answers/pop apologetics guys, it's as if anti-Protestantism is Catholicism. in a way, they implicitly reject the project of Vatican II, which emphasized positive theology and ecumenical engagement rather than the stupid "us vs. them" categories.
