Justification: Protestant vs. Catholic 

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.

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!

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.

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.

Thanks Julian, so glad it was helpful!

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

It was a real earthquake! Clearly my earthquake detection skills need some sharpening.

That was a very subtle pun, bravo.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks a lot Justin. God bless you in your research!

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.

Thanks a lot Michael!

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.

Thanks, and yes I have!

@@TruthUnites I will check it out! Thank you

Here's the historic protestant view. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--0w1TtfTIlU.html

so glad it was helpful! :)

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 RU-vid, 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.

(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."

I LOVE Dr. Phillip Cary! He's one of the reasons I'm Lutheran.

What kind of church do you go to now?

Good point. Made me think.

@@littleboots9800 It might be part of the problem, that we overthink it.

Will touch on that in a live Q + A I’m doing next week!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

@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

You're only saying that because it's absolutely correct.

So there!

I like Dr. Cooper. A good scholar and nice guy.

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?

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.

"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." ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--0w1TtfTIlU.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.

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

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)?

When Trent says that we can merit grace, what it means is that Christian can do things which prompt God to give us gifts. Not because we've earned them by doing something proportionate to the gift, but because God has promised said gifts out of His generosity. The most basic example of this is prayer (and fasting). Prayer and fasting is something you do. And frequently we are doing it in conjunction with some kind of prayer request. We are told by Christ that if we pray and fast with the right disposition, our Father will reward us. So if you have ever prayed and fasted for something, then you this is an acknowlegement that the things we do can prompt God to bestow gifts and rewards upon us.

@@actsapologist1991 gifts or rewards isn't an increase in Saving Grace.

​@@davidjanbaz7728 : That depends entirely on how one defines the phrase. If by "saving grace" one means: "A grace which moves a person from 'not saved' to 'saved'" - then you are correct. That is a grace which cannot be merited (or rewarded) for any action a person does. However, if one understands "saving" in the broader sense of everything Christ does for us to get us ready for Heave - a concept which includes our sanctification - then that CAN be merited (or rewarded). A person can pray (and fast) for help in overcoming a sinful tendency and receive that grace in response. What may seem like hair-splitting to some is an essential bit of gaining understanding. We always need to get beneath vocab terms and see the concepts underneath. The Catholic answer to almost everything is: "Depends what you mean."

Yes, I think that someone who converts sincerely on their deathbed obviously doesn’t have time to do good works, but if their conversion is sincere then they would do good works if they live longer.

@@TruthUnites If good works are necessary for salvation while faith alone justifies, then there must be criteria of minimum amount or frequency of good works you must do to show genuine fruit of faith alone justification. Consider the case of the late Ravi Zachariah. Assuming the allegations against him is true (his widow and son are defending him), is he now in heaven or in hell?

An apple tree is a real apple tree even before it produces apples. However, if it doesn't produce apples, then it is not a real apple tree. So given enough time, it would need to produce apples to be said to be a real apple tree. Even if the apples are small and mushy, it is still a real apple tree.

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."

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.

For the traditional Lutheran view see Jordan Cooper's channel.

@@Mygoalwogel it is my understanding from Jordan coopers channel that traditionally the reformers had not ever discussed an initial and final justification. But rather, just justified by faith.

Hey Steve! Regarding the differences, I identified two points of difference, the formal cause of justification and the soteriological context of justification. I'm not sure I could break them down in a comment any more clearly than I did in the video, but if there is something specific I can follow up on, let me know. Regarding John, I think you misconstrued the goal here. I regularly hear Catholics claim that Protestant views of justification have no basis in church history, and my comments about John are a response to that. I'd agree that John's views are not in themselves a defeater for Catholicism, and I believe I mentioned that in the video, unless my memory deceives me. A faulty memory of course is very possible as a father of four young children!

and yes, thanks for the zoom chat, I really enjoyed getting to know you!!

​@@TruthUnites : Excellent. By the end I thought you were trying to say that Catholic apologists try (and fail) to turn Chrysostem's quotes into something which fits into Catholicism. But instead you were saying that Catholic apologists try (and fail) to turn those quotes into something which doesn't fit into Protestantism. If that's the case, then ... yeah, I wouldn't turn to a quote like that attempt to show incompatibility. Those quotes cover an area where Catholics and Protestants agree. Would you agree, though, that there are aspects of Chyrsostem which would be incompatible with things which -some- (or many) Protestants believe about salvation? You mentioned Chyrsostem's higher view of the sacraments. I would also point to the way he articulates the necessity of works as being a challenge to -some- Protestants. (Homily 69 on Matthew, the parable of the wedding feast). I'd also point to a believe that Christians can be regenerate at one point and later apostatize and be damned. If I were a Catholic apologist, that's where I'd try to show incompatibilities. I'd try to narrow down on certain beliefs, rather than attacking the whole enchilada (and unsuccessfully at that).

@@actsapologist1991 no honest Protestant apologist would disagree with you. You will find Catholic like thinking as you will Protestant like thinking as well as..who knows what (e.g. Ireneus recapitulation theory). We Protestant like to say that we can let the Early Church Fathers be themselves. We don't have to find exactly what the Church says they said. And then you will say that we are just picking and choosing. And we will point out the error when your canons specify that ALL of the church has ALWAYS believed so-and-so belief, and you will respond that we quote mine, and round and round we go 🙂

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.

Thank you for calling it Popery.

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!