Lutheran Debates Catholic on Justification (Jordan B. Cooper Vs. Jimmy Akin) 

Judging by the beards one would think it was A Greek vs Russian orthodox debate 😆

Prot here. Jimmy Akin and Jordan Cooper are amazing examples of solid theologians who love God and are gracious. I love them both so much.

As a Catholic with Lutheran parents, I really found this as an amazing dialogue. Matt please gets these guys back on, it's been awhile.

Former Catholic, current Confessional Lutheran here. This has to be the most civil, respectful, and productive talk between Romans and Lutherans in the last 500 years. Both of these speakers (I am, admittedly, much more familiar with Rev. Dr. Cooper) are exceptionally well positioned for this topic and I think that I, a layman, walked away from this talk smarter than I went into it. This - dear Christian friends - is an honorable way to conduct ourselves.

This is my third time watching this, and I must be honest-Jimmy is one of the most wonderful human beings on earth. I seriously love his heart for truth and the charity with which he speaks.

I am a Roman Catholic Christian - convert from Protestant tradition since 2000. This is such a wonderful beautiful and charitable show between the host and the guest speakers. Such intelligent men, but humble in spirit. That's what makes learning from this discussion so easy and enjoyable. Thank you very.

As a confessional Lutheran that went to a Dominican college these are the kind of dialogues that lift my heart. The Lutheran/Roman Catholic dialogue must continue and is done well with conversations like these. Highlighting differences as well as seeing our unity in love for Christ covers a multitude of sins.

When I was Lutheran I would go to Jordan Cooper regularly. Now I go to Catholic Answers and Matt Fradd when I have questions. This is about the closest thing to an ecumenical allstar team I've ever seen. Edit: I realized my mistake of putting Jordan Peterson instead of Jordan Cooper. My b.

This conversation format is SO much better than debate. This yields information and understanding, neither of which anyone cares about in a debate. Kudos to Dr. Cooper and Jimmy Akin. Both awesome gentlemen. And thank you, Matt!

I'm glad Jimmy was able to clarify what the actual Catholic teaching/tradition is regarding "faith + works." This was the first time I have ever heard a Catholic show why that expression is wrong. Conversations like these make me realize how much I really don't know.

This is what a Catholic and Lutheran who want to agree sound like. Charitable ears and lips. It has great benefits, but it does make it a bit harder to get at the differences, and to gauge the importance of those differences. Thank you, the three of you.

Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) here. I have to say I truly enjoyed the dialogue and the charitable manner in which it was carried out and how these two men treated one another. It stands in stark contrast to how James White behaves towards others that he debates or disagrees with regardless of whether they be Protestant or Catholic. He (James White) strikes me as all "head knowledge" but one who has not had an inward work of grace done in his heart and he should examine himself to see if he is truly born again.

"We confess with Paul that no other faith justifies 'but faith working through love.' (Gal 5:6)" ~ John Calvin, Institutes 3.11.20

Great debate. I side with Jordan Cooper of course, but both of them were really charitable and good.

Jimmy Akin gold around the 1:14-1:15 mark, and I'm not even Catholic. I love the patience of his approach wanting to genuinely understand their differences and yet so charitably and gently pointing out any inconsistencies.

So much agreement here. Maybe do one on the papacy and sola scriptura between these two.

I love Jimmy. Listen to him all the time. He's just SOLID all the time.

Non-Catholic here, but I really liked Mr. Akin's explanation of Faith, and tying it into Faith, Hope, Love. I would say that Saving Faith is not a Faith that stands alone as an intellectual acknowledgement of Doctrines, but one that looks to Christ in Hope, and consequently works through Love.

Found this video because I’ve been struggling between Lutheranism or Catholicism. Looks like I’ll struggle some more lol, on a serious note this was an amazing watch

Being objective, I have to say, Dr. Cooper talks a-lot but doesn’t actually say very much. He’s all over the place. I think Jimmy is much more competent in speaking clearly, and conveying information. Great discussion though.

I wouldn’t call this debate rather a delightful conversation. Seeing these two men converse in a manner that is respectful to both of their theological traditions is refreshing. May we learn from their example.

That was one of the best youtube videos I have seen all year. Thank you gentlemen so much for putting this together for us to view and learn from.

Enjoyable conversation, thanks

What a great discussion wish more would be like this

I wish that many of us Catholics learn how Jimmy does these things for the Church.... we can flip the rest of the world with his approach.

Can anyone appreciate the graciousness of Matt Fradd to recede to the background and let the beauty of the discussion take its course. Talk about total control even in absence. This guy should have a TV show.

Great, mature and respectful discussion. Much appreciated.

Excellent discussion. I appreciate both of you and your knowledge tremendously and thank God for persons who can so clearly discuss these difficult topics so nicely. God bless all of you. THANKS MATT!! APPRECIATE THIS!! BLESSINGS 👐🕯🕯🕯👐🔔

As an Orthodox Christian watching, I really enjoyed this. Very good dialogue.

This was a super awesome and helpful dialogue. It seems like the claimed substantial disagreement here is that Lutherans believe we are justified by what Christ did FOR us and Catholics believe that we are justified by what Christ did IN us. However, Lutherans also believe that what Christ did for us produces real change in us, and Catholics believe that what Christ does in us happens because of what Christ did for us. These clarifications lead me to side with those who agreed to the Joint Declaration that disagreements are really more in emphasis rather than substance.

Love this type of format. Good discussion on both and great examples on how to have charitable discussions with each other.

Protestant here! I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. Thanks Matt.

I enjoyed this format and agree to the reasons why Jimmy believes it to be more edifying and productive. I wonder if James White would ever agree to such a format? 🤷🏽‍♂️

Nice to see more agreement than disagreement. Bravo, guys!

I love you Jimmy. I pray you come back and fulfill your dream of being a protestant pastor. Lutherans are here for you friend. Get back to the basics.

Great discussion gentlemen. I would love to see a discussion between Trent Horn and Jeff Durbin along the same lines.

This was a great conversation. Both did very well

Jimmy is so polite and kind. You can really see fruit in him. Also brilliant.

Two of my favorites...they are both very charitable and easy enough on a topic that is fairly close...it would be interesting to see something more foundational like Sola Scriptura

Very good discussion! Nice having these two quests. I’ve appreciated both of their work, throughout the years. Cooper’s work was instrumental in my conversion to Lutheranism.

Fantastic ecumenical discussion. While we should always strive to seek the truth, focussing on what unites rather than what divides is refreshing.

Excellent conversation. If only all theological discussion/debate was conducted like this . Two educated, well-spoken representatives of their faith tradition , vigorously upholding their point of view , but not disparaging the other person with personal attacks or flashy rhetorical tricks and "gotchas".

Alex O'Connor and Gregory Pine should have a debate next.

Absolutely marvellous debate / discussion! Jimmy Atkins and Jordan Cooper did a fabulous job. And if we have the body of Christ following their example there would be much good unity in the Body of Christ!

Great discussion! Interesting that Jordan used to be a Calvinist. Glad he left that.

2:04:00 I love the way Jimmy lays things out, I very much agree with him as a Protestant.

PINTS W/ AQUINAS IS THE BEST!!! THANK YOU FOR THESE VIDEOS* +

So excited that I can finally watch this

A conversation like this with Jimmy and Gillaume Bignon would be awesome!

This was a great discussion. For me, the central issue between those under the pope and those aren't is exactly that: the Papacy. I think all other issues are secondary to that.

1:10:54 I enjoy Jimmy’s differentiation between doctrine and theology.

Great conversation

This was a great dialogue.

Enjoyed it.

Been waiting for this for a looooong time

Thank you this is great!

Jimmy’s prefatory remarks alone are amazing. This dude is a gift!

I was reluctant to watch because most debates are more about "winning" than truth. But this was an actual discussion with reason and charity on both sides. Thanks. Something within this topic that perhaps wasn't well explored is the difference between God's omnipotence vs the limits of human self-knowledge. That is, God knows me better than I know myself. God knows exactly and fully why I choose what I choose; what temptations I fought and what opportunities I wasted; what all my options were; what measure of His grace was granted to me individually in every moment; how the spiritual war among angels and demons affects me. God knows like no human being His own nature - Love - and how well or poorly I have conformed to Him. He knows better than I do if I have accepted and cooperated with His love. Akin cites saints who point to signs of living faith (ex: inspiration to charity and forgiveness). But Jesus says He is the vine which the Father will prune of branches that fail to bear fruit. I cannot earn salvation. Christ's blood alone pays for my sins. But is the fruit Christ bears through me sufficient to please the Father? Then again, Jesus says He will lose nothing the Father gives Him. He is the Good Shepherd who follows the wayward sheep. Christ moves me to join the Mass and accept Him in the Eucharist, which is certainly salvation if I accept Him in a state of grace. But what then is the final Judgment for? There is more to grace and judgment than we understand.

Fantastic conversation, gentlemen! I was happy to hear you both asking probing questions around points of disagreement. I feel like there was growth in understanding on both sides! As a former LCMS Lutheran and now Catholic, it still seems to me that the core disagreement on justification is over imputed righteousness vs. infused righteousness: whether it is a forensic declaration of Christ's very own righteousness imputed to us or an infusion of sanctifying grace merited for us by Christ's work on the cross? After researching this question quite a bit, it seems to me that the position that Trent ended up on, viz. the idea of infused sanctifying grace as the formal cause of our justification, is what is most in line with the traditions of the Church and the Bible. It also seems that Luther's position of the extrinsic imputation of Christ's very own righteousness, was a complete novelty to the Reformation, as can be seen here by one of the most prominent modern day scholars, Alister McGrath, on the historical development of the doctrine justification in Christian thought: "The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external. In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification." McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126 "Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186 It seems to me that Luther, himself, was even aware of the novelty of some of his positions, but for some reason that wasn't a problem for him or many of his followers: "Of this difference between the Law and the Gospel nothing can be discovered in the writings of the monks or scholastics, nor for that matter in the writings of the ancient fathers. Augustine understood the difference somewhat. Jerome and others knew nothing of it. The silence in the Church concerning the difference between the Law and the Gospel has resulted in untold harm. Unless a sharp distinction is maintained between the purpose and function of the Law and the Gospel, the Christian doctrine cannot be kept free from error." **Luther, Matin. Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Chatper 3, v. 19. (1535). I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy to anyone exploring the historical justification debate between Lutherans and Catholics. It was highly influential on my own conversion to the Catholic Church from the LCMS Lutheran Church. This book argues that the Joint Declaration on Justification (1999) was not an accurate portrayal of either the Lutheran or Catholic positions on justification.This book claims (and I now agree) that the crux of the difference between the two views is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification: is it the imputation of Christ’s righteousness extra nos (Lutherans) or is it the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer (Catholics)? Dr. Malloy makes his case by surveying the two side’s positions on justification throughout history, including the failed reconciliation attempts at the Diet of Regensburg, the Council of Trent, modern Lutheran views, and finally a critique of the Joint Declaration. This was one of the most important books for solidifying my views that the Catholic Church is actually right about justification and does not teach any form of “works righteousness” or Pelagianism. It seems to me that Dr. Malloy does a very good job portraying Lutheran ideas fairly and heavily cites directly from the Lutheran Confessions. For anyone interested, I also wrote more about all this in my own summary of my research in my conversion process here: www.follyofthecross.com/category/catholicism/fullness-of-the-truth/ God bless!

Jimmy Akin is an example of God driven wisdom, knowledge and just a super hero of catholic apologetics. I would fast forward to his explanations. Dr. Is very kind and God loving. I pray God Blesses them both.

Good debate, God bless Btw... Matt you should bring Tim Gordon for a debate, that could be cool

Haven’t watched yet but Jimmy Akin has one the beard part

God had certainly bless you jimmy with the Grace to articulate and defend the faith 🙏

It would be interesting to have them switch places and try to present the other side as clearly and articulately and then have the other do correction so there is a clear understanding of the other side. Generally I think this should be the case especially for heated debates but this one was so congenial and there was good attempts at understanding the other side. This was a beautiful "debate". Speak the truth and let God move the heart.

Whatever the differences are, there is no justification to split the church. We stay together and we work through the differences. This is the kind of spousal equivalent commitment we must have for one another regardlessly.

Jordan Cooper is a great guy, I've been following his channel for awhile now even as a Catholic

This is one of the best conversations on justification I’ve seen

1:49:37 Easy for you to say! Love your works, Jimmy! 😁

So I did hear Dr. Cooper is affiliated with the Missouri Synod. It seems to me that at times he sees that he is close to the Catholic position, but he wants to find reasons not to. Hardened heart? Still, he is a polite and cordial person and entirely likeable. Jimmy was great as usual.

49:08-49:35 As a Protestant this is exactly how I feel about veneration of the saints and some of the forms in which Catholics pray to Mary and the saints. It makes me personally uncomfortable because I associate these acts as acts of worship that should be done for God only. I’m not here to outright condemn this or say it is wrong, but what Jimmy says here about Romans 14 is exactly how I feel. Because I perceive it this way, I could never take part of it or I would feel like I am going contrary to my faith. And that’s why I probably could not become Catholic, even though I don’t disagree with much of the other beliefs of the Catholic faith. Do any other Protestants agree?

charitable 'debate'. refreshing.

Thanks much for this video.

One of the issues with Catholic vs. Lutheran debates are that the two Churches are very much in harmony with one another. Outside of Allowing Marriage of its pastors/priests and the nature of the Eucharist and the Papacy there are very few differences. Lutherans even have their list of Saints and highly respect mary although they may differ on some points as to her receiving Hyperdulia. and in the matter of apparitions. But mainly the Theology is vastly the same. In a similar vein as the similarity existing between Anglicanism and Catholicism. their similarities to Catholicism is quote similar to the parallels found between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. While the language used to describe the theology is different the theology is almost precisely the same. I think it would have been helpful to have a debate or conversation between the three Churches Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran. this might shake loose a lot of information concerning their differences.

I think this dialogue comes down to Romans 4. I think Cooper pushed Akin on this several times and I think Cooper has the best answer to justification being continual. The justification before ungodly Abraham and David was still based on "not of works" even after they both have been following God. A great discussion overall. I learned a lot from both sides.

This is great. Here’d be a summary (I think) of the disagreements: 1.) For Protestants, justification is God’s declaration/recognition of a person as a *member of Christ*, and therefore belonging to Christ, an heir of eternal life, and “righteous” as an adopted child of God. For Catholics, justification involves the making of the sinner as righteous. So it’s more than God’s declaration and verdict on a sinner’s life that these things are true, but the renewal of the inner person as well. 2.) For Protestants, one is engrafted into Christ by faith alone. This faith must be a faith that works through love; it must be effective in good works. But faith alone is the sole means by which one is United to Christ, and therefore made an heir of eternal life. The righteousness one receives in justification, for Protestants, is the “in-the-right” verdict pronounced by God on the sinner as a real member of Christ and therefore an heir of all the promises. For Catholics, I’m unclear what the role of Christ is in forging our union with Christ, at least expressed here. 3.) Can you grow in justification? For Protestants, while justification has a past, present, and future dimension, you cannot grow in justification. Justification is the verdict pronounced on a sinner’s life whether they are United to Christ or not, and thus belong to God or not. You cannot be “more God’s son or daughter”, though you can grow into the likeness of Christ and your possession of salvation, since salvation includes glorification. And since God reckons me as righteous now, he justified me (=regards me as his) every day. For Catholics, justification is something you can grow in because it denotes the making of a person as righteous.

This is better than a debate.

I would really like to hear Dr. Cooper explain more about how faith cannot exist with mortal sin and yet also claim that Christians can have an absolute assurance of salvation (not to be confused with assurance of perseverance - see below). In fact, I often hear Lutherans say one of the main reasons that they could never be Catholic is because Catholics deny the absolute assurance of salvation. I wonder how can Lutherans believe in the possibility of having absolute assurance of salvation plus sola fide without ending up in an antinomian position or a contradiction caused by the living vs dead faith distinction? Context: It seems Luther sometimes claimed sola fide means if we have faith there is no sin that can separate us from God: “Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone." (On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church) This seems like antinomianism (whether Luther said it was or not) and it contradicts the Bible (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.). On the other hand, Melanchthon seemed to advocate for a view that a saved person with a living faith wouldn't ever commit a grave/mortal sin: “Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV, 115; cf. Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article III) This seems more biblical, in calling for a living vs. dead faith distinction (James 2:17), but it also seems to remove the possibility of having assurance of salvation because then you have to look at your own works for evidence of having a living faith or not. Since sin clouds our judgment (Psalm 36), you could easily be mistaken about having a living faith and blind yourself to the fact you may be committing mortal/grave sins, for example a church going alcoholic. It seems to me you can only have assurance of salvation on a pure antinomian view, which most Lutherans and Martin Luther, himself, are ardently against (see Luther's "The Antinomian Disputations"). Anything less than antinomianism appears to contradict sola fide + assurance of salvation, though. EDIT: Small point of clarification. I am not taking about assurance in the sense that one cannot ever lose their faith, I am talking about assurance in the sense that if I believe I have saving faith then I cannot be mistaken that I do. Lutherans definitely believe it is possible to lose your salvation. The question as it pertains to the dispute with Catholics is whether one can only lose their salvation through apostasy (losing their faith) or if there are sins that are so grave that their inherit nature causes one to lose their salvation, regardless of whether they have faith or not? The latter is the Catholic position on mortal sins and how they destroy the life of grace inside of us even if we still believe Jesus is the Lord and died for our sins. The Bible seems to also indicate it is possible to have faith and yet fall into mortal sin (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.). God bless!

Jordan Cooper Rocks!

The discussion on Christ’s temptation was most interesting and shows some important differences I think.

great debate

Jimmy is the man, btw

See, the complications in the conversation, the subtle nuances between what Luther taught and what Tent taught, is why people tend to focus on simpler but less important (to Luther's mind anyway) differences between how Protestantism and Catholicism look.

Great,lucide conversation.

Great conversation. A great book on the topic is "The Garden of Emuna." Also, "Jesus of Nazareth" by Pope Benedict XVI is clarifying.

We definitely need a debate on the papacy and one on Vatican 2.

Dang I missed it live

Excellent dialog

High Chruch Lutheran here. Is that incense burning next to you in the video? I love it.

This is really incredible, I want to see Lutherans join the Church!

This subject I often use as proof, and I see it in this debate as well, of the fact that Lutherans and Catholics are like Brothers who disagree/argue for the sake of arguing. The vast majority of disagreements are semantic and irrelevant to the layman. It's mostly high level, theological debate, a toying with and war that puts souls in harms way for the sake of ego.

Christ be with you We are only "in Christ" when we keep Christ commandments (1 John 3:24) God bless you

Great debate ,thanks to Jimmy and Jordan and thanks to Matt for hosting . As a Catholic this has been very informative !

It would have been interesting to have Dr. Cooper talk about his view of Glorification? What happens to a person between death and at the point of standing before God and what is the righteousness of the person at that point?

Read "Luther and Aquinas on Salvation," by Stephen Pfurtner if you can find it.

This conversation was just great

Jordan cooper speaks at 1.5 speed and it’s very impressive. god bless you both Jimmy and Jordan

This is my favorite conversation between a Protestant and a Catholic. So that's partly what makes me proud of Dr. Cooper and Mr. Akin for how politely and calmly they talk with each other. Since I'm a staunch Catholic traditionalist, I try to practice Catholicism as though Vatican II hadn't introduced any novelties, novelties I pray the Catholic Church will abolish. But I need non-Catholic Christians to know that I'm sorry I've discussed theology with them mostly because I longed to win a debate. Sadly, though I hate to admit it, I did that mostly because I wanted to feel better about myself. I wanted to be the victor instead of someone humble enough to just search for the truth. For me, the Catholic Church is the only one Christ founded. So, in my opinion, only it is his Mystical Body. A non-Catholic Christian can be in the Catholic Church as a nonmember of it. In fact, anyone who goes to heaven gets there because he'll be in or attached to the Catholic Church when he dies. But my traditionalist beliefs don't excuse the way I treated many non-Catholic Christians. My lousy behavior was and always has been my fault, not theirs.

Great conversation! Is having a respectful, productive conversation on RU-vid even allowed? It happens so rarely. I think the main disagreement is over infused vs. imputed righteousness. As was made clear, both Lutherans and Catholics believe in both kinds of righteousness. However, I think they eventually got to the heart of the disagreement, which is over the logical order of infused and imputed righteousness. In the Lutheran view, God's declaration of forgiveness in Christ through faith (apart from love or works of the law in any sense) is logically prior to our own, internal transformation; in fact, the forensic declaration of righteousness is the cause of our own fulfillment of the law in love. In the Catholic view, God infuses the righteousness of Christ into us, and our internal transformation (our gaining of faith and love) is the cause of God's forensic declaration that we are not guilty. I believe the Lutheran view is biblical, for a few reasons. First, Paul talks about justification "through faith" and "apart from the law" in both Romans 3 and Galatians 3. In Galatians 3, he also talks about the "promise of the Spirit" being received "through faith." What does he mean by "works of the law" and "apart from the law"? Some have argued that he means only ceremonial works of the law like circumcision, but that was not the view Jimmy Akin presented (and I'm glad he did not present this view). One reason this view is wrong is because Paul gives an example of the law in Romans 7, and his example is coveting (which is not a ceremonial work like circumcision or food laws). But if "works of the law" and "apart from the law" are broader than ceremonial laws, what could it mean? Both Paul and Jesus give us the answer. From Paul: "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” (Gal 5:14) And from Jesus: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (Matt 22:37-40). This makes it clear that "the law" and "love" are essentially synonyms (or maybe "love" and "works of the law" are synonyms). Thus, when Paul talk about being justified "through faith" and "apart from the law", he means that faith alone in Christ, apart from and prior to love, justifies us. What's the importance of love then? Paul tells us: "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Gal 5: 22-23). Love--that is, works of the law--is the "fruit" of the Spirit. They come after our justification through faith. This is also clear in Gal. 5:13: "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another." Notice the order: we are first made free; as a result, we are "servants" working "through love". In other words, we are declared righteous through faith, and as a result of this declaration are infused with our own righteousness and love, and begin our good works. I think the New Testament clearly supports the Lutheran view of justification, but the difference is somewhat subtle. A Calvinist/Reformed one-time forensic justification is certainly not biblical, and I am glad Catholics agree with us Lutherans on that point!

The debate still rages on Monergism vs Synergism.

'Confessional Catholic' Hey @JimmyAkin you coined a term. I was a Confessional Lutheran before I became Catholic. Confessional Catholic sounds really good to me.