Perhaps the best single video explanation of the Protestant vs Catholic views on this topic, finding common ground and promoting unity without avoiding the real differences, with special focus on harmonizing James vs Paul in a very systematic way. Very well done as usual!
@@po18guy Looks like Augustine saw a need: " I have written a book on this subject, entitled Of Faith and Works, in which, to the best of my ability, God assisting me, I have shown from Scripture, that the faith which saves us is that which the Apostle Paul clearly enough describes when he says: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love." But if it worketh evil, and not good, then without doubt, as the Apostle James says, "it is dead, being alone." The same apostle says again, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" And further, if a wicked man shall be saved by fire on account of his faith alone, and if this is what the blessed Apostle Paul means when he says, without works can save a man, and what his fellow-apostle James says must be false. And that must be false which Paul himself says in another place: "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners; shall inherit the kingdom of God." For if those who persevere in these wicked courses shall nevertheless be saved on account of their faith in Christ, how can it be true that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God" -Enchiridion ch 67 [354-430 AD] Perhaps if the successors of the Protestants leaders had thrown out James, the movement would not have grown or survived.
I recently listened to a 30 min video by the late RC Sproul on reconciling Paul and James and, again, after 30 minutes of explanation, Sproul was able to work it out from his view of justification, but he unknowingly decimated the idea of perspicuity… because no normal, barely literate human (I.e. 99 percent of people who ever lived) would get it without someone holding a PhD explaining it to them. So Sproul ended up making an excellent case for an authoritative teaching magisterium.
Sproul convinced me the Catholic Church was consistent in doctrine and the Protestants inconsistent in his book Are we Together. In Behold your Mother Tim Staples masterfully uses RC Sproul’s commentary on Uzzah to show the that Mary had to be without original sin, quite masterfully. Sproul also said Protestants shouldn’t have been so quick to ditch the confessional. It’s a shame he wouldn’t set aside his pride and become Catholic.
Sproul's commentaries remind me of shallow thinking or lack of understandings that we may have had as children. Once we would voice some of these dumb ideas, a nun would correct us and we would be nose back into the catechism. Thanks to those nuns and priests for teaching me the truth.
I was halfway through listening to Joe's interview on the Cordial Catholic about Calvinism and this popped up. I highly recommend that show on Cordial Catholic too. 😊 This is very thorough.God Bless!
I'll have to watch that. Been reading Against Herieses by St Irenaeus and he shows we're saved by faith and obedience to Christ and we have free will to except and reject God's grace. I highly recommend reading the book. It's incredible
I JUST finished listening to the CC episode! It looks like, with the last two SP episodes, that @shamelesspopery MAY be touching on the Reformation’s 5 (five!) Solas … please say yes! I’m coming in this Easter vigil for a reformed non-denom tradition. These episodes are so helpful to me.
I converted from protestantism this summer and this was a big hurdle for me. I didn't realize I believed differently/wrongly until I spoke with the priest at our local parish about what confession and the Eucharist is for. You are spot on with your analysis of the spiritual abuse that can happen due to this false teaching.
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I mean, if you're praying for anything (not just forgiveness), does that mean you're performing a work for God? I'm not following the logic. The Baptists have such a view of "faith" but that is not the brand of faith we find in the bible. Baptists pretty much teach that if you BREATHE in the name of Jesus, you're working. That's not taught in the bible. Is that the brand of "faith" you're referring to?
Not only that, but the same Protestants say you have to ACCEPT Jesus. DECIDE... BELIEVE. All are acts of the will. If faith alone was real, you'd just have to be born. Silliness.
@@Michael-pw2td - Granted. I don't think that even Baptists teach that you must become a rock in order to be saved but it's pretty darn close. Faith righteousness is indeed taught in the New Testament. And, as it turns out, it is also taught in the Old Testament - as the Apostle Paul points out so eloquently in his epistles. But it's certainly not, "Thou must become a rock". Action is indeed required but the bible NEVER calls such action a "work". We eed to define our terms by "Thus saith the Lord" or we wind up with complete confusion (i.e. the denominational world).
@@GizmoFromPizmo Well, here's the thing. According to the Lord's Prayer, which IS in the Scripures, the standard by which God forgives our sin is dependent upon us forgiving our neighbor who may sin against us. That standard does kind of fly in the face of Faith Alone.
I've met some ex-protestant friends that have told me they had the same problems as you before converting to Catholicism. And they would be the very first ones to agree that protestantism is a huge mess. [With all due respect to my beloved protestant brothers in Christ.]. The ones that still have some kind of order within are the ones that took it after Catholicism, go figure. :D
This is what Paul says: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast. “ Ephesians 2:8-9
@@blazel462 Love that verse, but we have to add verse 10 as well: "10 For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them."
Have to stop this before my job interview. Pray for me everyone. Joe thank you so much for your help. You've taught me so much about the faith! I hope I can support in a few weeks
Great analysis, Joe. To our Protestant brethren, also check out former Protestant and truly genius historian Dr. David Anders. He also does a terrific job explaining the disconnect between the Bible and Protestantism. As a former Protestant, Dr. Anders explains how the starting point makes all the difference. Dr Anders used to START with a Calvinist or Lutheran perspective and then read the Bible through that lens. Everyone should be doing the opposite: START with the teachings of Jesus and how they were understood by the Apostles and those whom they taught, then assess Calvin/Luther through that lens. Otherwise, you are really putting humans (Calvin/Luther) ahead of the word of God. Starting from diifferent points explains why Protestants and Catholics often talk past each other.
This was so helpful Joe. You have a genuine gift of communicating complex concepts in a straightforward and yet highly engaging way. As a recent convert from Protestantism, I just wanted to say that your work was a big part of the journey for me. Thank you. Christus vincit!
Outstanding! As a priest, my experience is that after I bring them this far, the non-Catholic then says, "Faith but not Baptism." I then point out how the Ethiopian Eunich comes to faith and us Baptized, Paul comes to faith and is Baptized, the household of Cornelius, etc. Can you make a video on this? I'm sure as a full time apologist you have more insight into overcoming this obstacle than I seem to have. (Sigh)
Yes sir except saying baptism has anything to do with justification does not agree with the bible's teaching as a whole! But we are commanded to be baptized, although and do not believe we must be for salvation! I also do not believe an infant is justified by baptism...We must be baptized with the Holy Spirit! God bless!
"Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on His name!" ~ Ananias to Paul, Acts 22. This is after Paul had been praying and fasting for three days. "Those of you who have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." ~ Galatians 3:27
@@MrCB555 yes baptized in Christ! Context is everything..... We are saved by grace through faith! Honestly how can water baptism have anything to do with salvation??? It doesn't! It is only by God's grace and the blood of Jesus! On the cross He said IT IS FINISHED
@@Hokum48 Don't ask how something can be, ask what God has spoken. It's dangerous to reject God's Word based on our own flawed ideas of how He could really mean this or that. If it's what He means, it's true, even if it doesn't seem logical to us. Don't put your own ideas of what baptism should or shouldn't be above God's Word. Can you find that "baptism now saves you" in the bible? (Yes, you can.) Keep also in mind that in the Book of Acts it's written that entire households were baptized. Strong indication that included children. Where in the bible do you find that you need to be an adult or that you need to understand what it means for God to save you through baptism (that He commanded)? Can only people who understand baptism be saved, excluding children and severely mentally disabled people? Don't add restrictions on God's Word that come from men. Nowhere in scripture does it say that children aren't to be baptized or that there's a minimum age for baptism or that there's a minimum understanding for baptism to be proper. Jewish boys (including Jesus, Joseph, Paul, Peter, etc.) were circumsized 8 days after they were born, as God commanded. Don't be the kind of person who claims to know better than God. "But surely we can't circumsize babies! They don't understand what's going on!" The Lord, your God, commanded it. Do it. "We can't baptize small children, they don't understand it!" The Lord, your God, commanded you to baptize everyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Do it.
@@Hokum48Also, please don't bring up the thief on the cross. 1) We don't know if he was or wasn't baptized. The bible doesn't say either way. 2) The way he was saved wasn't the norm. Hadn't he been crucified, he'd have gotten baptized. God commanding us to get baptized doesn't mean _He_ can't save us without baptism, it means that if _we_ decide not to get baptised although we have the opportunity (that the thief didn't have as he died) and know what the Lord commanded us to do, we're rejecting His saving baptism. I don't mean to be harsh. It's just that people commonly bring up the thief on the cross as to argue why baptism is unnecessary, and that's not right. God showing mercy on a sinner who repented in his last moments without access to baptism (assuming he indeed wasn't baptized before) is a testament to God's mercy, it doesn't mean we can just ignore what He explicitly told us to do.
Having faith in Christ is trusting in him and doing what he asks of us. Baptism, confirmation, communion and all the sacraments are part of our faith in Christ.
Excellent show! I don't know anyone in real life who is a Faith Aloner but I've come across plenty in youtube comment sections. I've tried to understand where they're coming from because the concept seems so counterintuitive. This was very helpful.
Having once been Episcopalian, I can assure you the Episcopal Church approves of sin, and even promotes and celebrates certain sin like homosexuality, adultery via divorce and remarriage, and murder by supporting a 'woman's right to choose'.
Joe was on a round table with Dr Thomas before on reason and theology! I really like the way Dr Thomas charitably approaches Protestant denominations and their beliefs.
I cracked up when I read this, bc I only now realize that I've quite obviously met him (and spoken with him) before, and that it's all on video. Mea culpa!
The Missing Evidence Against "Faith Alone" How about this? 1. On his own authority in his 1522 German translation of the New Testament, Martin Luther added the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28 to read, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE (Allein)" to justify his doctrine of Sola Fide, i.e., Justification by Faith Alone. [Michael Davies, Cranmer's Godly Order (Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1995), p.25.] 2. He wrote the following regarding his addition of the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28: "If your papist worries you about the word 'alone', just tell him plainly that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says: 'Papist and donkey are one and the same thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas.' ["I wish it, I command it. Let my will take the place of a reason." (Luther quoting the Latin from 1st-2nd AD author Juvenal's satirical poems Satyrai)] For we must not be the pupils or disciples of the papists, but on the contrary their masters and judges. We ought to swagger and hammer on their donkey-heads, and, as Paul challenged the sanctimonious fools of his day, so I will also challenge these donkeys of mine." [G.W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian (London, 1956), p.36.] 3. In addition to the above concerning Romans 3:28, Luther also wrote: "I am sorry now that I did not add the word 'all' so that it would read 'without all works of all laws', and thus ring out loudly and completely. However, it shall stand as it is in my New Testament, and though all the Papist-donkeys go mad about it, they shall not move me from this." [A. Hilliard Atteridge, Martin Luther (London, 1940), pp.19-20.] 4. Although subsequent translations removed the word ALONE (Allein) from Romans 3:28 to accurately transmit in German what St. Paul originally wrote in Greek, Luther steadfastly held on to the doctrine of Sola Fide derived from his additional word. Luther's doctrine subsequently was adopted by the major 16th century Protestant Reformers who initiated movements that continue on to the present day and which include: (A) John Calvin (Reformed) in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, (B) Thomas Cranmer (Church of England/Anglicanism) in No. 9 of 39 Articles of Religion in his Book of Common Prayer, and (C) Calvin's student John Knox (Presbyterianism) in his book On Justification By Faith Alone. 5. John Calvin even admitted in his Institutes that the word 'alone' never follows the word 'faith' in the Bible but still went and followed Luther in the new Protestant doctrine: "The reader now perceives with what fairness the Sophists of the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is justified by faith alone (Rom. 4:2). They dare not deny that he is justified by faith, seeing Scripture so often declares it; but as the word alone is nowhere expressly used they will not tolerate its being added." [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 11, No. 19; Beveridge translation, p. 459; nts library website, Institutes pdf 467 of 944]
Another great video that clarifies where the disagreement lies while also trying to keep it simply for us laymen. I think this may be the video I share to people who express the usual misunderstandings of the disagreement.
"If you wish to enter into life, then keep the commandments ", ( Matthew 19:17), for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS. ( Corinthians 13:2). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@Wgaither1 My little children, these things write I unto you, *that ye sin not* And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, *Jesus Christ* the righteous: (not a man who wants people to call him father). For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, *in this present world* Have you remembered to keep holy the seventh day sabbath?
The commandments, which is part of the Law, refers to actions or works. It is not about faith. Jesus said that he had come to complete it. So the Law is as importat as the faith in Jesus. But the Protestants reject works as essential for salvation. That is tantamount to rejecting the Law. If so why they insisit the Catholics to observe it ( with particular reference to the second commandment), when they themselves reject the essentiality of works? By asking us, are they not rejecting their own 'faith only'.?
@@larrybedouin29212:28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. * 2:16 So let no one make rules about what you eat or drink or about holy days or the New Moon Festival or the SABBATH. 17 ALL SUCH THINGS ARE ONLY A SHADOW OF THINGS IN THE FUTURE, THE REALITY IS CHRIST
@@tasiaflynn3549 Now of the things which we have spoken this is *the sum* We have such an high priest, (of the order of Melchizedek; chapter 7) who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty *in the heavens* A minister of *the sanctuary* and of the true tabernacle, *which the Lord pitched and not man* For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. (His life; "no greater love"...) For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests [Levitical] that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and *shadow* of *heavenly things* as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make *the tabernacle* for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to *the pattern* shewed to thee in the mount. *But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry* by how much also *he* is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. *For if that first covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second* For *finding fault with them* he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make *a new covenant* with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; *I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts* and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: {Hebrews 8:1-10} (Jer 31:31-33) ☝️ No new law
"every branch IN ME that does NOT BEAR FRUIT, THEY SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY ", ( John 15:2) Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
AGAIN, Praise God, brother Joe! My favorite channel! Your logical explanations of the teachings of the faith of Jesus Christ and His church is Holy Spirit inspired. Love ya brother!
If Christ doesn't actually transform us and He only covers up our sin, would that imply that heaven is full of sin? At what point would anyone become righteous before entering heaven?
The response that I've run into is that, the moment after death, we are made perfect. An arbitrary way to separate sanctification out and preserve forensic justification, but that's a common response that I've heard.
It's misleading to say SFers dont believe in transformation, traditionally they hold sanctification is necessary to salvation. They merely hold that the believers internal righteousness is imperfect and tainted with damnable sin and so can never withstand judgment, thus the need for imputed alien righteousnes as the grounds for justification. However, to your point, I've never gotten a good answer from them why God could not just continue looking at them through imputed righteousness in heaven. Given their theology, there's no logical reason. Why must the non-SF view of transformation only instantly occur after death and could not begin in earthly life as in the RC/EO view (and even be condemned as a false gospel by anti-catholics no less)?
Ask a Protestant if they believe in justification by faith and works, and they will emphatically deny it. But ask them if they believe that anyone is justified apart from the cooperation of their will, and they will almost always deny that too. Yet, they essentially mean the same thing.
Ask them to interpret John 3:36: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him," and watch the gymnastics.
Well Lutherans and the Reformed will argue with you. For them any human action is not allowed, which is why they have to destroy your humanity and literally turn you into a zombie to get monergism, thus God rides your like puppet.
I've come to believe that Catholics and Protestants will never come to agree on these issues. As compelling as this this video is, there are many protestants who'll watch it and laugh it off. To them RC Sproul, Voddie Baucham, and John MacArthur, makes the most sense and everything against their clearly senseless theology is dead wrong. It's a pity!
It's because Protestants decide what they want to have be true at the outset and then interpret Scripture accordingly. Luther openly admitted this when he complained that his trouble with the Catholic faith stemmed from his doubts about whether he was truly saved. He decided at the outset that he must have this feeling or else what the Church taught was false. So he reinterpreted the Bible and cast out certain parts of it in order to try to convince himself that he was saved once and for all time. Such is the Protestant way.
Steve I tend to agree with you on this one, I think you are pretty spot on. Catholics watch that video and think “wow, how does anyone see it any other way it seems so clear. Though scripture is hard to understand, this makes the most sense and it’s what has been believed essentially for 2,000+ years. I can’t imagine thinking any other way, I feel bad for Protestants that can’t/wont/don’t want to see it. They hang onto their misconceptions or just don’t care to dig any deeper. They are comfortable where they are… 🤷🏻♂️”. This comment will probably piss off some, but oh well. I really do pray and hope they find their way to the fullness of faith in our Lords church and the Eucharist 🙏🏻
That's where you have to show where people like John MacArthur explicitly contradict themselves, which is something Joe shows in a video just recently on early Christian controversies. MacArthur explicit rejects a Catholic idea that St Augustine taught, but also claims that St Augustine was basically defending Calvinism against those trying to push Catholicism in his day. I think, if you show that their heroes fail, even on pretty important but obvious things, they start being more skeptical of what that person says and start considering other views.
Good to learn more about these things that have dogged our steps along the path of the past 500 years, competition, wars, sectarianism when the very opposite should apply - Good News, Good Will! It would have been so convenient to walk to the nearest church but it's Protestant!
Excellent! The more believers can agree the better! It doesn’t look good or convincing for nonbelievers when there is division and dissension among Christians. Jesus’ dying words: John 17: 17-23 17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. 20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me…”
Hey Joe, it would be really cool if you did an episode explaining "Grace Alone" I feel like this theory is often intertwined with "Faith Alone" and can be kind of confusing.
This topic, it seems, to me, can not be addressed without discussing what it means to be justified. Therefore one should discuss being in a state of sanctifying grace. Only in that state can we perform good works. That state, apart from sacramental confession can only be attained by a perfect act of Contrition.
The formulation I came to even as a protestant who studied the Bible, before becoming Catholic, was this. Salvation is rooted solely in faith in Jesus. But it's by this faith that we receive grace which makes us alive in Christ and able to bear fruit. If we don't bear fruit, we have defeated the purpose of grace. Christ warns that branches that don't bear fruit will be cut off and thrown into the fire. We are saved by remaining in Christ, because he is the only one with the power to overcome sin and do what pleases God; so it's Christ working in us that produces the works which please God. If we cooperate with his grace (which entails concrete acts of obedience) and allow it to bear fruit in our lives, then we will be saved. Being saved is being alive in Christ. Being alive, by definition, entails growth and producing fruit (good works animated by the love of God). If we turn back to sin, not allowing God's grace to change our thoughts and actions, then we can die and go to hell.
Joe apparently you have not been on RU-vid anytime soon Protestants do believe they can do whatever they want and still go to heaven as long as they believe and put their trust in Jesus
I think that what is mission from the conversation is the topic of “sanctification.”. That’s what Protestants feel like is happening when you engage in the good works you perform. I would really be interested to hear a Catholic apologist address it. I might reach out to Catholic Answers… that said I should’ve started this comment by saying THANK YOU for this video!!! I feel like it’s the calmest most logical and most thought provoking commentary on this topic I have found. The gentleman speaking is sensitive and caring in his approach to the topic. I have been struggling with depression too so I feel really thankful for his gentle spirit and approach. I’m seriously considering becoming Catholic so again THANk YOU
I think you have omitted a couple important issues key to the argument. 1) Protestants typically believe God's standard of judgement is perfect and sinless obedience. This frames their entire understanding. 2) Whether or not given this a persons Grace-Spirit inspired works can be said to be part of the basis or ground of God's judgement.
Thanks for this very good and useful video! Protestants often pretends that scriptures speaking of obedience and perseverance concerns only future rewards but not salvation. Could you make a response to this?
The lack of the word alone except in James 2.24 would seem to be a problem. Especially since the word faith is used about 300 times in the new testament and protestants think they have to correct the scriptures when James says we are NOT justified by "faith alone" .
Ok, it's like this (according to the Catholic Faith) - Jesus did all on the cross to redeem the world. He and only He opened Heaven to us all. But you, the individual, must do your part to enter Heaven. If you think you need only "accept Jesus" and neglect the Ten Commandments and neglect responsibilities towards others, you got another think coming, pal.
Thank you for this interesting explanation! However, I have to admit that I’m still not convinced that the eyewitness weren’t hallucinating. Why exactly do you think that this could not actually be a plausible reason for their conviction of and their belief about the resurrection? I’m honestly sorry, but I still don’t quite understand why this point shouldn’t be a good argument for the idea that the term “resurrection” actually refers to someone sort of spiritual phenomenon. Could you possibly explain in more detail why this hypothesis cannot be taken seriously? Thank you.
At 15:40, why do you say the Lutheran view is the Catholic view? the Formula of Concord solid declaration, on the Righteousness of Faith, 17 states "Accordingly, the word justify here means to declare righteous and free from sins, and to absolve one from eternal punishment for the sake of Christ’s righteousness, which is imputed by God to faith ..." A good picture of this is the parable of the banquet (with the added context of the provision by the king of the wedding clothes), many receive the glorious clothes (Christ our righteousness) and wear them into the kingdom, yet one rejects the gift and is thrown out. However, in this life we aren't yet perfected which is where we look to the cross (looks like defeat to human eyes, yet is truly the binding of the devil and the death of death). The whole 'simultaneously justified and sinner' that by the saints before their righteous repose bemoaning the sin they still see in themselves. Afterall, that God's Word does what it says is part and parcel of the Lutheran Tradition from Luther. Why else would our slogan and stamp be "The Word of the Lord Stands Forever." and our condemnation of Zwingli be "is means is"; and Luther teach in his Genesis lectures, "The words of God are realities, not bare words"? Our contention is that it is God's Word (which is receive through hearing and faith) which justifies, rather than the "love infused by the Holy Spirit, virtues, and the works following from it" (FC SD, III. 62)
I should add why that's important to us. If Justification is declared/made righteous, or conformed to Christ who is our righteousness; and if faith is knowledge, assent and, most importantly, trust; and if love infused by the Holy Spirit is shown in good works; Then if one is taught that they are made righteous not just by God's Word but also by my fasting, almsgiving, prayer, etc. what has followed (not every time) is that one looks to their work to see if they are justified and either conclude they are and glory in their works or conclude they are not and despair (as did Luther). Simply we humans are good at focussing on ourselves and bad at focussing on God (a good reason we emphasis and keep the Christological feasts and table prayers). However, if one is taught they are made righteous by God's Word through faith (as the only 'vehicle'); they are encouraged to listen to Him and not the demons, in listening to Him they discern His will, conform to it, and changed they live by it. Or they cease listening to Him and listen to others who lie and say 'that is no sin' then say 'God could never forgive you for what you have done.' Here we (Lutherans) focus on who we listen to (God's Word through His Priests and Scriptures, rather than the lies that don't stand forever). As to salvation, yeah works are part of salvation for they are God's work in and through us which we participate in.
Unfortunately I think many Protestants approach it from a false sense of piety. Don’t get me wrong, they’re trying to be pious by saying faith alone but that’s not what being pious means. CS Lewis has a great quote, “it is as if, on a far higher plane, we argued that because no man by merit has a right to the Grace of God, I, having no merit, am entitled to it”. That’s essentially the sense i get, especially from the one saved always saved crowd.
This sort of content is great, however, the first of all debates still must be "Sola Scriptura". Every protestant-bible-christian is going to argue that Catholic interpretation is wrong(regardless of any evidence you give them, even if you base your arguments on Scripture or/and Church history), and that protestant interpretation is the correct one. Therefore, if you are Catholic, you should study the Catholic arguments against Sola Scriptura more than anytihng else before engaging in debates with protestants.
"faith alone is the cause of justification" Well if someone is baptized on their deathbed. Baptism removes original sin as well as actual sin. They would not be obliged to do any of the corporal or spiritual works of mercy simply because time does not give them a chance to do such things. Since baptism removes the temporal punishment of actual sin, they would go straight to heaven. They would not pass through purgatory, they would not need to collect any indulgencies! So, in the absolute extreme, I can agree with that. But since a majority of Christians are not baptized on their deathbed, it's mostly a mute point. According to the acts and life of Martin Luther, "faith alone" gives a person the ability to dispense themselves from any vow they made to God such as a vow of celibacy or obedience to religious superiors. We cannot judge what someone meant by something apart from how they acted because of what they believed. Or is it "scripture alone" that gave him that ability to dispense himself of his vows? Once we are baptized we are members of the Mystical Body of Christ. So our sufferings and works are Christs sufferings and works. So in so far as they have any value, by atoning for someone else's sins, it is only through baptism, which comes through either our own faith or that of at least one of our parents. Which brings up somethin you skip over, the Catholic understanding that I have a debt I acquired by sinning and offending God, that you can pay for me in part by praying, fasting, and abstaining, so long as you are in the state of sanctifying grace. Like wise I can do the same for debt you acquired by doing similar things so long as I remain in the state of sanctifying grace. This ability makes us so much more like Christ, dare I say, such a likeness is lost in Protestantism?
Peter, John, James. These are the central 3 Apostles Jesus designated. St. Paul's blessed writings need to be read within context of these three saints present in the garden, at the transfiguration.
Before you get married there is hope and faith and when you marry these are not enough. When you love eachother you do works. When you love God you participate, loving care, doing
Nobody can claim they have True FAITH in Christ Jesus by God's Grace and DO (Good Works) NOTHING... Christ Jesus said, "PICKUP (verb/Work) your CROSS (noun/Yoke) and FOLLOW (verb/Work) ME (Christ Jesus)." ... (ref. Matt. 16:24-26)... "FAITH ALONE" (Sola Fide) is a Biblical HERESY... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Darkness means blindness, not separation. It’s our eyes that need healing, not our ‘being’. Jesus gives us eyes to see. To see what? To see the Father. Divine immanence shows us Divine transcendence. The Son shows us the Father. The Son and the Father are One. Creation is already included in the Life of God. That is what we must see.
If someone believes in faith alone, the purpose of discussing morality seems unclear. It's contradictory to believe salvation comes solely through faith, yet question the relevance of practices like the beatitudes and baptism. In my view, this mindset leads down a slippery slope. Teaching faith alone risks neglecting other essential teachings, reducing faith to a transaction. For instance, one might think, "I've sinned, but it's okay. I'll accept Christ, be saved, and then I'll be good." Sadly, this is increasingly common today. People live contrary to teachings, then undergo baptism, memorize bumper sticker quotes, and mistake it for faith. Considering the trajectory, what would this type of faith resemble in 100 years?
@@razoredge6130 going to mass doesn't forgive sin, confession does. In confession, any sin you hide from the priest is not forgiven and if the priest has reason to believe you have not repented of your sin he can choose to not give you absolution.
@@razoredge6130 Thank you for commenting. Praise God for people who seek his kingdom. God Bless you! Let's chat. I would start with my *personal* experience with people saying "I am born again" Where did you form this conclusion of Catholic doctrine? Have you studied the catechism? I am curious where this is written in the catechism or is it your personal experience, which can certainly be understandable. As a Catholic, I see that too in our tradition. I call it "Tradition alone" I can elaborate, but what are your thoughts?
@@SaintlySaavy The concept of indulgences seems to me that transactional approach to salvation. You doing something in turn you spend less time in purgatory. Also the idea of losing salvation is very worrisome to me because it undermines the message of peace in the Bible.
I don't know any protestants who believe what the 16th century "reformers" believed. And... What is with all this "alone" business, when the Bible does Not clearly say: "The 5 alone doctrines you should follow are... Grace alone, Faith alone, Christ alone, Scripture alone, and Glory to God alone" ? It sure seems like there's alot of "alones" to actually be considered "alone". Also, If we don't need the Church, then why does God "add to the Church all who are being saved"? ACTS 2:47 And, If we don't need Priests, then Who prays to God in order to save your soul? HEBREWS 13:17 2 Samuel 22:47 Why believe in "Christ alone" if it's not true? What saves you in 1 Peter 3:21 ? Christ alone is a fallacious belief that denies the Grace of the Triune God of Christianity!
It’s there , you can’t miss it, in the letter of Paul to the Romans, the whole argument of Paul, having being justified by faith we have peace with God.
Joe, you are choosing to misunderstand, out of charity, but most Protestants do indeed believe that works do not matter, if a person has faith in Jesus.
Joe, interestingly, heat and light from the sun are the same thing... Literally both are electromagnetic radiation. However they differ in a way (frequency) that perception of them may take different instruments. A human eye can see visable light (color spectrum) easily, but heat (infrared light) can be felt by the skin.
this is not accurate. heat is thermal energy, energy is not a thing it's a property of some things. Light has this energy that when in contact with the skin turns into thermal energy, so we get heat. most of the thermal energy from the sun arrives through invisible light, but even the visible light contributes to heating things up.
I don't believe committing just one sin, you lose your justification, especially the sins that the catholic church added to scripture, like eating meat on Friday's or if a priest retires and gets married without permission. that's just two examples
@jimbob3719 It depends on whether the sin is venial (fractures your relationship, but does not destroy it, or if the sin is mortal. Mortal sin causes the lose of sanctifying grace. This is why the ancient church called for a priest to guide you. 1 John 1:9 RSV If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
So do you believe in God's eyes it is mortal sin worthy of hell for a priest to retire and get married without permission of the Catholic Church, when it was not the tradition of the church 2000 years ago. So if a priest can not exercise self control and gets married, they are just following scripture have not sinned because it is better to marry than to burn with passion, according to scripture. The Catholic Church goes against scripture when not allowing priests to marry, knowing some will burn with passion
@jimbob3719 A Priest in the Latan rite of the Church takes a VOW to be celebate. In my Diocese, we have 4 married priests. All for are converts from Lutheran and the Episcopal denominations. In the Byzantine, Melkite and most of the other 22 rites, have priests who are allowed to marry. The Catholic Church does not go against scripture or the traditions of the ECF (the first witnesses to the ancient Catholic Church).
So you must believe then, that priests who retired and married ,who did not think they were sinning and died, must be in hell for breaking the command of the church right?
I wish this channel did not spend so much time and effort driving a wedge with false equivalences regarding catholic versus protestant. I find it very disheartening and many blanket statements and over-generalizations are made. "Faith or Works" is quite simply a paradox- you cannot be saved without faith, and that faith MUST be accompanied be the way you live your life. ("Works", if you will.) This is all over the New Testament, in the Book of James and the Book of Galatians. BTW, I am not a Catholic, nor a Protestant- I am a Bible-believing Christian, a disciple of my Lord Jesus Christ. So you might consider me a heretic. If I could find Catholic teaching in the Bible, I might be one but I have studied it quite a bit and there are just too many contradictions.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my I'm not trolling... How did I violate community guidelines? I asked legitimate questions in good faith. What's wrong with that?
@@boblob2003 great! I've had many "bible belieging non protestants" say "no" to that. I suggest you seriously consider the case that us catholics and orthodox make for apostolic succession. Suan Sonna's and Jimmy Akin's work is what I find most interesting in this area.
There is no Missing evidence unless one is a Catholic. Catholic parents baptize their newborn babies as soon as they are just a few weeks old...If the Biblical Mary was a Catholic, then why didn't she baptize Jesus a few weeks after he was born, instead of Jesus had to wait until he became an adult? "Did the Catholic Mary baptize her baby Jesus when he was just a few weeks old?
Romans 4:5. But to him that worketh not, but BELIEVETH on Him who JUSTIFIETH the UNGODLY, his FAITH is counted for RIGHTEOUSNESS. Romans 4:6. For if Abraham were justified by works, he would have something to glory/boast in, but not before God. Abraham was JUSTIFIED by faith 430 years before Moses gave the law. We can be justified before men by good works, but NOT BEFORE GOD. Galatians 2:21. I do not void the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ died in vain. Romans 1:16. Romans 11:6. Ephesians 1:13-14. Ephesians 4:30. Can a born again believer be unborn again? No. It is impossible. Hebrews 6:4-6. For it is impossible for one who has tasted of the heavenly GIFT, and given the Holy Spirit if they should fall away to renew them to repentance. Romans 8:9. Without the Spirit there is no salvation. With the Spirit we have eternal life. Justification by a one time faith, apart from any works. IF we add one work to grace, then it is no more grace but all works. Romans 11:6. If we could be saved by works, then Jesus died in vain. Salvation by grace excludes law/works. Romans 6:23. For the penalty for sin is death, physical death, but the GIFT of God is ETERNAL LIFE, through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 3:18. Believers can no longer be condemned, but UNBELIEVERS are condemned already because they have not believed on the name of the Son of God. First John 5:13. These things have I written unto you that BELIEVE on the name of the Son of God, THAT YE MAY KNOW YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. John 5:24. John 6:40. John 6:29. John 6:47. John 10:28-29. Hebrews 13:5. For He hath said, I WILL NEVER LEAVE YOU OR FORSAKE YOU. Ephesians 1:13. Can a born again believer by the Spirit of God become unborn again? No. Second Timothy 2:19. Ephesians 1:13. Colossians 2:13. He has forgiven us ALL trespasses. Romans 5:19-21. Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds.
the big difference is Catholics have water baptism , obedience and endurance as part of Justification, so they cant be justified until they endure, where so called protestants believe we are Justified and righteous the moment we believe the death burial and resurrection apart from water obedience and endurance. and at that moment we receive and are sealed with the holy spirit until redemption day regardless of behavior, water, or endurance. so salvation is a 1 time event that happens the moment we trust the gospel revealed to Paul but according to Catholics its a process that doesn't happen until you endure , aka die!! so even if we agree on faith alone we disagree on ''when'' the person is justified and righteous by that faith alone!!
If people see you eat meat, it doesn’t matter how much and how often you tell them you are a vegetarian, they will never believe you. Or like some people say. “ tell me you are a Christian without telling me you are a Christian”.
I would say I am a sinner. You should not look at my failures as a person and a Christian to see the truth of the claims of Christianity. If Jesus Christ is who he said he is then you should measure those truths. If the Biblical claims are true then that should be measured on its own claims not on my shortcomings as a person.
@@halleylujah247 I totally agree we shouldn’t judge a group because of one bad apple. We can all agree regardless of our view on faith alone. John 4: 7-12 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. John 13:35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. Definition of love : 1 Corinthians 13: 4-8 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.8 Love never fails This is truly a way, not the only way to show you are a Christian. I know it’s hard especially sometimes during rush hour traffic. Love you.
Your thinking about it wrong if you asking that question friend. If you let the question eat you up you might end up thinking like Martin Luther who couldn't grapple this thought. Better to think about it this way though, If you loved someone with all your heart, how much would you be willing to do to show them that love? Think about a parent and kid relationship, that parent will suffer, work and provide for that kid their whole life even when they're old enough to take care of themselves. Why? Love. So through gods grace, show him your love through works by what Jesus says to us in the bible. Because after all, Jesus ultimate work was for all of us though love. God Bless and Peace be with you.
@@Sevenspent God told Abraham directly what work saved him as the father of the Jews in Genesis 22, and how he was reckoned righteousness as a GENTILE in Romans 4:10, and Romans 4:16-25. Rehab was not told she would have eternal life, but that she and her family would be spared from physical death. JOSHUA 2:12-13 Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token: 13And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, *and deliver our lives from death.* 1 JOHN 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. As Paul states repeatedly in his epistles a CHRISTIAN is Justified by faith and NOT the works of the Law.
That is an honest and conscience statement. Please consider that a majority of converts, my wife included , were perplexed and challenged by this. Keep inquiring. Challenge the Doctrines. I'll pray for you 🙏.
That was one of my objections to Catholicism too. However I learned what we, the laity, must believe about Mary & it’s very simple. We must believe that Mary was born without sin & remained sinless & that Christ did not allow her to decompose in the grave but took her bodily to heaven. Once you understand the theology of why these things are believed & the reasonings & supporting historical data it makes a lot of sense. You have no obligation to pray the rosary or ask for Mary’s intercession. You’re encouraged to, but it’s not required. You have no obligation to believe any of the apparitions either. Mary is an example to us of perfected humanity. She’s not in any way divine or have any power of her own, but everything she is & does is through the power of God alone. She worships God the same as we do, but, probably, better or perfectly. Her greatest attribute is her humility. I hope you explore Catholicism more. It’s changed my relationship with Christ, made it deeper, more profound, & more personal. God bless you.🙏❤️
Respect your honesty. Think of Mary as your spiritual mother. Believe me when I say that my increased devotion, not worship, including the daily rosary has increased my faith and Mary has brought me closer to her son. I’m a better person and Catholic for my Marian devotion. If you’re interested, research some of the approved Marian shrines such as Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe etc, all fascinating and insightful. In addition, Marian devotion has developed a sixth sense alerting me to error or heresy. Marian devotion that doesn’t bring us closer to Jesus is false. Also read and explore the Marian dogmas which are compulsory to believe. When you understand the rationale and biblical background, they all make sense. For example, if Our Lady was not assumed into Heaven, where is her grave? Likewise, is she Queen and the woman of Rev 12 If the daily rosary is too big an initial challenge, start with one decade and be sure to meditate on that particular mystery. There are 4 Rosary themes, Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious and Luminous with each theme having 5 related mysteries to contemplate which you can google. All popes in living memory have had Marian devotion, so don’t let anyone try to discourage you, so get over your initial reticence and you will be spiritually rewarded. Protestantism doesn’t have a clue what it is missing out on and unfortunately, they believe their misinformation about worshipping Mary
How about this: 1. Faith mean faith. 2. Good works means good works. 3. Works of the Mosaic law are works of the Mosaic law. Calvin and Luther invented doctrine, and to try to reconcile it to the Bible, reach for nonsensical and convoluted interpretations. It’s so much simpler than that. Virtually every time Jesus discusses what it takes to go to Heaven, he conveys the following: repent, be Baptized, and don’t thereafter sin but instead love your neighbor by doing good works. The supposed proof-texting that anyone does to try to weasel away from what Christ actually conveys only proves that they are misguided. Stick with the ONE and ONLt Church that Christ founded and none of this is in any way confusing.
How are you my friend? If the matter were not so serious as C.S. Lewis suggests then I have one question: why is Justification by faith so prominent in the Pauline corpus? Why does Paul go through such great pains to argue that "..by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:20 Paul closes the door shut on any suggestion that works of the law can ground in any way Justification. My Catholic friends, and of course I am guilty of this also when I was a Catholic, often appeal to James 2:24 " You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." as a reflexive retort to the Magisterial Reformers insistence upon the Sola doctrines: Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria, viz. grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone. The palpable problem I see should be immediately evident to anyone attempting to apprehend the biblical witness. Is the use of Justification by Paul and James univocal or otherwise equivocal? In other words, do Paul and James mean the same thing in their respective uses of word Justification. The only way to accurately answer the question is by meaningful exegesis of the text. The Magisterial Reformers recognized that James is not using the word Justification in the same way as Paul. Starting at James 2: 1-3, "My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool..." What is evident from the outset is that James is concerned with personal behavior evident to the senses. How these hypothetical persons are dressed, his attitude, and where he sits in the assembly. Verse 4, "...have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?" James is condemning the effects of the attitude of "personal favoritism" he explicitly mentions in verse 1. Verses 5-7 James' argument here is that the person who is unmistakably affluent, i.e. gold ring and fine clothes, and in virtue of his affluence thinks he ought to receive favorable treatment in the assembly, i.e. the church, is not only in error but the very foundation of the distinction he draws resulting in the favoring of the affluent person over and above the poor person is evil and ultimately worthy of condemnation. This is evident in the admonition of the brethren, in verse 5, "Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?" So, the context of the passage is unmistakably evident, James is concerned with personal conduct. James continues with the law of Christ, i.e. to love our neighbor as ourselves, in verses 8-9 while returning to the condemnation of "partiality". James continues to be concerned with personal conduct. Upon arriving at verse 14, the context has not changed, viz. "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says....." James changes the kind of personal conduct he is concerned with from partiality to individual faith claims, i.e. .."if someone says." How then is it possible to determine the veracity of the claim that a person has true saving faith? According to James, it is his conduct. For conduct or works in the immediate context are the fruit of or otherwise follow from true saving faith. Case-in-point, verses 15-17, "If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." The connection here is clear. The person claiming to possess saving faith that does not relieve the suffering of the person who is without clothing or food is ultimately a liar, for he does not possess true saving faith at all. His faith is dead! see verse 17 According to James then, the object of works relative to faith within the context of his narrative is that of evidence, verse 18, "...I will show you my faith by my works.” The justification used by James then in verse 24 signifies the evidence of true saving faith and ought not be improperly construed as Justification within the same context as God justifying the sinner in Romans 3:21-26. The works James is explaining is an outward effect produced by the inward reality of God’s Justification of the one who is given the gift of faith. Paul and James therefore are not speaking univocally about Justification, but rather, it is being used equivocally by Paul and James. Paul is concerned not with personal conduct but instead the sinner's standing before God. Romans 2:1-16 Paul develops the point that in verse 16 "For there is no partiality with God." between Jew and Gentile (Greek). In verses 17-29 Paul is setting up the argument that even though the Jews have the law and circumcision because they transgress the law their circumcision has become of no value. So, by chapter 3:1-4 despite the advantages of the Jew in every way, in verses 9-18 he indicts both Jew and Gentile (Greek) arguing that are all under sin. Verse 11, "There is none righteous no not one....." ....." He follows with the simplicity of the Gospel: “ But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus....because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Romans 3:21-26 Paul then asks rhetorically, "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Romans 3:27-28 If Justification is by faith APART from the works of the law then man is justified by faith ALONE! Verse 31, " Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." Works of righteousness that follow from the sanctifying work of the Spirit are so essentially necessary as we learn from James. Works being the outward evidence of true saving faith. Absolutely! But the biblical view is unmistakable my friend. As always God bless my brother!
@anthonynuzzo9512 The works of the Old Testament Law can not save. This is what St Paul was speaking of. St James however, when speaking of works, is speaking of works of love. They complete faith (Ja 2 22) and one is justified by works (of love), not faith alone (Ja 2 24). Those are the only time in all of scripture the words faith and alone are side by side. And when one is justified, made right with God, one is 100% .... saved. This all confused the Catholic priest named Luther, and from his confusion he taught error. Many have followed him.
@@TruthHasSpoken I understand your view my friend but it is not reflective of a sound exegesis of the text which I provided you. You did not cite the context of the narrative. James in the beginning of chapter 2 is initially concerned with personal behavior amongst the brethren of the assembly, i.e the church, to wit: "My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool..." James 2:1-3 Particularly, how these persons are dressed, their attitude, and where they sit in the assembly. Verse 4, "...have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?" James is condemning the effects of the attitude of "personal favoritism" he explicitly mentions in verse 1. Verses 5-7 James' argument here is that the person who is unmistakably affluent, i.e. gold ring and fine clothes, and in virtue of his affluence thinks he ought to receive favorable treatment in the assembly, i.e. the church, is not only in error but the very foundation of the distinction he draws resulting in the favoring of the affluent person over and above the poor person is evil and ultimately worthy of condemnation. This is evident in the admonition of the brethren, in verse 5, "Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?" Because James is concerned with personal conduct manifesting as partiality amongst the brethren he invokes the law of Christ, viz. to love our neighbor as ourselves, in verses 8-9 while returning to the condemnation of "partiality". Upon arriving at verse 14, the context has not changed. In invoking the laws of Christ as an admonition concerning the conduct of the brethren who profess a saving faith in our Lord Christ he explains, "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works?" The context has not changed my friend. James in concerned about the conduct of the brethren in the assembly who appear to be manifesting an evident partiality toward those whom they perceive to be affluent which result in conduct that is contrary to the command of our Lord to love one another.... If the brethren are incapable of loving one another then how are we to understand their individual faith claims, i.e. .."if someone says." How then is it possible to determine the veracity of the claim that a person has true saving faith when that same person engages in behavior contrary to the law of Christ? According to James, it is his conduct, for "You will know them by their fruits." Matt 7:16 For conduct or works in the immediate context are the fruit of or otherwise follow from true saving faith. Case-in-point, verses 15-17, "If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." The connection here is clear. The person claiming to possess saving faith that does not relieve the suffering of the person who is without clothing or food is ultimately a liar, for he does not possess true saving faith at all. His faith is dead! see verse 17 According to James then, the object of works relative to faith within the context of his narrative is that of evidence, verse 18, "...I will show you my faith by my works.” James and Paul are not using Justification in the same way. But your analysis my friend doesn't include an exegesis of the text. In your video you never explain the context of the narrative. Its not my intention to offend you my friend but you need to approach the biblical text with care while providing a sound exegesis of the text itself. "they complete faith (Ja 2 22) and one is justified by works (of love), not faith alone (Ja 2 24)." Again my friend, Paul and James aren't using Justification in the same way. Paul is concerned with God justifying those whom the Father has chosen before the foundation of the world, Eph 1:4, and has given to the Son, John 6:37-51, and has therefore been predestined, called and justified, Romans 8:28-30. James is using Justification in connection with works to signify the evidence of true saving faith, "show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” James 2:18. Remember, exegesis of the biblical text will serve you well my friend. God bless you and I really enjoy your show.
I have a Protestant friend, he stole money and then he said that he will be forgiven anytime by Jesus because of the belief that "Faith ALONE in Christ can save you from Sin." For that until now he steals and pray and ask directly forgiveness from Jesus. By his faith ALONE and through God's grace, he will definitely be forgiven. 😂
A works doctrine, places God in a position of obligation, like your employer is obligated to pay you for y our time at work. God can never be in a position of obligation to any man. Man owes God eberything, God does not owe man anything.
RC notion of merit is not that God owes us out of strict justice or as if being paid a wage - there is no boasting or works righteousness. It is simply that God has gratuitously promised to reward works. Many Protestant reformers and scholastics affirmed God rewards our works (as amply supported in Scripture).
Speaking as a Protestant, I hate that Protestants and Catholics have denied each other the title of “brother” because of a slight difference in our understanding of the relationship between faith and works. If our salvation was contingent on passing a test given by St Peter at the pearly gates, I think most of us would be in trouble.
They are not slight differences, and our salvation IS contingent upon passing a test at the pearly gate. But it is not given by St. Peter, who only mans the earthly side. It is given by Christ himself, who mans the pearly side.
I agree with you - the danger here isn't that we're making it all about faith. It's that we turn salvation into a theology quiz, which is plainly not what the New Testament teaches.
There is no missing eveidence for For "Faith alone". A briader view is that is evidence for catholicism. Bible is very clear that we are saved by our grace and faith. What there is no evidence for is that we can work our way to heaven. If its by works then its no longer a gift from God. How hard is that? We don't work FOR our salvation, we work as a RESULT of our salvation.
'If its by works then its no longer a gift from God' does not mean 'Once saved always saved'. Please try to find out about initial Justification/ Salvation (which is not merited by good works or by Works of the Law, find out that you can lose your salvation, and discover why Love is the most important of the three virtues Hope, Faith and Love. I get the feeling you haven't watched the video or perhaps it didn't clarify the matter for you enough. Do please search out Catholic sources regarding theses matters, they should put you o the right track. God bless, V
@@Vigula you Catholics say the right things but don't do the things you say. If you dig deep enough into " the fathers" as you all day you will find that they do not agree with everything the modern church teaches. You are just told what they do agree with. You're apologists hide that from you for obvious reasons. Ivan give you some of those quotes. I'm talking about Aquinas, Clement, Ambrose, dome popes and others. I bet you don't even know those comments exist. Why should you, it destroys the narrative. I mean about such things as the assumption, the immaculate conception, Mary's sinlessness. In fact before some were dogmatized they were seen as heresies. Heresies then became dogmas? Obligating you to believe or you are damned to hell? Yes, that is the one true church? Attaching anathemas to a church teaching makes it blatantly clear why. Your church claiming sole authority to interpret scripture is also blatantly clear. If they were true, why the need for all the anathemas? Does you church pronounce anathemas for not believing the birth, death or resurrection of Christ? No, because they are true. In other words your church tells you what the bible says and means and you can't question anything. Just like the apostle Paul right. When they questioned him? Or did Peter do the same as your church does? Peter says that shepherding the flock should be done with constraint, willingly and not lord it over the flock and not for lucre. Hardly what your church is doing. Simply on the anathemas and the lucre part. So much money and gold, real estate the true value is not known. Exactly what Peter meant, "gold and silver have I none." Yes, build up your riches in heaven. Those are the signs of the one true church.
I give the Protestant the same argument but because im Catholic im automatically wrong , I give the Protestant tha same argument and i say im Protestant they agree with me. Lol
James 2:22... "You see FAITH was active along with his/her work, and FAITH was complete by the WORKS"... "Like a BODY without SPIRIT is DEAD, thus, FAITH without WORK is DEAD... Therefore, FAITH was not complete without WORKS... if FAITH was not Complete, thus, he/she was not also SAVED, logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Why split hairs? Justification is about claiming that you can earn salvation by works alone. Don’t come adding stuff to it. If someone says you are not saved unless you take part in the Eucharist and confess to a priest and.. then I tell him to .. go away .. I am saved by faith alone - by the sacrifice Jesus did and me accepting it in faith. The works are a reflection of being saved. You ought surely not commit murder and steal and rape if you truly accept salvation. The works don’t provide the saving. Now don’t get me wrong. There is beauty in the various church traditions. But they are all just man made traditions. Reading anything more into that is heresy.
Faith has to be SAVING FAITH not merely a mental or emotional assent to a belief. Saving Faith is Faith that is "not dead" but Faith that bears fruit in love...Love is action that altho EXTERIORLY is seen as a good thing done, it is actually NOT works. The "WORKS BASED" salvation that is anti-Biblical is works that come from or originate from or motivated by ... the FALLEN NATURE of man...This works is NOT ABLE TO SAVE ...for IF IT COULD, Jesus wld NOT HV HAD TO BE SACRIFICED FOR OUR SAKE!
