GOD's prophet, the prophesied return of Elijah, speaks: Very good lecture. The great error of Martin Luther was to remove LOVE from the equation. And this is why the Catholic Church was - and remains - closer to Truth. However, when GOD says "good news," GOD means GOOD NEWS! And almost no organized Christian Church (with one notable exception) has the true "Gospel" of Yeshua One with Christ ("Jesus Christ"). That's why I was sent. But as Revelation Chapter Eleven indicates, I am to be mostly rejected, just as GOD's prophets (and Jesus Christ) have always been rejected. Because, everyone already "knows" everything. "Unless ye become as little children" and are fearless enough to admit that you don't really know, GOD cannot instruct you and "you will not enter into the Kingdom of GOD." "But be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world." And, "GOD our Savior will have all men to be saved and come unto knowledge of the truth." Want to know more? Click and ye shall find.
The speaker brushes over the reasons why Luther raised his objections! You don't mention the arrogant Pope who refused to listen to his objections and instead orders his arrest so that he could be tried and burnt at the stake, that's how the Catholic Church used to deal with her critics! You choose not to mention that Luther was a Catholic Monk and a professor at a Catholic university, making him sound as though he was an outsider! He never wanted to break away. It was arrogance and refusal of the Pope that led to his position hardening and becoming polarised against the Church. Other reformers took Protestantism further away, something Luther disagreed with. The same can be said of the England breaking away from the Church. Had the Pope granted Henry the marriage annulment he was seeking, there would have been no need for a Protestant England! The Catholic Church, drunk with civil power, became God on earth and commited huge errors and crimes and brought shame to Christ! Reformation was sent by the Risen Lord Jesus to bring the Church back to its senses! After the explosion of Protestantism, the Catholic Church leadership woke up and started the clean up of its corrupt clergy and abuse of their power (eg, selling forgiveness for money!). Why don't you state the past sins of the Church and apologise for them, so the simple Catholics who often are filled with hatred, can understand why Luther, a Catholic Professor of the Church, did what he did! Start being honest, one of the most important virtues of a Christian. Stop the polemics and start an honest analysis of Church history!
Only 1300 views??? And yet people waste hours and hours on mindless videos, when they could be watching wonderful videos like this! Thank you and God Bless!!!
I did 4 years at a Catholic University, Theology classes were a joke, more like philosophy classes. Priests were clueless. They knew they were full exposed to the truth.
@@davido3026purgatory is never mentioned in the Bible, you’re books were never circulated through the early churches, the thief in the cross never did Eucharist or completed the sacraments. Catholicism is not based on scripture, it is based on control and tradition.
@@JeanmarieRod In 1521, Pope Leo X issued the bull that finally excommunicated Martin Luther as a heretic. 'Naturally' every Catholic will misread Luther's work and his life, otherwise, the 'club' would admit that Pople Leo X made a very wrong decision and Martin Luther was right.
I love listening to your teaching, Dr. Gray! Thank you for exposing us to Luther’s errors and the consequences. Keep up the great work! I am listening for the second time and taking notes. This lesson is so rich that I will be listening again and again. I teach 9th graders who are preparing for Confirmation, so this is extremely valuable. I wished I had learned all of this earlier.
I've taken an interest in Luther to help me with apologetics. Dr Grey's presentation of Luther's anthropology provides so much clarity why he preached Sola Fide, which is not only unbiblical, but ANTIbiblical. This is an excellent talk that deserves repeated viewing.
Great to know that people can study Apologetics today. I was lucky enough to study it in my Senior years in High School, a two year period. We also had a very scholarly teacher who visited once a week for those two years. It was extremely interesting as it covered the whole subject!
@@jlouis4407 There are other verses the speaker didn’t address but I wish he would have. They seem to support the protestant view. These include: Ephesians 2:5 Ephesians 2:8-10 2 Timothy 1:9 1 Corinthians 15:9-10 Romans 4:13-16
@@MFPWM2010 It just proves that the speaker does not understand the Scriptures. I just read all those above scriptures and it contradicts what this speaker believes. By grace through faith and it is not of ourselves but again i say by the grace of God and how is it received simply by faith . Romanism does not not know what do do with faith but they say it is not sufficient but add and again add and continually add unscriptural doctrines and simply add confusion on top of confusion and as a result Roman Catholics become more confused about what constitutes salvation.
@@peterj6740 Here are a few more passages I found that support Luther’s position: Galatians 2:16 Galatians 3:2-14 Romans 3:20-31 From my understanding of the protestant view, the belief is that we are saved by faith, and thus compelled to do good works as a manifestation of this faith. As our works are a reflection of the heart.
Seeing this after seeing a Lutheran perspective on all the same points about Luther's life. Always interesting to see the subtle differences in how two sides tell the same story.
Luther was all for the Reformation until he lost control of it. Other people got other interpretations rather than his from reading the scriptures. The protestants only had ONE council to hash out their differences called the Marburg Colloquy to hash out the essence of the Eucharist. They could not come to one conclusion and have been dividing ever since. And yet they all claim to have the real Gospel.
At the core, they do agree. We are saved by faith, not by works lest any man should boast, and need to be born again in Christ. As children of God and as believers, we live out our faith by stopping sin since we believe we are children of God. The gospel is really very simple at its core.
One of the big things protestants have in common is that they camp out on single verses and don't read the entire Bible in context, let alone within a faith tradition. So they have all this confusion because they take a single quote as an absolute and then get completely undone when presented with a part of scripture that "contradicts" their first claim. But scripture cannot contradict itself . They have a problem with nuance, I guess is what I am getting at. And then when people camp out on one verse rather than another a new sect is born.
I studied Luther a bit. I'm Roman Catholic and in my opinion, I can categorically state that my findings were highly in favour of Luther. He had some big Kahoonas to go up against the might of the RC Church at the time but, it wasn't the RC Church that was at fault. Like todays abhorrent paedophile priests, these are not acts of God. Christ never preached this. Incidences of Indulgences, paedophilia and other unholy shenannigans, are undoubtedly from Satan. The fear to confront, highlight and address these occurences are also from an unholy origin. There will always be attempts to bring down Godliness and goodness. I pray that you, the reader, would never be party to that. Keep Safe Brothers and Sisters and Keep the Faith. The worst to come is probably just around the corner. 🔥✝️
Luther considered himself Catholic for most of his life, especially after 1517. Only after he had multiple threats made on him by the church, and he succumbed to bitterness (as seen with his changed position on jews), did he truly break from the Church.
@@reesehendricksen269 I don't think so. The history of anti-semetic commonalities between the RC Church and Luther, had been imbeded too deeply, to readily discard. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks".
Dmc Dmc. Be discerning of what any particular parish teaches. Years ago I participated in an RCIA program. It took me a long while to learn that much of it was worthless. Attend the Latin Mass if possible. This is the surest means of assuring orthodoxy. So glad for you.
@@marccrotty8447 I didnt have to do RCIA cause I've studied the Catholic Church for the last 2 years. I got enough faith built up to go to mass one Sunday and I loved it. So I am being brought in with just 6 weeks of meeting with the Deacon. My church is amazing. Thanks.
@J Louis *All my points remain unchallenged.* *James and Luther used Faith Alone differently. This is how its different:* - Salvation is Not By Works ( *By Faith Alone* ) - Eph 2:8-9. - Practical Christian Living is By Works ( *Not By Faith Alone* ) - Eph 2:10, James 2, Mat 7, Gal 5:22, 1 Cor 13. *This is where James 2 comes in - Practical Christian Living.*
But good works is an expression or a manifestation of the soul: wanting the good of others, helping others, being a good example to others and inspiring them to do the same. You did some psychological analysis of Luther. I think if we go deeper into his psyche, we might find other psychological factors that led him to separate from the church. Thank you for this video. It was very enlightening. God bless.
24:03 I drew attention to this as well. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura depends on someone to sit in judgment of both Praxis of the Church and on Scripture itself. Jacob (aka James) derides the one who sits in judgment on the law.
@@PInk77W1 It is not a biblical concept. Luther invented it to attempt to sieze control from the Catholic hierarchy. Sola Scriptura is an historical concept implicit in most Protestant theology and praxis. In short it can be summarized in this way: the Scriptures are the final authority for judging every Christian regardless of office or title.
Question If the original catholic entered into such conflicting teachings plus missing of line of authority from Peter the apostal why are them claiming to have authority from him. priesthood
Pray for our protestant brothers and sisters. Such a terrible schism in our history but God is in controle. I pray some day our brothers and sisters in Christ return to the true Church.
Not likely. The Church of Rome still cannot bring itself to apologise for the burning at the stake of Jan Huss, who was far from anything extreme in his questioning of the Church.
@@stephendouglas4870 Exactly this whole looong speech and this guy glosses over that Luther was absolutely 100% right to call out indulgences. You can’t just gloss over tgat the church the Pope excommunicated Luther for that and by doing so essentially encourages Luther to be killed unless he fled. They never apologized for that evil nor the evil of selling indulgences.
Fascinating, I was born into a Protestant home- now I am reading the works of Orthodox Christians who do not claim that the Pope is infallible. This lecture is so rich and clearly delivered - thank you.
I sympathise with your situation and have studied hard to find the truth, and would like to invite you to watch my series of Ytube videos 'Myths in so-called Christianity', as we need to come together in one faith. Most Myths come from the Reformation and I was brought up C of E. I hope you watch as they are free to Ytubers, and the site is in my full name Simon John Skinner. If you agree please tell others.
I guess some Catholics think Luther could have gone through without being killed for his position. The Cathars, John Huss, the Huguenots, and so on are clear examples that no dialogue was possible. Luther's survival was a MIRACLE.
The Cathars were a bizarre sect that was in no way Christian. What dialog was possible for Catholics under 'Good Queen Bess' when the penalty for being Catholic was death?
@@Two_Bluebirds The Cathars are a bad example...but did they need to be slaughtered? Better examples: Wycliffe (inexcusable), Luther himself (trying to murder someone after offering safe passage is not the action of a holy church, period).
Why aren't there are representatives from the Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Synod Lutheran church at this lecture? This way we can have more balanced picture of Martin Luther.
@@clancynielsen6800 I got it on the flight!!! The Church of Christ from 33 AD is found throughout the world!!! Martin came 15 centuries too late, and your folly follows him after 5 centuries of darkness!!!
@15:14. This lecture is interesting because it ignores the entire debate between Luther and the “Romanists” prior to the break. It also is misleading as the concept of romanists is not unique to Luther, but has been around since the early church and the eastern break.
@@Mazinga Luther twisted Augustine's concept of concupiscence. Augustine asserts that God by means of the grace in baptism forgives the sins (included original sin) but the concupiscence keeps in the soul. Concupiscence doesn't cease of exist but it's not imputed. Luther poisoned this truth replacing concupiscence by sin. The result of this distortion was the lutheran doctrine of "simul iustus et peccator" because in Luther's theology is not the concupiscence which is not imputed but the sin. So the sin is not imputed by God but doesn't cease to exist. In the Augustine's doctrine of the grace God actually changes inwardly the condition of the sinful person in a righteous one (God makes just). Luther denies the grace of God can change that condition, the sin keeps inwardly. God declares righteous the person but actually doesn't make anyone ontollogically just. Only a forensic declaration. Luther can speak a lot about Augustine but the fact is he betrayed Augustine theology of grace. That forensic fiction is a protestant innovation of 16th century. It's also an absurd idea, because if God declares someone righteous then he transforms to righteous that person because God's declarations are performatives like Gen 1:3 or Mc 4:35-41
Ave, María, grátia plena, Dóminus tecum. Benedicta tu in muliéribus, et benedíctus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta María, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Most of the ads I got during this lecture were over 10 minutes long! Thankfully they were all skippable, but it’s interesting that all the big ones seem to pop up in this video
Can we talk about the several Inquisitions through recent history though? Or is everyone going to pretend it didn’t happen? Is that what made the Catholic Church so successful during the Medieval Ages?
@B- Roger *It's amazing you don't even know Christianity teaches doing good works too?* - Salvation is Not by Works ( *by Faith Alone* ) - Eph 2:8-9 - Saved to do Good Works ( *Not By Faith Alone* ) - Eph 2:10, this is where James 2 comes in. you said It was not until I embraced Catholicism that I was finally able to reconcile good works with faith and understood the important role of works of love in our salvation.
It was penance not the idea of doing good works. It was because of his hypocrisy that he made up the doctrine of salvation by faith Alone. Martin Luther rejected good works because there was no other way to emphasize his doctrine of faith Alone. It was too problematic for Martin Luther to try and prove his doctrine of faith Alone by disputing the sacrament of confession so he used the tactic of denying good works instead . And by simply denying the fact that a priest can offer absolution.
Why is it always assumed that Luther had a problem with scrupulosity and not that he was actually committing serious sin? He said that he was going to confession several times daily. He despised celibacy and said it was impossible for all but a few. He was lustful and impulsive. I believe that he struggled with chastity (masturbation) and that Protestantism , particularly sola fide, was his personal alternative to true self reform. After destroying the notion of any authority outside of himself he was able to marry and have what he desired but gave up when he took his vows. SEX!
Yes, it is hard to imagine that Luther would have had such internal turmoil if he did not have some secret sin that he was personally struggling with. It kind of reminds me of that irreverant Monty Python skit called the "Adventures of Martin Luther" where they portrayed Luther as lecherous man in the pursuit of women. It is a bit over the top but it may have been more on point than it first seems.
@@eileens4943 He married a former nun named Katharina Von Bora whom he assisted in escaping from her convent after she decided to become a Protestant. The story is she and several other nuns became followers of Luther's movement while in the convent and contacted Luther directly for assistance. Luther arranged for them to be smuggled out in some empty Herring barrels. Luther then found husbands for all of the nuns except Von Bora. She refused all of her suitors and wanted to marry Luther himself. It may have been a case of hero worship but it worked. Luther eventually married her. As to whether Luther was in love with a woman while a Monk, I am unaware. I have never read that before, but it is not impossible.
How do you come up with the thought that Luther had celibacy problems? He went through Augustinian seminary and rigorous training. To commit mortal sins...Luther wouldn't do such things.
Fear-based GUILT is the prison that is called "hell." GOD's prophet, the prophesied return of Elijah, speaks: Very good lecture. The great error of Martin Luther was to remove LOVE from the equation. And this is why the Catholic Church was - and remains - closer to Truth. However, when GOD says "good news," GOD means GOOD NEWS! And almost no organized Christian Church (with one notable exception) has the true "Gospel" of Yeshua One with Christ ("Jesus Christ"). That's why I was sent. But as Revelation Chapter Eleven indicates, I am to be mostly rejected, just as GOD's prophets (and Jesus Christ) have always been rejected. Because, everyone already "knows" everything. "Unless ye become as little children" and are fearless enough to admit that you don't really know, GOD cannot instruct you and "you will not enter into the Kingdom of GOD." "But be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world." And, "GOD our Savior will have all men to be saved and come unto knowledge of the truth." Want to know more? Click and ye shall find.
Uh, people, read your history for yourselves. Luther was right. At least on these subjects: 1. indulgences 2. the corruption of the papacy 3. the corruption of the whole city of Rome 4. the corruption of monks and the monastic system 5. the ignorance of monks and priests who were operating outside the university system (which itself was top heavy and academic to a fault) 6. the ignorance of God's people of the scripture and the basics of the Christian faith 7. the persistence of pagan tropes and folk religion 8. the general decay of the usefulness of Scholastic methodology 9. the problems of Pauline theology as laid out in the New Testament epistles and how the Catholic system of the priesthood and the mass failed to meet up with the Apostle's teaching (lacking a strong emphasis on faith in the completed work of the cross and the necessity of the individual to be able to access the grace of God by faith.) 10. the dangers of going too far AWAY from Catholicism, ala the Anabaptists and the Calvinists And these are just the beginning. Now there are many things of which Luther was ignorant and even very wrong. But 500 years is long enough for us to agree on the truth. Christians must unite. He will not return to a divided bride.
Luther didn’t even understand indulgences, they were never meant to forgive sin and this was never Catholic dogma. Luther wanted the entire authority structure to come down. No one ever said that scripture was sufficient in itself for the Christian until Luther. There was no approved scripture until 382 AD. Learn some Church history before you screed, you don’t know as much Catholic doctrine as you think you do.
@@jlouis4407 Oh brother. I wish that were true, at least the indulgences part. The 95 theses were almost totally about indulgences, which were being promoted aggressively at the time in order to raise money for the construction of a new St. Peter's (which in hindsight wasn't such a bad purpose). But, Luther understood these late medieval Church issues very well. He later became angry and did advocate a more radical divorce that his initial vision of internal reform. He did have both an anti-authoritarian AND authoritarian bent. He himself had no patience for rebels. A good, fair, well-researched biography is Eric Metaxas' Luther. Indulgences were meant for souls in Purgatory not the living. But, I believe the corruption of this practice meant that one could purchase for himself a future time-off insurance policy.
Do you have any idea what popes have suffered physically over the centuries without their "spirituak directors" rooting it out? What's a spiritual director anyway?
More likely: Bible is the Only completely trustworthy and without a human error. This IS taught in Scripture (2.Tim.3 and case of Jews at Berea) and Church fathers, for example St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom.
@@esayli-vainio6698no. It no where teaches sola scritura. Paul does specifically say to follow tradition. Our wonderful Augustine and John you mention were catholic and believed in the church, papal authority, and transubstantiation.
It's quite funny that folks still say 'Luther nailed' his theses on the church door. In truth, he extensively distributed pamphlets to promote his views. Someone later pasted a copy of this on the church door. Of course, it's more poetic to say, 'Luther nailed' these on the door, which itself came from later woodcuts in other pamphlets promoting Protestantism across Europe.
What a pity that the lecturer shows so much ignorance on Martin Luther . I would encourage him to simply read the Lutheran Confessions " The Book of Concord " 750 pages The book commences with the 3 Ecumenical Creeds and is not a new faith but a continuation of the historic , Christian faith believed at all times and in all places . The Roman Church was overtaken by the weeds which choked the young plants from growing. The lecturer admitted that the Church was in desperate need of reform and i must add Luther had a doctorate in catholic theology and knew more about catholicism than the greatest scholars of that age
What a brilliant lecture! As a protestant I always struggled with this because the word 'works' in protestantism is always taken in a negative way as in something being added to the sacrifice of Christ. Protestants are brainwashed so badly by this unbiblical teaching that they don't even like to mention the word 'works' because if they do, they are labeled as heretics preaching the so-called works based salvation. It was not until I embraced Catholicism that I was finally able to reconcile good works with faith and understood the important role of works of love in our salvation.
@B- Roger *Too bad. Bible says you are wrong. Two third of NT says SAlvation is Not by WOrks. Here you are saying otherwise. Are you sure R Catholic are even believers?* you said What a brilliant lecture! As a protestant I always struggled with this because the word 'works' in protestantism is always taken in a negative way as in something being added to the sacrifice of Christ. Protestants are brainwashed so badly by this unbiblical teaching that they don't even like to mention the word 'works' because if they do, they are labeled as heretics preaching the so-called works based salvation. It was not until I embraced Catholicism that I was finally able to reconcile good works with faith and understood the important role of works of love in our salvation.
@B- Roger *Two third of New Testament that says Salvation is Not By Works (Faith Alone Doctrine).* Luke 23:43 - the thief at the Cross believed in Jesus and he was in Paradise thereafter. NOT WORKS! John 1:29 - Christ the Lamb of GOD who takes away the sins of the world ... (NOT OUR WORKS) John 3:16 - saved by believing in Jesus. NOT WORKS! Acts 16:30-31 - saved by believing in Jesus. NOT WORKS! Rom 4. Vs 1-2 - justified NOT BY WORKS! Vs 3 - Abraham believed (FAITH) and was accounted as RIGHTEOUSNESS. Vs 4 - WORKS are debts . Vs 5 - he who DOES NOT WORK is JUSTIFIED . Vs 5 - God justifies the ungodly, Vs 5 - FAITH was accounted as RIGHTEOUSNESS. Vs 6 - Blessedness Apart from WORKS! Imputation of RIGHTEOUSNESS by FAITH. Vs 8 - imputation of RIGHTEOUSNESS apart from WORKS! Vs 9-10 - Abraham was made RIGHTEOUS BY FAITH BEFORE ANY WORKS! Vs 9-10 - Abraham received seal of RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE FAITH by imputation. NOT WORKS! Vs 11 - Promise to Abraham was through RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE FAITH. Vs 14-15 - Faith is made void by works of the law, works of the Law brings Wrath, Not salvation. Vs 22 - Abraham believed (FAITH) and was accounted as RIGHTEOUSNESS . Vs 22 - RIGHTEOUSNESS imputed on those who believed. Not those who WORKS! Rom 11:6 - IF IT IS WORKS, IT’S NO LONGER GRACE . 2 Cor 5:21 - GOD made Jesus who knew no sin to become sin for us, that we might become the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. Gal 2:16 - not justified by WORKS OF THE LAW, BUT BY FAITH IN JESUS. BY WORKS OF THE LAW, NO MAN IS JUSTIFIED! Gal 2:21 - if RIGHTEOUSNESS comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. Gal 3:1-5 - Paul said Christians who started by faith, why end up following WORKS of law (not only Mosaic laws)? Are you made perfect by flesh (WORKS)? Gal 3:1-5 - Did God do miracles by your faith believing or by your WORKS of law? Eph 2:8-9 - saved by grace through faith NOT BY WORKS. Eph 2: 8-9 - salvation is a GIFT. NOT WORKS! 2 Tim 1:9 - saved NOT according to our WORKS. Titus 3:5 - saved NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 1 Pet 2:24 - Christ (the Lamb of GOD) bore our sins … (NOT OUR WORKS).
@@faithalone2171 Much can be said about all those verses you quoted. It's very easy to cherry pick verses from the scripture as "proof-texts" without looking at the background. The story of the thief on the cross is often used by protestants to prove their faith alone doctrine. It's important to understand that the thief lived and died under the old covenant. Jesus did not issue His command of baptism until after His resurrection, just before His ascension back to heaven (Matt. 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-16). The new covenant of Christ, wherein Jesus necessitates baptism for the remission of sins, began to be preached only after our Lord returned to Heaven-at which time He sat at the right hand of God to reign over His newly inaugurated kingdom (Acts 2:14-40). And by the way, if that one incident at the crucifixion can be used to build the case for salvation, why can't the rich young ruler's story (Matt. 19:16) can also be used, where Jesus tells the young ruler to keep all the commandments and sell all his possessions and give them to the poor? Why can't this be used as an example? What about the story of the paralytic in Mark 2, where Jesus healed the paralytic based on the faith of his friends (Mark 2:5)? Why can’t that story be made into a normative principle for the forgiveness of sins? Rather than theologizing Gospel stories that may or may not be normative, we should stick to explicit assertions and commands. It's also interesting how much the thief seemed to know about Jesus which he did not learn from Jesus at the cross. He knew that Jesus did nothing wrong (Luke 23:41), he knew that Jesus was going to his kingdom (Luke 23:42). Where do you think he learned all this from? Maybe from John the baptist or maybe he himself was a disciple or a follower once. There is no definitive answer. This being true, it is futile to build a case for salvation on this account. While Jesus was on earth, he forgave sins directly and personally. After his resurrection, Jesus mediated his authority through his apostles.
@@B_Roger *Really? Which part is proof texted?* 1 2 3 you said Much can be said about all those verses you quoted. It's very easy to cherry pick verses from the scripture as "proof-texts" without looking at the background.
@@B_Roger *YEs this is according to the tales of R Catholics. Not Bible. If it was still in Old Covenant, this thief would not have gone to heaven. But he did. So Jesus was already demonstrating New Covenant, not Old.* you said The story of the thief on the cross is often used by protestants to prove their faith alone doctrine. It's important to understand that the thief lived and died under the old covenant. J
You simplify a highly complex topic - the issues with Rome were not simply about corruption but about theology and it was Roman innovations that precipitated the split with Orthodoxy. Why was/is Augustine so influential in the West? Augustine leads by a direct path to Luther, Jansen and to Calvin. You need to look deeper into the origins of the Reformation- these were different in England than in Germany. It’s interesting to look at the views of the German bishops today. Contemporary Roman Catholicism is very diverse,and Christians must avoid fighting old battles.
@@jlouis4407 Thank you 🙏 yes 👍 of course, I am aware of this. Whilst Augustine is considered a saint in the East he is much less influential than in the West. Why is this? And Luther remained deeply Augustinian - and huge influences of Augustine on Jansen and Calvin. It was Western innovations that lead to the Great Schism - and continued innovations resulted in the Reformation. The reformers had significant doctrinal concerns. There was never a reformation in the East. As I said, the speaker is oversimplifying a highly complex topic, and Roman Christianity is as diverse as Protestantism. Why do you think that the reformers did not return to Orthodoxy? There were certainly conversations between Lutherans and the Orthodox.
The fact that it's scriptural that there will always be crappy members of the church is both sobering & comforting Makes faith in the church a lot easier for my weary heart, ya know?
@po18guy that's a very good way to put it as well. Honestly one on of the most perfect small scale examples of the verse that says that in the end the wheat shall be separated from the tares. God bless man!
Martin Luther, an Augustinian, read much of Saint Augustine of Hippo's works on what he viewed as sin, the body, and whether certain souls would only be in Heaven. The Church omitted these writings as a Canon of approved works as Saint Augustine carried his influences of Manicheaism. A Penitent, still carrying the scars of past sins. One being a heresy. It happens. Saint Augustine wasn't declared a Saint during his life. It was only after. Martin Luther read the effects of sin in a Penitent's life (that being Saint Augustine.) Martin Luther did not rely so much on the Sacraments, but his terrible Theology. John Calvin also delved into a pessimistic Theology of predestination. Here on earth, we're not Saints, until discovered afterwards. Trying to delve on the reality of who is going to Hell, and who ends up in Heaven is a waste of time. The lazy servant dwelled on a pessimistic view of his trade. And buried his talent. Because, he didn't think it really mattered. The master was hard and unforgiving in the lazy servants eyes. Notice in the parable, the lazy servant didn't even plea for mercy. Because it didn't matter until he was kicked out. This is fitting to the Age of Enlightenment, and Protestantism fell for it. Protestantism for its' names sake means to protest. And in Europe, the U.S., and the U.K. these evolved into revolutions. It is the world of anarchy as much as the Pilgrim's rebellion. This is when man wants to become a species observed later by Darwin, and the hopeless case of humanity as Carl Marx posited. Selfish. Martin Luther fell into himself, and his self attachments prevailed. Rather than live as a Penitent, and possibly had been Beatified and Canonized, he instead turned to his own intellect and will compromising his salvation in the Church, and in the Sacraments. A king with a lustful desire of a Throne, a lawyer for the shallow legal terrain to determine and read Scripture, and a priest gone mad, you have Protestantism. Remedy: Penance Cure: the Sacraments. Recovery and Condition: Full Communion with the Church under the Roman Rite and Penalty of death which Christ suffered His Own body and precious blood for souls. Without that, everything is partial and incomplete. Penance!
It’s inevitable that God is the only one who see’s the heart and mind, and that we are saved by God alone. Meaning that the Catholic Church doesn’t hold the keys to salvation, but God does. So… how can Catholics remain so arrogant about its status that salvation only belongs within its walls? Hasn’t that been completely debunked by the fact that people of all ethnicities and nations will walk with the Lamb?
@@diplomaticexorcist6130 what do you mean of no particular Christian belief? The most fundamental belief is that Jesus rose from the dead and belief in what God has accomplished for salvation. So… what does that have to do with any particular denomination? Of course, beliefs about Jesus from the Mormons and Muslims are incorrect although they share certain similarities, they are clearly wrong on the whole. So no salvation cannot be found outside Christ.
@B- Roger *Still dodging? Where in the Bible teaches m m doctrine of R ct: "faith + Roman sacraments + submit to Roman pope + devote to Mary + good works = to be saved"?*
23: But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed 24: For this reason the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith 25: But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (the law). END For by grace are we saved thru faith - so of ourselves none of us could boast (Epeasians.1:8). We were unable in & of our- selves to be good.
@@KarmaKraftttt A Christian is one who follows Christ .That is the simplest explanation on who a christian is in Christ. Burning people at the stake because of a difference of opinion not accepted by Romanism is not following Christ .
@@peterj6740 Protestants are not Christians simply because they don't follow Christ. Simply because they only believe in him lol even satan believes he is the son of God doesn't make him a Christian though. Protestants are not Christians simply because they don't even believe what the early Christian believed in the early church. Get some church history lessons. And about burning at the stake? Well heretics needs to be punished, it's just we had a "ALPHA" way to deal with heretics than "BETA"s like you.
What is called the deuterocanonical books were still in the King James Bible until the 1800s when they finally took them out. The whole reason Luther objected to what is called the deuterocanonicals, is that he said that they were written in Greek in the Septuagint and they were never originally in Hebrew, and not used by the Jews in Israel. That was until we found deuterocanonical books in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the original Hebrew. Oops. The Council that approved the books of the Bible as well as Athanasius makes no difference between canonicals and “deuterocanonicals,” they are all canonical and to be in the Bible. We need a reevaluation of these books by Protestants, there is a famous prophecy of Jesus in Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 2, and Romans Chapter 1 by Paul mirrors Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 13. These books were in the scriptures used by the apostles.
You have a valid point, though I doubt anyone but a specialist's accuracy on this difficult and confusing topic. Luther followed the example of Jerome, I believe, when he created his German text, separating the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals into a section between the testaments. He may have been influenced by the new humanist ("back to the sources") learning in this decision. We need to note that while the Councils tended to affirm canonicity of most of these books, the Orthodox East had their own standard and several debates are found in the early centuries. We might also note this amazing fact--while a Judaic Hebrew Bible was something no one doubted, at some point the texts were only known in the Greek, the LXX, and no extant ancient Hebrew manuscripts can be found of a whole corpus of what we Christians call the Old Testament. As far as I know there weren't even any fragments before the DSS were found. The diligence of the medieval Masoretic scribes who re-created what we know of the Hebrew scriptures is evidenced by MT Isaiah matching up perfectly with the DSS Isaiah. That a text was known in Hebrew seems to be the ancient standard for unquestionable canonicity, the others being known only in Greek translation. You are correct that King James kept them. But exactly why and when Protestant Bibles discarded them is not entirely clear to me. I believe the Revised Version of the KJV removed them, and later KJ Bibles followed suit. What exactly is found in the DSS is a matter of interest, but can't be definitive, because so much Gnostic material is also found. What constitutes the DSS (Qumran) vs the other Nag Hamadi texts, and what their dates really are is also problematic to anyone but a specialist, I think. At least it's not clear to me. Nag Hammadi was found first, but was from a later (AD only) period. Good job noting Paul's use of Wisdom literature (I thought Sirach/Ecclesiasticus) in Romans 1. I've noted the same thing, and never heard it said openly before. I imagine this is well known in Catholic circles (?)> But Paul says things that seem to have no obvious precursor in any Judaic literature. And of course, Paul claims as much: "I neither learned it, nor did any man teach me, but I received it by revelation..."
@@carlosreira2189 I had no idea about Romans Chapter 1 mirroring Wisdom Chapter 13, and only read about that recently I stumbled upon it somewhere, but they are very similar and it’s pretty obvious that one influenced the other. Apparently the motive for taking out the deuterocanonicals were to reduce the cost of printing the KJV. I also know that the Jews’ Council of Jamnia had to have influenced the decision at some point when they removed the apocrypha, which was because it was not originally in Hebrew as they thought. It’s funny to me that Judaism is basically a reaction against Christianity and is actually not as old u,timately as Christianity. I do know that the Book of Isaiah roughly corresponds to the Masoretic at most points, but there is some evidence of Jewish alterations to certain portions of the Masoretic by adding a pen strokes here and there. A copy of Psalm 22 was found near the caves of Qumran and the University of Chicago did a study comparing the Masoretic with this newly found manuscript and they concluded that the Masoretic had indeed been changed with additional pen strokes to render “they pierced my hands and my feet” to “they came upon my hands and feet like a lion” or something similar. There was always a rumor about them changing messianic passages, but this study and the manuscript seemed to confirm it. The title I believe is “masoretic emendation in messianic passages” I used to be able to find the entire study online I’m not sure if it is still available, though.
@@jlouis4407 Thank you for that astute reply, brother. I really appreciate it. You've evidently done your research well. This idea that "Christianity canonizes the Judaic scripture" has been said by one of the foremost scholars in the field, a skeptic by the way, Dr. Francesca Stavrapoulou. So take that for what it is. I do think that there is clear evidence of God's hand in all of it, maintaining the Judaic scripture on the one side (underground as it were) but allowing Christianity to be the one solid rock, both doctrinally and textually. We have the New Testament, and all Christians agree on it, to a large extent. This itself is pretty amazing. That the Masoretes were tempted to render certain phrases in an anti-Messianic way is likely--"a maid shall give birth," where the LXX clearly said "virgin" (Gr. parthenos) for example, though one might question what good Jewish girl wasn't a virgin before marriage? Blessings of revelation and joy in Him to you and your household of faith. Again, good work on Romans 1. Paul's appeal to an us vs. "them" kind of dichotomy and a vague past in which mankind as a whole descended into abject sin and was "given over" by God to their passions might have been common rabbinical teaching in second temple Judaism, surrounded as they were by powerful, culturally advanced pagans, but the echoes of Wisdom are very strong. I think you're right and more work needs to be done in this area.
Wow wow wow! I just watched this again because there was just so much to take in. I feel like I could watch it everyday for at least a week and learn more. But I am just so shocked to hear how Luther's concept of Faith Alone is what changed the church on charity. So many times I have asked the question , when did we as a church stop doing the things of charity, and no one ever had an answer. Such a deep and powerful message. Wow!
@@maxer7595 1 Corinthians 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
@@hawthorne1504 If the Catholic church was righteous from the beginning why would it need reforms? Why would they listen to man instead of God unless of course, they knew deep down he was right about the corruption of the church?
The point Luther made and intended was that by Faith in Jesus Christ Alone are we saved...& Not by works. As the Catholic model was, and largely still is, that by works we can influence our own salvation...thus the Purchasing of 'indulgences' etc. Yet if we believe in Christ and listen to The Word Of God... our behavior - and necessarily what we produce as 'works' will most Certainly and obviously show. Yet by those 'good' works alone we can do Not A Thing to affect our own Eternal Salvation.
Faith without works is dead James. Luther hated James and tried to cut it out of the bible like he did other books which didn't suit his heresy. Purchasing anything holy is a sin of simony and was condemned in his time. Stop misrepresenting catholocism. We can't work our way to salvation. We must conform our hearts, thoughts, actions, will, and souls to Christ. We must have faith, we must serve, we must love. When we sin we must repent.
Interesting historical background, but poor understanding of Luther. As a young monk, Luther feared for his salvation, went to confession multiple times per day, and threw himself into his labor at the monastery. It was because he took the Church’s teachings to their logical conclusion. If salvation is by works, even in part, you can never know if you’ve done enough. All have sinned, and the more we study Scripture, the more we are aware of our sin and our need for a Savior. Scripture is clear that our good works do not justify us before God. Galatians 5:4 states: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” Ephesians 2:8-10 was mentioned in the video, which says we are saved by grace, through faith… for good works. We don’t do good works to save ourselves, because Christ has paid the price in full. But in loving response to God’s goodness to us, we desire to do what is pleasing to Him, to serve Him and obey Him. Not saved by good works, but saved *for* good works.
Can the pope alone read and interpret scripture or does any literate person as a believer in Christ have the same capacity? Does the Holy Spirit only work through the pope or in the life of the believer? This lecturer misunderstands Luther and misrepresents several of his views. Luther never thought he was creating a “pure church” devoid of false believers. And he never said he alone was judge of Scripture thus making himself a new pope. Also, the Protestant reformation has as ione of its pillars “semper reformanda” (always reforming). A thorough critique of this lecture requires a complete video.
Overall a good presentation. As a fairly new Christian I am pursuing the truth as I research this subject. However there are quite a few Bible verses which support Luther’s view that the speaker didn’t address. This fact seems a bit disingenuous. Here are some verses I found: Ephesians 2:5 Ephesians 2:8-10 2 Timothy 1:9 1 Corinthians 15:9-10 Romans 4:13-16 From the protestants I’ve talked to, they believe that they are saved by faith and therefore commanded to do good works as a manifestation of that faith as described in verses such as Matthew 12:33
@@chase6579 Yeah from the explanations I’ve heard on both sides it seems to me like they are pretty much saying the same thing. So I’m not sure why the fuss over it. That’s why I wished the speaker in this video would have addressed the issue a little more fairly.
Did Luther read James where he said that faith without works is useless? How does it even make sense that you only believe and your faith doesn't manifest into actions? Satan believes in God too but choose to do the wrong actions
@@samuelwilliams1559luther rejected James bc it contradicts his heresy. He added alone to the scripture to force it to his will and told his followers to justify by saying luther says so. He was full of pride and rebellion.
@@evangelion1962 First Luther never rejected James. He just didn't like it. But he did not teach living in sin was okay. He taught against sin and upheld the Ten Commandments. He made mistakes but his main point is true. Works do not save us. Jesus told a parable on that topic. We get what we did not earn. Matthew 20:1-16 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
Their moderately cool and overcast climate is perfect for working and studying all day long, and this results in a naturally induced hereditary discipline that has been passed down for generations. However, the motto "work hard, party hard" characteristically applies to the Germans and taken to the extreme due to the effects of original sin, they can become intemperate, overbearing, prideful towards their less accomplished geographical neighbors and believing that their ways and thoughts originating from their soil should be normative for all. After instigating two world wars in the twentieth century, they were then greatly humbled after World War II, particularly after the full extent of the Holocaust was made known. Acquiescence to power hungry tyrants is a particular German weakness, but their post-WWII parliamentary form of government pretty much precludes that from ever happening again within their borders. However, it did not prevent them from becoming overly dependent upon Russian oil and gas in the person of Vladimir Putin in the 21st century. Since the recent invasion of Ukraine, the Germans quickly changed their tune after realizing the strategic mistake they made. The accomplishments of German immigrants to America and their descendants were a significant part of the mix that made the USA a world power in the twentieth century.
And Jesus said, "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. " (Matt: 16:18-19 DRV) Notice that Our Lord did not say, or hint, or even imply that if anyone, for any reason, disagrees with Peter he may go start their own church.
Jesus is still responding to Peter's simple acknowledgement that Jesus is the Christ--or Messiah--and the Son of the living God. Jesus has said Peter is blessed to understand this, an understanding given to him by God the Father. Jesus then tells Peter that He will build His church on "this rock," meaning the truth Peter just declared, or the declaration of that truth itself (Matthew 16:13-18). Now Jesus gives authority to Peter to act on His behalf. He has done this before in sending out the twelve to represent Him in Israel (Matthew 10:5-15). Jesus will give this same authority to all twelve disciples both before and after His resurrection (Matthew 18:18; John 20:23). Jesus describes the authority He is delegating to them as the "keys to the kingdom of heaven." He says that whatever they bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. Only the most trusted servant in the household would be given the keys to the doors of the estate. In handing them over, the master of the house would be sharing His authority to open and close, to lock and unlock, the entrance to His home. Peter and, eventually, the rest of the apostles, are being assigned a crucial role in introducing the gospel to the world. In Christ's name, they will declare He is the Messiah and that faith in Him is the only entrance into His kingdom. In His name, they will also exercise discipline within the church, setting the standard for both what is true and how that truth will be practiced. When the apostles declare something bound or loosed in Jesus' name, the power that resides in heaven will respond and make it so. What Jesus is not doing is freeing the disciples to act on their own wisdom and will as they lead His church in the coming years. He is giving them responsibility, authority, and supernatural power to lead the church according to His will and His teaching.
30:40 you do a phenomenal job misrepresenting Luther's views throughtout the video but this stands out very profoundly. At no point does Luther say or imply that good works are evil, or even unnecessary. He simply opines that they are not a requirements for justification, which he argues comes through believing alone.
Wonderful and insightful, especially love the information of the reformers prior to Luther, those incredible saints. Regarding 28:00 I had heard before about Luther feeling torment for so long, that he always felt unworthy to God. This sounds like the devil was attacking him. I can't believe he never put that together for himself. The devil tries to fill us with fear day to day, to say we are nothing, and that we are bad people. If only he had taken care of himself instead of bringing unrepairable separation to the church. It's so selfish and so frustrating.
Due to his father's abuse, it would be interesting to me if he had what we call today malignant narcissism. A lot of what he did and believed makes sense in that context.
@@poorbanishedchildrenofEve The reformation was a very complex event in history. It's not so simple as - who was right, the RCC or the reformers. No institution could maintain a stance that says "It's against the rules to disagree with us". That's exactly what the RCC was doing - with some very stringent penalties. Such a stance was inevitably going to come to an end. The Magna Carta was 1 early document that was a harbinger of that.¶ The American & French Revolutions were soon to end the idea of the noble versus the common. (The lands of the western hemisphere were discovered the same yr Luther was born). ¶ This didn't only apply to the Church but to society as a whole, especially in the west. The early reformers, St Francis, Wycliff, Huss, Tyndale to name some of the most prominent, weren't so vehement as Luther (not even he was at 1st), but it didn't take long for him to kick open the flood gates. Had he not, someone else would have. People condemn Luther for his vitriolic language. Take a listen to Pope Leo's & other RCC members it wasn't so sweet either, of course the RCC believed they had the authority to use such language. Both were guilty of... if not hatred, at the very least unapologetic ill will toward each other. Both sides were guilty of heresy, which was being wrongly defined in the 1500's & still is today. ¶ Freedom of speech, religion, thought, self determination, self defense & every other freedom you could think of were coming in & no one was going to stop them. God gave it & no one was going to take it away. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17).Thank you for letting me share.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr luther wanted to have eternal security and continue to sin mortally. He wanted his conscience eased. Yes, Catholicism rejects a synthesis of two opposing realities. Life in Christ and persistence in mortal sin is impossible.
@@poorbanishedchildrenofEve That's dumb. I doubt Martin Luther did all this so convince himself he could continue sinning. He got married, which is not a sin, once he peeled off all the layers of the onion.
I love when he says Luther tries to be pope and interpret what is biblical and what is not..Luther rejects the magisterium,we need to be instructed in all matters as humans we all have different opinions but our Lord Jesus left us the apostles and made one the leader by handing him the keys to the kingdom of heaven on earth,Peter....so we need to ask the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth..which is His church, people as humans will fail but the Holy Spirit will not we have to have faith ..in what Christ entrusted to the apostles :make disciples of all nations....
That's not really true about rejecting the magisterium. Luther's initial complaints cited the Church fathers and the Councils ad nauseam, but to no avail. It wasn't really "the magisterium" that he was up against (or maybe it was if this word is viewed flexibly enough) but the political and traditional climate of the late Scholastic Church and newly empowered Renaissance papacy (recall well the problems of popes and anti-popes of the previous two centuries). That Luther maintained so many of the Church's traditions makes such a statement weak as an argument, if not wrong. Finally, we need to note that what we today understand of the "magisterium" to a significant degree comes from Trent, not to mention the clearly anti-Protestant Vatican I, which occurred after Luther.
What?? This guy admits the Pope and his cohorts were wrong about indulgences and Luther was right. So obviously of the two one can interpret scripture more accurately then the other.
I just watched this and it was a great lecture! I come from a mainly Protestant background but I must the Catholic Church does seem more and more logical than Protestantism. I do however have just a few questions in regards to the lecture. You do mention how the Church was caught off guard by Luther in his challenge of assumed practices. But what do you mean specifically by assumed practices? And also would the church even need to answer these objections with a Biblical basis? Forgive me if I am wrong but too my knowledge isn’t sacred tradition not based in scripture but instead based on early church practices that the Bible does not mention? Also you mention how a lot of church leaders and such did not know how to read or write. I am well aware that illiteracy was a common thing for most of history. But if this be the case how would the church leaders know if they were doing God’s will in leading his flock for most of the church history? This also leads me to my last question : wouldn’t the lack of education and literacy make upholding the faith much harder? I do believe that the Catholic Church was founded by our lord Jesus, but my question is how was it maintained for most of the early church period all the way to Constantine? I hope you answer soon! ;)
I used to think Catholicism made more sense than Protestantism because Catholicism claims to go way back and Protestantism is new! But now I have eyes to see. Catholicism had strange and new doctrines, not the faith once given to the saints. Protestantism had to protest, because Catholicism had gone that far off the rails! Time to get back to scripture. The bible is really simple. It is possible to read it and understand words, especially in your native language! Read the bible and you will see the truth!
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr I completely agree in that the Bible is the word of God. However, the doctrine of sola scriptura does seem questionable because there had to be a consensus on what the Bible was. And it was the Catholic Church in the council of Nicaea that compiled the Bible.
@@glassychap1141 The bible says you will know him by his voice. If we're truly born again, maybe we can learn his voice from the old testament scriptures, and know which books are from him in the new testament. Just a thought.
@@glassychap1141 Also, isn't that a myth that it was the council of Nicea that decided the canon? First, it's way more complicated than that, with numerous canons, even ones where some books like Revelation are left out, and it wasn't Nicea I don't think.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr I have to research a bit more into that matter, but i still stand by my point that the only way that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura can work is if there is a consensus on what scripture is. What is fascinating is that Martin Luther himself actually took out 7 books from the Bible because he thought them questionable. The problem with this is that he was acting on his own authority and decided what is or what is not canon. Another thing to note is that the Bible did not even exist at the time of Jesus. He did not say he was going to leave a book for the world but rather a church.
Answer, “no.” His doctrines were designed in attempt to destroy the Catholic Church. Jesus did not treat Judaism this way. The Church he founded was the fulfillment of Judaism amongst the gentiles. Luther’s new reformed church was a curse of the Church.
You are Blaspheming the Lord by putting Catholicism over Jesus. We are saved by Jesus alone, not by your church. Look again at who is really in danger, for you have affiliated yourself with the harlot who drinks the blood of the saints, but we know what happens to the harlot and all who prostituted themselves with her in the Book of Revelation.
William Tyndale and many others were murdered for simply wanting a Bible that the ordinary people could read in their own language. That to me is what the reformation was all about. You can't challenge false doctrine in a foreign language and that would seem to be the only motivation for keeping the people ignorant.
@Christian Aaron *The issue you are going to encounter is: Faith Alone doctrine does come with Good Works - fruits. That is found in Eph **2:10**. So all your fallacious claims failed you. Fruits can only come from a saved/justified position. Roman Catholics can never produce "fruits" since you are still unsaved/unjustified.* - Salvation is Not By Works (by Faith Alone) - Eph 2:8-9 - Saved to Do Good WOrks (Not By Faith Alone) - Eph 2:10, James 2
If Luther really thought that by faith alone he’d be saved,then he would have been able to do what our Lord and God Jesus Christ had done.For certainly he would have been able to raise the dead,cure all of incurable disease’s,walk on water in the midst of a storm and wither a tree. For certainly the Apostle’s and their successors have done these’s thing’s because they were proven Saint’s of the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Christian Church and Traditional Teachings YEAH ALLELUIA 🐑🕊🌈✨
Peter, on this Rock I will build My Church and gates of hell will not prevail against My Church. Spirit of Jesus is alive in the Church. He never break his promise.
@@gerardabair3613 yes he would say that obviously. The devil always accuses his enemies of things he does HIMSELF. Marxism has the same rules, “accuse your enemy of what you do yourself”. They hated the Church, destroyed as many churches and monasteries as they could. Murdered priests and nuns etc.
We all should know that 1 out of 12 betrays Jesus. Judas was in charge of the money. So its not a new things. Of course men will become greedy. As today many pastors monopolize the the gospel. I say that men need to reform themselves. The church is the way Jesus Christ intended it for. Forgiveness of Sins. Evil will increase everyday with new evil always trying not just to defame the Church but also dragging men back to sin. I enjoyed listening to this videos. Thank you Dr .
Enjoyed this video, its still true today. There are those in the church who dont know or follow the CCC or scripture. They look down their nose at those who do follow. Smh.
@Christian Aaron *Your lack of knowledge is not appreciated. Two third of NT says Salvation is Not By Works (Faith Alone doctrine). Why would r ctists misquoting 1 verse make any difference?* *Bible teaches:* - Salvation is Not By Works (by Faith Alone) - Eph 2:8-9 - Saved to Do Good WOrks (Not By Faith Alone) - Eph 2:10, James 2
@J Louis *You are still wrong. Two third of New Testament that says Salvation is Not By Works (Faith Alone Doctrine).* Luke 23:43 - the thief at the Cross believed in Jesus and he was in Paradise thereafter. NOT WORKS! John 1:29 - Christ the Lamb of GOD who takes away the sins of the world ... (NOT OUR WORKS) John 3:16 - saved by believing in Jesus. NOT WORKS! Acts 16:30-31 - saved by believing in Jesus. NOT WORKS! Rom 4. Vs 1-2 - justified NOT BY WORKS! Vs 3 - Abraham believed (FAITH) and was accounted as RIGHTEOUSNESS. Vs 4 - WORKS are debts . Vs 5 - he who DOES NOT WORK is JUSTIFIED . Vs 5 - God justifies the ungodly, Vs 5 - FAITH was accounted as RIGHTEOUSNESS. Vs 6 - Blessedness Apart from WORKS! Imputation of RIGHTEOUSNESS by FAITH. Vs 8 - imputation of RIGHTEOUSNESS apart from WORKS! Vs 9-10 - Abraham was made RIGHTEOUS BY FAITH BEFORE ANY WORKS! Vs 9-10 - Abraham received seal of RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE FAITH by imputation. NOT WORKS! Vs 11 - Promise to Abraham was through RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE FAITH. Vs 14-15 - Faith is made void by works of the law, works of the Law brings Wrath, Not salvation. Vs 22 - Abraham believed (FAITH) and was accounted as RIGHTEOUSNESS . Vs 22 - RIGHTEOUSNESS imputed on those who believed. Not those who WORKS! Rom 11:6 - IF IT IS WORKS, IT’S NO LONGER GRACE . 2 Cor 5:21 - GOD made Jesus who knew no sin to become sin for us, that we might become the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. Gal 2:16 - not justified by WORKS OF THE LAW, BUT BY FAITH IN JESUS. BY WORKS OF THE LAW, NO MAN IS JUSTIFIED! Gal 2:21 - if RIGHTEOUSNESS comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. Gal 3:1-5 - Paul said Christians who started by faith, why end up following WORKS of law (not only Mosaic laws)? Are you made perfect by flesh (WORKS)? Gal 3:1-5 - Did God do miracles by your faith believing or by your WORKS of law? Eph 2:8-9 - saved by grace through faith NOT BY WORKS. Eph 2: 8-9 - salvation is a GIFT. NOT WORKS! 2 Tim 1:9 - saved NOT according to our WORKS. Titus 3:5 - saved NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 1 Pet 2:24 - Christ (the Lamb of GOD) bore our sins … (NOT OUR WORKS).
Luther’s dualism body and soul, and works /faith analogous to visible and invisible church. Connected with nominalism, that there are no essences in the world, it’s people’s naming that gives the order to the world, the order doesn’t cause the grasping of the essence in our minds, so faith is separate, the intellect is separate and not connected to the concrete world.
