Why Luther DISAGREED with the Fathers on Justification (w/ Dr. Matthew Thomas) 

Jordan Cooper asserts that Luther’s nominalist label is a major Roman myth, that it ignores the Heidelberg Disputation where Luther appeals to realism and Aristotelian categories. Luther was also a huge fan of Neo-platonists like Bernard of Clairveaux and John Towler but rejects the perennial new age Platonism of pseudo Dyonisius. So just like the claim that Luther is a medieval mystic with qualifications (he was only a fan of CERTAIN mystics), it is also true that Luther used nominalist models in some writings and realist in others over the course of long life. On John Barclay, I found his word Energism for Philippians 2 to be the perfect replacement for extremes of monergism and synergism. God is the sole author of our salvation but He energizes us, quickens us to work out our salvation in gratitude not fear with full assurance that we have been justified and sanctified for the exodus journey out of sin and death and into Union in Christ, receiving an alien righteousness that cleanses us.

This is honestly just classic Calvinism though. I like what Charles Spurgeon said, something along the lines of "God is 100% sovereign over our salvation, and man is 100% responsible to receive the gospel and obey God. These are two lines that run parallel and meet somewhere in eternity, I know not where."

With regard to Occam's Razor, it's worth remembering a comment by Einstein: We must make things as simple as possible. But no simpler.

What finished Luther in my eyes was his book "On Jews and Their Lies " i listened to some of it on audio (youtube has many ). He gave himself away as being anything but a Christian. Its an evil intented book and seeing he wrote this at the end of his career it truly shows his colors. And a bad seed cant produce good fruit. Im Catholic but i do admit to listening now and then to a protestant sermon because i believe any honest sermon based from the parables or the o.t. stories has goodness in it. Pray for unity, pray the Rosary daily and obtain that peace that defies understanding. 🙏🏽💙🙏🏾💙🙏🏻

Alright boys, we're done here. He admitted in the title. Let's move on, protestantism is over. Let's move to the next thing.

My encouragement to everyone would be to read Luther and Melancthon for yourselves, especially the Book of Concord, and weigh the arguments carefully. Certainly, secondary scholarship is helpful, but you can only get enriched if you spend time reading the Augsburg Confession and the Apology from the Lutherans and then Exsurge Domine, the Confutation, and then the canons of Trent from the Catholic side. Be good students of history, and do the homework. Personally, I’m not convinced by the “Luther was a nominalist” polemic, when it seems like the truth was a lot more nuanced.

So we could say that Luther attacked nominalist conclusions on salvation, without questioning nominalism itself

if Luther was a Occamist (did I spell this correctly?), how come he remained Trinitarian?

This is a complete caricature of Luther. It is, at least, very controversial. Many, many scholar don’t buy this.

calling Luther a nominalist because you think he holds a black and white view and then liken that to Occam is not a good rational for the claim. he may yet be one but that is a flimsy reason for calling him one. Dr cooper discusses in this video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-plVNAjR0LU8.html

This guy seems nice and charitable, but he says quite a lot of things in untrue ways. Ockham's razor is not just "simplify" nor anything close to it. To do that is to perform an unacceptable Ockham on what Ockham is (lol just being silly but seriously) it's more like "the solution with the least amount of unproven assumptions is a better solution as long as it explains the result the same." -- an impossible measurement beyond the most simplistic logical questions, but there it is, and is only true insofar as everything proposed actually corresponds to reality. "Why do we have to receive it 100% as a gift?" - because Paul says it's a gift directly. This is the problem with propositional representations of the living spirit. I have not read all of Luther, but I find it impossible to believe Luther didn't say "why...a gift? Because Paul says it's a gift and not of works." This guy unfortunately has an agenda, as do all men with everything, but it comes down to what's true. Philosophy is only worthy of anything insofar as it corresponds to reality. Also, two planes of existence actually do exist, I am convinced. We are a simulation. God is the only true reality. We are categorically unlike Him in terms of our kind of existence. We are derivative not primary, this is obviously true within divine simplicity framed Christianity and I think an inescapable conclusion regardless of where you land on the manner of God's nature. If He is "base" reality (really real) and we are derivatively real and therefore less or categorically differently real (obviously true), then there must be planes of existence and causality (I think). Also also, equivocation is such a common issue in all of these discussions, but I find it particularly prevalent in Catholic apologies. "work out your salvation" in the context of the same sentence is instantly paired with "it's God at work in you". To conflate Paul's use of "work out/produce your salvation..." with Paul's other use of "works which are meritorious compelling God to save you through effort" is egregious equivocation. Works have nothing to do with our •reception of Christ's offering• (for my Catholic friends: Protestants generally call the "already" portion of our salvation when we accept Christ at the call of the Gospel "being saved" but forget there is a "not yet" component to salvation also which Catholics definitely understand), this is clear in Romans, Ephesians, etc that we are not saved by works and it can have nothing to do with works or else it is not by grace. Works are the completion of our faith (Hebrews) which is a culmination and manifestation of our Trust in Christ. They are "you participating in salvation" (salvation here meaning "the life that comes after accepting Christ")" but you aren't participating in your salvation (here meaning "the act of being cleared of sin and judgment"). This isn't woo woo. I wish people could stop being so woo woo Edit: had to make an edit! Sorry! Forgot the equivocation piece and needed to change some confusing wording

If “Dr. Matthew” has a PhD in church history, he should turn it in, because he doesn’t know crap.

According to Dr. Jordan Cooper, Luther was not a Nominalist. Catholic apologists often misread him on this point.

People make too much of Luther's supposed "nominalism". In many places, Luther seems more influenced by Neoplatonism than Aristotle.

Yet again you misrepresent Luther. "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." - Martin Luther

The Medieval Church did not think “we work 50% for our salvation.” That’s Pelagianism, which the Catholic Church has NEVER taught.

This is spot on, IMO. The Reformers, via Occam, got rid of the doctrine of concurrence (the simultaneity of first and second causes). This had a huge impact on pastoral and Christian Life theology. It has hurt Christians and the body of Christ. Chrysostom and the church fathers had it right to begin with.

Lutheran theology is the only one that distinguishes the law from the gospel AND gives to the sacraments their proper position, i.e. means of grace. Our salvation is ''extra nos'', comes from God not from us, not from us even 0,0001%. Please do not manipulate Philippians 2 to your synergistic/pelasgian/semi-pelasgian/arminian theology. Never forget what it says there. It says ''μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε'' ( = work out your own salvation with fear and trembling) and continues ''ὁ Θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας'' ( = for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure). ONLY CHRIST, BY GRACE, THROUGH THE GIFT OF FAITH IN WORD AND BAPTISM, AS IT IS TESTIFIED IN THE BIBLE, ALL THE GLORY TO GOD.

The biggest lie is people believing there has ever actually been a consensus of the fathers lol

I know little about Luther other than he had a host of mental issues and was viciously anti semitic. I’ve always considered Luther as one who could not set aside personal in making any decisions.

When the Catholic position is properly understood, and you realize many of Luther's valid criticisms were addressed at the Council of Trent, it becomes incredibly difficult to understand why Protestantism is still necessary. Frankly, I'm sort of surprised Protesantism still exists. We just have too much access to patristics, history, the Catechism, and so on now. I suppose many people were raised with anti-catholic polemics from their pastor and Jack Chick tracts and so on. I don't think it's a coincidence that we're seeing many Protestants go Catholic/Orthodox in the age of the internet - I myself was shocked when I compared actual Catholic teaching to what I'd heard being raised Baptist.

The main difference between lutheranism and synergistic and/or sacramentarian theologies is anthropology. Man has not got free will. Nominalism leads to work salvation. Luther taught the exact opposite.

Whether Luther was a nominalist is actually quite controversial, but either way, his insistence upon monergism with regard to initial justification is not essentially nominalist. It was pastoral, not metaphysical. And Luther affirmed that after God converts the sinner and regenerates/justifies them, at that point their will has been made new and can cooperate with God - which pretty clearly shows he was not just building an entire theology based on nominalist presupposisions. Also, the Catholic tradition understands the efficacy of infant baptism in essentially "nominalist" terms (if we are going to say initial justification by monergism is nominalist) since the Church affirms a monergistic (at the level of the individual) regeneration/justification when it comes to infant baptism. but of course, monergism isnt intrinsically nominalist. I was just pointing that out to show that Luther's insistence on initial justification being 100% God and 0% man has a basis in the Catholic tradition vis-a-vis infant baptism.

Because Luther wants the authority...and he wants to get married....so when he left catholicism he made his own religion then get married....

This shows how the good old Calvinist predestination stuff happens. His ending doesn't really get him out of it; if God wants you saved, you're gonna be saved, if not, you're gonna be out. 100 percent.(and of course, everyone counts themselves as saved, lol) I'll stick with the Catholic view that it's relational, like a marriage, you have to do your part to be in it. People so don't realize what they're missing not being part of the church, and playing around with all these offshoots.

I am by no means a scholar on this area of history, but as I've read in some other comments, I would argue that Luther still believes heavily in the idea that once we are saved, we are to live our lives out in Christ. I don't know of any Protestants in the circles I've been who actually believe that once you are saved you just get to live how you want to. My problem with a 'works-based' mentality is more of a pastoral approach which is that if we plant a seed in someone's mind that have to work to get saved, you will end up in a sour spot in faith. Because I am saved, it is my joy to do the good work of Christ. I also am not sure I can jump on board the idea of 2 planes of existence. Yes, you can say God's salvation for us exists on one plane and our salvation for us exists on another, but I have trouble with that (I suppose an intellectual barrier) which asks alot of questions of it. If Gods salvation for 100% His doing, then it doesn't matter that there are 2 planes because we should be covered by that salvation. Unless it is to imply there are 2 salvations by which we must be saved, which I think most would disagree with. But you can't really claim they are entirely on different planes because one directly affects the other. The planes must intersect at some point so it's possible for 100% of God's work to do the salvation necessary. But at that intersection, you would hopefully still only have 1 salvation. Plus, if there are 2 planes, which plane do we live by? We are somewhat constrained to our plane because of our finiteness so I think therein lies the problem. If we are to live by what we are capable of living, we would be entirely a works-based religion where you earn your way to heaven. The problem with teaching something that seems to contradict is you will get a lot of people who check the boxes while not actually having genuine faith to do. Like as long as I go to church, take communion and get baptized ill be totally okay. God desires of us a real heart change and I'm not sure this Catholic and ancient teaching of works is working to produce great fruit for Christ

Damn, protestantism is just losing so hard this year

Austin this was a great discussion. Can you please have a discussion with Bishop Barron next?

Fascinating! What would Jordan Cooper say? I wonder. I've heard Lutherans say that, although educated by Nominalists, Luther was not one. Matthew Thomas seems to think otherwise. This explains my own thoughts on divine sovereignty and human freedom without having fully understood the philosophical nuances mentioned here. My question has been: Why? Why does my faith, and any related actions, have to be an affront to God's sovereignty and glory? I've had an affinity for the way the Church Fathers understood this. Now I know why. Many thanks!

I have a hard time believing that he has read Luther’s “A Treatise on Good Works”. Luther absolutely believed that men work out their faith. I don’t think he was a nominalist or tried to force everything on a single plane.

In the example of the pen and the hand, in which the question is what caused the writing on the paper, both hand and pen may be causes, but the hand is also the cause of the pen's action. That is exactly the Calvinist position, from my non-Calvinist understanding of it. Yet, if I hear Thomas correctly, he's saying that this is the church fathers' position that the Reformers departed from.

No one should care so much about the opinions of one man if that one man is not in agreement with the historical understanding of the church. Luther is like anyone, right about some things, wrong about others. Nothing should be built upon him because only one true foundation can be laid, and that is Jesus Christ. Luther, brilliant as he was, is a faulty foundation, like any other man.

Aren't modern day televangelists trying to " sell" heaven as well? Copeland, Osteen, Dollar....?

Has Austin converted? His last videos are attacking protestantism. Have I missed an episode? So he's EO or RC?

I didn't hear where he defined justification. He seems to be using that term interchangeably with salvation. It would be interesting to me to hear his definitions of justification, salvation, and sanctification.

I'll throw in my two cents as to why from what I've read, since Luther's philosophy is highly contentious within and without the Reformation traditions and I'm unqualified in that regard. Luther, as a medieval lawyer, assumed his then-contemporary standards of law code. That is, you are declared externally righteous on a matter completely extrinsic to yourself. The justification is not of you but by that which is outside of you, namely the evidences used. Thus, Luther sees justification in this sense, it's not of the agent. And, from that, it has to be Christ's righteousness which we accrue in this alien sense that makes this at all possible, since He alone is the righteous man to have ever existed. So imputation (thanks to Latin butchering logizomai, , I spelled it wrong) is how we are reckoned as righteous. Just as a court declares us righteous in light of the evidence, so too are we declared righteous by the account of Christ. As such, sola fide isn't (as evangelicals assume) you just have faith and God handles the rest. Faith by itself, in the classical Reformation, was meaningless. It doesn't do anything on its own. It was just that by which you accrued Christ's merits. It was only beneficial in that regard as a tool, not a virtue. So faith is how you gain that imputation of Christ's merits. And that's what sola fide in the classical sense is. It is the imputation of a foreign righteousness completely alien to the agent receiving it for the purpose that they are justified. Which, in that way, is certainly a nominalist way of thinking and the line of reasoning absolutely is. I'm not arguing if Luther was a dyed-in-the-wool nominalist since that's highly contentious, but he certainly wasn't unaffected by it. More to this video, the conflict begins when he and others like Melancthon, Chemnitz, and Calvin try to find early church use of this idea of sola fide being used in the early church. Ad fontes! The issues were immediately all over the place. You had bad translations floating around, manipulations of texts, and the ultimate realization that the early church just did not teach this method of justification via imputation. Because, unsurprisingly, these ancient-to-early-medieval thinkers did not have the idea of late-medieval law proceedings and nominalist assumptions to go off of. More to the point, that's why you get the idea the early church apostatized either immediately after the Apostles died out or that it was corrupted at some point later, whether by Constantine, Theodosius, or whatever boogeyman you need. Why do you think Luther came up with the "Great Apostasy"? Because they weren't teaching the hinge upon which the Church stands or falls. I stand open to correction but that's where I see the issue as it lies. But, since I assume there will be quotes from people like Clement or John Chrysostom or others thrown out as saying phrases like "faith alone" or "not of ourselves," ask these 2 questions: do those readings fit in accord with imputation and faith as an empty virtue? Or, do they fit in accord with a plain-old anti-Pelagian/Augustinian reading?

I dont think the good doctor understands the reformation tradition, honestly. This line of thinking is quite silly, and he notes how protestants are returning to the pre-occamist model, but completely ignores the Reformed and Lutheran second and third generation theologians who were never once nominalist. Its patently obvious that Luther, Calvin, vermigli, zanchi, etc did not place God and man on the same plane. At the very least the reformed tradition was broadly thomistic (not entirely thomist) in affirming participation by analogy against univocity of being. But hey all i am doing is inviting ten catholics to instantly disagree

I dont think the good doctor understands the reformation tradition, honestly. This line of thinking is quite silly, and he notes how protestants are returning to the pre-occamist model, but completely ignores the Reformed and Lutheran second and third generation theologians who were never once nominalist. Its patently obvious that Luther, Calvin, vermigli, zanchi, etc did not place God and man on the same plane. At the very least the reformed tradition was broadly thomistic (not entirely thomist) in affirming participation by analogy against univocity of being. But hey all i am doing is inviting ten catholics to instantly disagree

Have some fun with this: go to the document linked. Then read the first section on Luther. Note that he uses a particular section of Luther's 2nd commentary on Galatians as his text for Luther's "narrow" interpretation of justification. Ok. Now go to section 5, where he discusses some modern broader ideas on justification. Oh what's this? He now cites other paragraphs from the same chapter of the same Luther commentary he cited earlier, but now he is saying it has this broader understanding of justification. Gee, maybe that broader understanding was there all the time and people chose to ignore it? I'm not making this up, just go check out his paper, it's kinda hilarious and also deflates his whole presentation here.

Funny thing is Luther did not lived during the Apostolic era and was not even privy to witnessing to Jesus's teachings or even the Apostles!

Ultimately Catholics and Orthodox and later Protestants really took off when they were embraced by the aristocracy. In the case of Protestants it was not so much the arguments that persuaded the local lords to embrace it, but the opportunity to set up their own religious little sphere of power that is not beholden to Rome. It was a golden opertiunity for local ambitious lords to set up their own religious spheres and not be answerable to Rome, and as long as there was only Catolics around this could not be done. Protestant flavor offered new ways to keep the religion that peasants wanted while detach oneself from Rome. And once the opportunity was recognized and acted upon, protestant flavor of Christianity truly had a chance to be something more than just a heretical branch. Only when aristocracy embraces religion does it really take off, as it is seen with rainbow mafia today. Ortodox were blessed with Constantine, Catholics also were embraced by rich and powerful after initial persecution. and finally protestants. If the aristocracy didn't embrace it and sided with Rome, there would be no protestants... no matter how much they protested. Regardless of moral arguments, the thing that religion or ideology really needs is patronage of the rich and powerful to thrive. Liberalism, Feminism, fascism, communism, Nazism, progressivism, technocracy etc. Modern ideologies only took off when rich and powerful patronize it, and when it comes to revolutions it was the time and place that played the key role, when the old regime crumbled under their own weight, as in French Revolution, Russian Revolution etc. Maybe people only look at moral arguments, which may be on point, but it will only take it so far, you need patronage of the ruling class as well, or at very least, world level cataclysmic events, like WWI or something similar to create conditions for hostile take over of the weak regime, otherwise the ruling class will make sure you stay in the shadows.

Augustine of Hippo really has not helped any of us as with regards to causality or predestination. This is my personal opinion anyway. I just find meticulous causal determinism - in either it's Augustinian, Aquinan or Reformation forms, entirely incoherent and unnecessary in light of a real degree of autonomy and synergy (whilst not denying the preventing nature of Grace) that John Cassian and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and others etc have always held to. A reading of John of Damascus on Divine Providence is very enlightening x

Whats ironic is Luther admits that he was a better Christian as a Catholic than he was as a Protestant lol: This is what St. Paul meant when he preaches about love. “If I speak in the tongues of angels;” and again: “If I had all faith so that I could move mountains, but did not have love, then I would still be nothing,” etc. (1 Corinthians 13[:1-2]) If a person goes off securely in the thought that he has faith, and yet never experiences it, he must decay and dry up; his faith will be found nowhere at all when it comes to the point that it should be found. The dear apostles certainly saw this, and we experience it. The world always either boasts falsely about faith, or wants to be holy without faith. If we preach about faith and grace, no one wants to do works. If we promote works, no one wants faith. Those who keep to the true middle course are very rare. Indeed, it is even hard for righteous Christians. I confess for myself - and without a doubt others must also confess, that I lack the diligence and seriousness [some translations: “earnestness”], which I should now much more than before; I am much more careless than I was under the papacy. Nowhere is there now the seriousness [some translations: “zeal”] with the Gospel which we saw previously among the monks and priests, when people established and built so much, and no one was so poor that he would not give something. However, now there is not one city which would support a preacher, and nothing except only robbing and stealing among the people, and no one restrains it. Where does such a shameful affliction come from? They cry out: “From the doctrine they teach, that people should not rely on works!” However, it is the devil himself who falsely blames this on the pure, saving doctrine; it is the fault of his and people’s malice who misuse this doctrine - as well as our old Adam who always wants to follow the forest trail to nowhere- and think that it is unnecessary, even if we do not do many good works and so become unintentionally lazy and negligent and stale, until we completely lose the strength and savor of faith. (Sermon on 1 John 4:16-21: from a series of sermons on 1 John and love, dated 1532-1533; in Luther’s Works, Vol. 78: Church Postil IV [2015], 365-405;

You should ask the same questions to an Orthodox theologian.

EXACTLY!!! --- G R E A T video Austin !!!!

Luther thought he was too smart for his own good.

That's what you get for saying luther was a nominalist, lol jk bro. We all have philosophical and personal presupositions, sone are biblical, some we import. luther tried to be consistent with the bible but he actually still held to some false dialectics and his own philosophical presups that messed up his theology a bit. Im lutheran btw.

This blew my mind when I watched the original interview earlier this year.

St. Martin Luther

I reply to the argument, then, that our obedience is necessary for salvation. It is, therefore, a partial cause of our justification. Many things are necessary which are not a cause and do not justify, as for instance the earth is necessary, and yet it does not justify. If man the sinner wants to be saved, he must necessarily be present, just as he asserts that I must also be present. What Augustine says is true, “He who has created you without you will not save you without you.”1 Works are necessary to salvation, but they do not cause salvation, because faith alone gives life. On account of the hypocrites we must say that good works are necessary to salvation. It is necessary to work. Nevertheless, it does not follow that works save on that account, unless we understand necessity very clearly as the necessity that there must be an inward and outward salvation or righteousness. Works save outwardly, that is, they show evidence that we are righteous and that there is faith in a man which saves inwardly, as Paul says, “Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved” [Rom. 10:10]. Outward salvation shows faith to be present, just as fruit shows a tree to be good. “THE DISPUTATION CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION,” LW, 165.

So ummmm Luther is not a pope, and 2. Have you ever watched Catholics and Lutheranism argue about justification, you have to ask them find the point where they disagree, cuz they dont. As a Lutheran i can say yes, your justification is from Christ, but keep sinning in repentadly, walk away from the meas of grace sucjlh as the sacraments and see how much salvation you have.

Bro tries to debunk Luther, not with the inspired Word, but with scholasticism, huge L 😂

Polycarp - Letter to the Philippians Ch.1 (110 AD) "In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."

Ave Christus Rex Ave Maria Regina

Why would someone need to repent? Wouldn't God just do your repentance for you or to you if God does 100% of everything involved in your salvation?

So I’m a bit confused. My elders all hold to a reformed soteriology and call themselves compatibilists. They claim that reformed soteriology is comptabilism. Why is it being presented differently here?

Sounds like Luther needed more philosophy classes.

This is very clarifying as an ortho catechumen, thanks!

I don’t think Protestants should concede. Imagine the Arians using this same compatibalist reasoning

As a protestant the main issue with protestantism is we took augustine And went totally overboard Augustine was a manchiean gnostic for 10 years and believed god preordained everything Many fathers speak on faith alone. But the idea of the father predestination s u to faith is ridiculous Calvinism is absolutely ridiculous god is free and so are we. There are numerous examples But the e.o. and rcc misrepresent us. And believe we dont want to do good works. ... I.e. a mountaiin im on is a porn addiction. Its gotten better. I dont watch as much extreme but i dont want to anymore. Im praying for gods help. But i know i have to respond. Its not his sole responsibility its mine to to respond. However e.o. rcc have justification and faith backwards. They say works(fruit) produce a good tree(faith) Protestant tree(faith ) will produce a change fruit. We also dont like the extra biblical traditions. I will not dont care what the excuse is i will not kiss a image The idea that icons were used early is totally ridiculous It wasnt dogma till 600s. And there were major controvery even during eusibius Also eusibius had no clue what happened to marry. The infancy gospels. Are gnostic. As well. Does that mean a piece of art is evil. No. But no it doesnt mean we pray to them. Saying the traditions are from the fathers There only excuse is trust me bro. Thats why catholics and orthodox are pissed at each other... What did the pharisees and saducees do... We got our traditions from moses... The excuse Trust me bro. .... we all know how that worked. Its not like it isnt recorded in every gospel... The beuty about ecuminical councils is unity... But the beuty of protestantism. Is personal responsibility decision making. And our churches or individuals can always course correct. I.e. i refuse to ban women in ministry Based on just one passage. When we have Miriam Deborah(who literally led isreal as a judge.) Junia and other women who were litterally ministering in ephesus. Or how bought anna... in the gospel of luke... (a prohet) The same ephesus as timothy. So Are we to say that pual sends her there Speaks well of her then turns around and says they cant preach... No that makes no sense. Its nonsense. Something else is being described there. 🤔 Also early churches were house churches. And roman women who are widows. Would actually control the household we know that pual never advocated the total destruction of a culture. He was concerned with sexual immorality and idol worship. Orgies the other works of the flesh. So if a women controlled her household and her friends met in her house for a house service Who by there culture would head the service. Would it be polite or respectful for a man from outside to go in and demand authority... No. I.e. The women with pual lived there Would it be appropriate for a random man to demand leadership 🤔 It makes zero sense. Let alone mary magdalin who carried the message to the apostles who were filled with doubt.😅 There are pics in there catacombs of women in ministry under rome from early on... Its quite clear that a tradition happened and we lost something important and has been infecting christianity ever sense

Basically no Protestants believe in a consistent Sola Fide anyway. If Sola Fide is true, then I can sin as much as I want and still go to heaven. ANY alternative to this is, in practical application, identical to rejecting Sola Fide, period.

Monergism is biblical. Plain and simple. It’s God centered versus man centered. God regenerates the sinner and changes their nature. That changed nature will want to be righteous and please God. So many people want to steal the glory that is to God alone. P.S. Augustine holds to the doctrines of grace. Man is free, completely free to act in accordance with their nature.

Luther understood the Scriptures better based on reflection that involved both Scripture and previous fathers that came before him. Simple as. Ephesian 2 says "apart from works so no man can boast" means "apart from works". Planes of causality doesn't mean "with works." God works 100% for our salvation but only some people believe and some don't? The fault line is with the fallenness of man. Not "Luther did a nominalism" silliness.