Відео

As for yourself, do you subscribe to the US synodical Lutheran (Waltherian) view ...the so called universal objective justtification?

Can I get that link please?

Hey Michael, as a Lutheran, would you say that it would be problematic if the fathers at Niceae I believed to have some type of special protection from error?

Good day,just opened your letter,Here 5 Am see ya,,a hour..or so.that was great, you know our comfort,grace and justification ,comes from our ,and found in the study of Luther's Catechism..peace out ,alias..😮

Great video!! Im glad to find good confessional Lutherans in Europe

Scripture lovers! Feast your eyes: PETER as Shepherd and first Pope: Scriptural evidence and the structure of the primitive Church make it absolutely undeniable that Christ chose Peter and that Peter was first among the twelve. Depending on the translation, Peter is mentioned 195 times. The closest is John (the beloved disciple) at just 29 times. The rest even less. Consider: Jesus entered Peter’s house. (Matthew 8:14) Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. (John 1:42) Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven. (Matthew 16:19) Jesus declared Peter to the the rock. (Matthew 16:18) Jesus made Peter shepherd. (John 21:15-17) Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32) Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter. (Matthew 17:24-27) Jesus preached from Peter's boat. (Luke 5:3) Jesus told Peter to "Follow me" (John 21:19) Jesus called only Peter to walk on the water. (Matthew 14:29) Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial. (Matthew 26:34) Jesus predicted Peter's repentance and three-fold affirmation. (Luke 22:32) Jesus prophesied only Peter's manner of death. (John 21:18-19) Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times. (Matthew 18:21-22) Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane. (Mark 14:37) Peter is always listed first of the Apostles. (Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13) Peter was first to confess Jesus as Messiah. (Matthew 16:18) Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration. (Matthew 17:4, Mark 9:5, Luke 9:33) Peter pointed out the withered fig tree. (Mark 11:21) Peter entered the tomb first - John deferring to him. (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-4)) Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas. (Acts 1:15-26) Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost. (Acts 2:14-36) Peter was released from prison by the Angel. (Acts 12:6-11) Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council. (Acts 4:8-12) Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10) Peter's shadow healed. (Acts 5:15) Peter declared the sin of Simony. (Acts 8:18-23) Peter revealed the salvation of Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem. (Acts 11:1-18) The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter. (Acts 10:3-8) The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them. (Acts 10:44-45) At the empty tomb, the Angel said, "Go tell His disciples, and Peter." (Mark 16:7) Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple. (John 20:2) The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter. (Acts 10:9-16) Peter's words silence the first council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:7-12) Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain. (Galatians 1:18) Peter was given the revelation of the end of the world. (2 Peter 3:10-11) Peter taught that Paul’s words were easily twisted. (2 Peter 3:16) Peter taught that baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21) And MANY ADDITIONAL REFERENCES. One may deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing ignorance or denial of scripture and history to do so.

Two observations: 1) Quote-mining yields only fool's gold and 2) Cherry-picking always leads to the pit.

I can yell you what Luther said ..we are Roman Catholics...guess what, he was right.

Lutherans are classy!

Bellamine Bellayours Bellawill Belllamight !

On the 3rd passage, couldn't a roman just say it refers to the ceremonial works of the law and that salvation is apart from those rites such as animal sacrifice.

Hi Michael, is then your proposition that Jesus spoke Greek when it was just himself and his disciples? In his public ministry I can understand, but in these intimate discussions with the Lord and his disciples as recorded for us in the NT, why do you think that he would not have spoken Aramaic?

What should anyone be Catholic? Because it’s the true Church, established by Jesus Christ and He is with it until the end of days.

This was a great discussion.

If you're deceived.

Austin at Gospel Simplicity recently talk about what it means for church unity (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox), It was absolutely enlightening. I highly encourage people to watch it . ua-cam.com/video/-e31dc6gNHU/v-deo.html

Does Bellarmite have a SheShed library? Based.

dude your study is so sick!

Isn't it convenient that a system allows for an antipope when the Pope is in such a grave error that the system would break if he were actually a true Pope, but you don't know it until it actually happens.

After this charitable conversation, Bellarmite does you dirty over on his page with his "Curb..." video.

Does 'the Bellarmite' not have a real name? Why do so many of these Catholic apologists use pompous 'pseudonyms' and hide their real names? Are they ashamed of the names their parents gave them?

Here's some thoughts regarding the understanding of the role of the bishop of Rome in 4th and 5th century North Africa potamopotos.substack.com/p/thread-on-cyprian-augustine-and-the? And here's a link to the conversation I had with Erick Ybarra ua-cam.com/video/wcJX_wPYvkY/v-deo.html

If you want to discuss whether or not there was a set Jewish canon prior to the first century, let me know. Because if there was, this is detrimental to the Roman Catholic Church’s self-professed “authority.”

Definitely an interesting stream. The section on the Lutheran view of who is saved was quite informative, not watered down and straight to the point. These discussion collabs are great.

In England, the Anglo-Catholic drink is Gin & Tonic

It's clear that when St. Clement talks about works wrought in holiness of heart, he means good works done in a state of grace. If those don't justify which is his position, then Trent is in error. Thank you for this video.

New to the channel here and a fellow confessional Lutheran brother. I have loved this conversation, which I have found very nurturing and beneficial. In adherence to what our host already said in the video: I get the feeling that by saying that love is what makes faith alive, is like saying that the fruit is the cause by which the tree lives. Just throwing out a quick thought here. I'll be looking forward to more content from the channel. Greetings and blessings from Germany!

Abraham was imputed righteousness by faith and faith presupposes an interior grace of sanctification as the root cause of faith. The imputed righteousness testifies to Abraham's interior regeneration by grace witnessed by St Paul's union of hope and love in Rom 5:1-9 recapping the Abraham trial of Rom 4:1-25. The major problem with Lutheran theology is the assumed penal substitutionary theory associated with justification by faith alone, not found in Gen 15. Gen 15:6 contextualised by Melchizedek's covenant and the covenant of pieces, largely ignored by exegesis of Romans 3-4.

The critical incompatible difference between faith and love is that faith is what God does and Love is what we do according to the RC penance-driven life. Love is the law. So it is the law that saves and makes alive. A dead faith is no faith. Problem, without faith our love means nothing or worse. "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin!” Romans 14 23 "Faith is the evidence of things unseen. The substance of things hoped for."

This is fascinating! Thank you. Could you post in the comments the quotes used by you in the video?

The question is, what is justification? You can still hold to a forensic view of justification and just ground it in Union with Christ. If you see justification as the verdict that was placed upon Christ at his resurrection, then if you are in Christ (by faith alone, which is never alone), you receive that same verdict of righteousness -- as numerically the same, and not a gas that's passed across the courtroom. On the other hand, if you're using justification to refer to a union with Christ which is indistinguishable from the mystical union, then of course faith has to be a virtue which justifies by virtue of being formed by love. But justification is not the transformation within us, it's the righteousness of Christ given to us and the virtue of faith (which has hope and love) plays in the equation only insofar as faith grasps ahold of Jesus and receives his favor/gift. Jesus is the one doing the work for us in the historia salutis, and the renovation within us, ordo salutis. But you see, it doesn't matter whether it's faith alone or faith formed by love. The theological virtue(s) only exist to unite us to Jesus, and it's his person and work that offers us justification. Our love is never the grounds of our justification in the same way that our faith isn't either; Jesus is the grounds of our justification. That's the fundamental difference with Rome. Our standing before God is not in us, it's in Christ. It's not a debate over faith versus love.

It’s necessary to point out, and John Davenant does this, that justifying faith includes a movement of the will towards God. If you are familiar with the notion of a formal distinction, we can say that faith, hope, and love are formally distinct from one another, all infused by the Holy Spirit at conversion. This is, however, contrary to the romanist view that justifying faith must include something inherently virtuous or meritorious for justification (in this case charity). We absolutely condemn this notion, saying, as you did in the video, that faith justifies because it apprehends Christ and unites us to him.

5:00 So is that union with Christ a real accidental relation which inheres in the soul of the believer? Or how ought one to conceive of this union with Christ, since Saller says that there’s an ontological quality to this union? And does Saller believe in real apostasy? Bc on the case of apostasy that union with Christ would be abolished, right?

I feel Mr Saller is right that the virtues God gives us are given at the same time . He is also right that only faith grasps christ . However i think he is wrong when he says that love makes faith alive . None of the reformers even from the anglican church would say that

My point of the infant baptism question was to go back to your point of trusting the doctor first and then loving him as the result of his saving work. If the baby receives faith first, and baptism saves as we know it does, then that does place the Love of God as a turning point after justification, in our sanctification. We enter the water an enemy of God, are given faith and become his bride, and then from the Holy Spirit which was given to us, grow to love God. This is so that our justification might be fulfilled when we are imputed the righteousness of God in baptism and believe him, but when he comes into us he begins to move our soul to desire him more and more and to follow his example when we can. In my extremely Lutheran mind, I just view infant baptism as the normal means of conversion and with that as my primary lens, I can’t perceive how we can have a sufficient love of God as an infant to compel our faith to trust and cling to God. It’s just one too many steps in the ladder for me that an infant would hope for a savior, love him when he makes himself manifest against his natural tendency to be an enemy of God, and then after that would he have faith that he is saved. If I’m misrepresenting the position, I apologize and anyone can correct me, but I feel that to place the requirements of salvation upon sufficient love, hope, and faith on behalf of the Christian, is to perceivably, if not actually, to put it out of reach of so many believers.

Richard Hooker says in the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, ““For in Children God exacteth but baptism unto remission of sin: in converts from infidelity, both faith and penitency before baptism: and for remission of sins actual after baptism, penitency in all men as well as faith. Nor doth any faith justify, but that wherewith there is joined both hope and love. Yet justified we are by faith alone, because there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither martyr nor saint, no man whose works in whole or in part clear can make him righteous in God’s sight. Now between the grace of this first justification, and the glory of the world to come, whereof we are not capable, unless the rest of our lives be qualified with the righteousness of a second justification consisting in good works, therefore as St. Paul doth dispute for faith without works to the first, so St. James to the second justification is urgent for works with faith. To be justified so far as remission of sins, it sufficeth if we believe what another hath wrought for us: but whosoever will see God face to face, let him shew his faith by his works, demonstrate his first justification by a second as Abraham did[…]” His distinction is one which is utterly critical to understanding justification: Christ justifies us, and what unites us to him is a kind of spousal faith - faith that leads one to give himself unto Christ and receive Christ as heavenly husband. You could call this faith formed by love if by that you mean faith characteristic of one who has been oriented to God. The most important part here is that such faith justifies not because of its intrinsic virtue, but because it unites us to Christ, the righteous one. This is the critical distinction between us and Rome. Rome says that the infusion of faith, hope, and love makes us objectively righteous in ourselves because of the supernatural virtues infused in us, which is why justification can be so easily lost. This we reject, because when God justifies, he justifies a whole person, which means that, if he were justifying us because of our intrinsic virtue (even God-given), he would have to turn a blind eye to all the sinful habits, affections, and actions that remain in the true Christian. God can justify us because we are in Christ and he is righteous. We get into Christ by this kind of spousal faith.

This was an amazing discussing gentlemen. I would love to see a discussion on Apostolic Succession and Valid Orders with both of you at some point.

The faith that justifies loves, but the love of the faith that justifies does not justify.

Any news on your book you are to publish?

Good to see some new upload again 🎉

Didn't realize the video capture came out so goofy! Sorry!

OBS; This video is a bit less coherent and disorganized than my others (at least IMO). The discussion take place quite late and most of the material was presented from memory. So please forgive the rambling and the mistakes made, if such are found!

Thank you so much for this. Fully plan on bringing this up next time I’m at my Catholic youth group as I’ve walked them to accept faith alone and this is probably the next topic we’re going to discuss. Truly an awesome case study

amazing

All very good points. One can really get bogged down in all sorts of things when studying church history. So happy to see you stream on Holy Saturday Michael! God påske!

It is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED! It is the DOERS OF THE LAW that are JUSTIFIED BEFORE God! Holy Scripture teaches we shall each be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered and shall each be judged as we have judged others and we shall be liable to judgment if angry with others and we shall each receive recompense for BOTH the good AND THE BAD we have done in the body, as we are must all strive for that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord! God makes us righteous, God does not declare us righteous! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

If the eucharist isn't licit unless you're under the authority of a bishop, according to Barely Protestant, does that mean he stops consecrating the eucharist during the time his diocese has an episcopal vacancy?

Great conversation. Truth Unto Godliness, you have a remarkable resemblance to Call of Duty pro player Scump Idk if you ever heard that before.

This is great teaching to understand the trinity, Dwong is another young Catholic on UA-cam that does really good teaching on the filioque

So then, Protestants admit they can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, As Scripture ALONE is infallible! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink