![Truth Unto Godliness](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 21
- 23 384
Truth Unto Godliness
Приєднався 31 тра 2021
Welcome to Truth Unto Godliness! We seek to provide theological content from a Confessional Lutheran perspective while engaging charitably with other Christian traditions as we delve into the patristic roots of confession
The focus of the channel is to share the truth of the evangelical faith so that we may grow in piety.
The focus of the channel is to share the truth of the evangelical faith so that we may grow in piety.
Відео
The North African Case Study of the Papacy
Переглядів 2964 місяці тому
I was invited on a Discord server to make a short presentation about the papacy and its coherence with the patristic data of the early North African Church. I thought I'd share it here as some may benefit from it. A QnA followed afterward which I'll upload later.
Quick announcement concerning a reply to Trent Horn
Переглядів 1 тис.8 місяців тому
ua-cam.com/video/7mBLMT3agyE/v-deo.htmlsi=RkhJ8Hrfc4FkFZgc
The Apostolic Creed Explained
Переглядів 4922 роки тому
In this video we'll go through the apostolic creed, its background, history and the articles it presents us. A simple, short yet deeply profound and rich confession!
Can Allegory Prove the Papacy? - A Conversation About the Senses Of Scripture
Переглядів 5452 роки тому
BENEATH ALL THE QUOTATIONS CAN BE FOUND In this video I hope to add a contribution to the discussion regard the very nature of Holy Scripture's relationship to the dogma. For, to ask a basic question, how do we prove dogma and our articles of faith? Can allegorical argumentation suffice for that? No, answers Western Christendom, from Saint Augustine, Jerome over Aquinas to the Reformers (as Joh...
QUICK UPDATE! A Conversation with Pastor Connor about Lutheran Scholasticism!
Переглядів 3542 роки тому
Here's a link for the youtube version of the podcast, it is available in both forms. ua-cam.com/video/Z1DRRfh669k/v-deo.html&ab_channel=TranscendentTruthMedia Here's the link to Spotify open.spotify.com/episode/5exYoRE9ilOlKUJoDijNul?si=Ks pB-HT7-7fIsNIXaW0Q&fbclid=IwAR00dHHT2hlSO8vP0LHLvkix_Bf3VlGMfM43EIqXgIH12yr4NKkc6gy1_9c&nd=1
The Tension Between Sola Scriptura and Church Authority - a Reply to Erick Ybarra
Переглядів 1,2 тис.2 роки тому
In this video I offer some considerations and comments to the important questions raised by Erick Ybarra in a video describing his journey from Reformed Baptism to Roman Catholicism. This is not a rebuttal video but rather a contribution to an important conversation brought up by the questions and considerations presented by Erick. I have a great deal of respect for Erick Ybarra and personally ...
What is Baptism and What Does it Do? VIDEO ON THE GO!
Переглядів 2452 роки тому
What is Baptism and What Does it Do? VIDEO ON THE GO!
Sola Fide and Lutheran Justification- What Do the Church Fathers Say?
Переглядів 1,7 тис.2 роки тому
Sola Fide and Lutheran Justification- What Do the Church Fathers Say?
Justification, but how? By Infusion or Imputation?
Переглядів 9182 роки тому
Justification, but how? By Infusion or Imputation?
A Lutheran View of Justification - Snow Covered Dung or Real Growth of Holiness?!
Переглядів 1,1 тис.2 роки тому
A Lutheran View of Justification - Snow Covered Dung or Real Growth of Holiness?!
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.
as far as i can tell this is just the arugment Christians use to not have to enegage with argument agianst them
@@buffcommie942 What is a Christian? Catholic or Orthodox do not shy away from questioning. FAKE believers, those who use their EGOs to tell God what to think, are a train wreck.
@@HAL9000-su1mz catholics and orthodox have to use their "ego's" as well, they have to pick which authtority to follow, and deciden how to interpret the authorities role
@@buffcommie942 Nonsense. The Holy Spirit lead the early Church into all truth - "IF" you believe Christ. You maintain Christ was 1) incompetent or 2) a liar. DEFEND YOURSELF!
@@buffcommie942 TROLL
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?
I discuss this in my interview with the Other Paul. I'd say that his public ministry was Greek and Aramaic was used primarily for private and intimate settings
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.
TROLL.
@@HAL9000-su1mz yes. TRUTH TROLL. Glad you know. And know too that I WON'T stop.
@@rbnmnt3341 No substance. Poorly formed theology Praying for you 🙏
@@iggyantioch not theology. It's the truth. It's not God declaring anything. Not in scripture. Mormons, Jehovah's and your church MAKE UP things that are NOT in scripture. To that Catholics say not everything has to be in the bible. That's precisely why you all do that. Nothing has to be confirmed through scripture. It's a free for all. So can you disprove the Mormons didn't get their golden tablets from God or that their "added" revelation was not from God? You can't. It CAN NOT be refuted by you or anybody. Just because anybody can say "it doesn't have to be in the bible."
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.
thats what men do.... we make fun of each other and its all in good faith. Bellarmite said in the comments that it was nothing personal
@@Dwooswa but is it in good faith? I couldn't tell.
A Christian, to be charitable, should at first assume good faith, no?
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?
Yes
Doxxing. Stalking. Predation. Harassment. Intimidation.
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.”
No set cannon Mult-sects used differing cannons.
Also . Self professed?. Chippy.
The authority of the Catholic Church is seen clearly in Mt 16:18-19, Luke 22:29-32 and John 21:15-19 where Peter was given the keys of the perpetual office of steward (cf Is 22:20-22), told to strengthen or support the others and made the vicar of Christ in charge of the One Flock.
Oh yeah 👍 Isaiah 22. So. Name Change Then the call back to Isaiah. Christ is so smooth 👌
@@iggyantioch Consider the following passages of scripture: “Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has made all this known to you, there is no one so discerning and wise as you. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” (Genesis 41:39-43) After a revelation from God, Joseph was given robes, a signet ring and a gold chain, symbols of his status as second in command over all of Egypt. “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:20-22) God gave the office of steward to Eliakim. He was given a robe and a key, symbols of his status as second in command over all of Israel. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19) After a revelation from God, Peter was given keys of the kingdom of heaven, symbols of his status as second in command over all the Church. Questions: 1. Did Jesus inherit the throne of the house of David? (cf. Lk 1:32-33) 2. Is Jesus an eternal king whose kingdom lasts forever? 3. Did Jesus intentionally quote the passage from Isaiah when He spoke to Peter? 4. Did Jesus re-establish the office of steward by giving Peter the keys symbolic of that office? 5. Does the office of steward continue forever in an eternal kingdom? 6. If a steward is replaced or dies, does another man take his place? 7. Would a steward’s decree contrary to the will of the king be allowed to stand? 9. Peter died and another man took his place, and another man replaced him, etc.; does that mean that someone still has those keys? 10. Who?
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
@@crossvilleengineering1238 could you show me where Hooker says love gives life to faith
@@crossvilleengineering1238 hooker and bucer are heroes to me ...and i totally agree with their statements . My only issue with Mr Saller is he says love gives faith life . I just don't see that in the reformers or the Anglican divines.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 I agree with two justifications . Even Calvin would say that . Calvin was very happy with the diet of Regensburg article 5 where his mentor Bucer actively participated But no one to my knowledge said that love gives life to faith . This is the error of Mr Saller .
@@crossvilleengineering1238 The second justification that the reformers believed is a declaration of righteousness based on works that serve as tangible evidence of that a person being truly justified when he first believed.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Hooker clearly says ....when a man sees God face to face let him show his faith by his works let him demonstrate his first justification with his second as Abraham did He can't get clearer
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.
These seem to be confusing the habits of faith, hope, and love with the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. All three virtues are infused into the child at baptism. They are gifts of God. You don't seem to have an issue with a baby having faith, why then can't a baby have charity.
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.
Richard Hooker's quote was great . Faith is always accompanied by all other virtues. It is never alone but it alone justifies. However would Hooker say that love enlivens or vivify faith and makes it alive . I don't think so . The core of faith is trust and faith as trust justifies. Love is always present but it does not vivify faith
@@aajaifenn You are right in saying that faith is always accompanied by all other virtues *if by faith you mean that justifying faith of which the apostle speaks in Romans.* But simply identifying such faith with trust brings us to some challenges. For example, a person who purposefully sins freely without regret or future intention to reform his life may well use the excuse "I am trusting Christ to forgive my sins by his merits." This man has a real trust in the merits of Christ, but he will be damned unless he repent. But is such faith the kind of faith of which Paul speaks? Certainly not. This is why we cannot speak of the kind of faith which Paul says justifies without reference to what I have called "spousal faith." This kind of faith is the "faith" with which spouses entrust themselves to one another in marriage. Instead of saying "trust in Christ" (although that is a great thing to say!), sometimes I say "entrust yourself to Christ," because this conveys a bit more of the wholistic nature of saving faith. Once again, the critical distinction between us and Rome is that Rome sees in faith such intrinsic virtue that God can look at the person in whom it exists and regard them as objectively justified in themselves, whereas we see faith as uniting us spousally to Christ such that his righteousness becomes ours. Such faith can only be a gift of God because, without God's overcoming grace, man cannot be turned to God that he may repent and be saved.
@@cullanfritts4499 saving faith that trusts is always accompanied by other virtues So a person who lives like the devil and says he trusts Christ then that faith cannot be a saving faith Also a person who is united to Christ by faith for a legal righteousness cannot not have transforming righteousness too as Christ supplys both .
@@aajaifenn I think we're saying the same thing. Because I agree that such a faith isn't a saving faith. I'm simply trying to figure out what exactly it is that distinguishes the faith of the saved from the so-called faith of the presumptuous. And I also agree that transformation of life is only possible by the Spirit of God whom we possess by union with Christ. So I don't think we disagree. :)
@@cullanfritts4499 hallelujah ...I have followed and respect your comments on you tube and am happy that we are not at odds .
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