As a former Confessional LCMS Lutheran, I can honestly say it was a deep dive into the topic of justification that lead me to the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran, I had been taught many things about the Catholic Church that ended up simply not being true. I also found out that many of the key ideas for the Lutheran approach to justification were simply not found in the Church before the Reformation. Conversely, you can find ample historical evidence of the Catholic view of justification through out the different eras of the Church. I strongly recommend any Protestants to take the time and learn more about what Catholics actually teach about justification (from Catholic sources!), because you are likely to find it is not what you think they teach. One common misconception in particular, is that Catholics are pelagians or semipelagians. They are in no way shape or form either, and have many Church documents and councils that condemn these positions. After my research, I now think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories: 1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics). 2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics). 3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis) 4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes. **I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy**. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace". Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification: Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum (italics added). *Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186* The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external. In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126* These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127* The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on . *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127* In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct. Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135* I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him. "A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186) God bless!
I've seen you've made a couple of quite extensive and packed comments here, especially regarding justification! Thanks for the engagement. It would be a lot of work to reply to all of this in writing, so if you'd want I'd gladly invite you on for a friendly discussion of some of the points you brought up if you're interested? You seem to be quite in the know on this topic so I think it might be fruitful :) God bless
Very impressed by your both of your's breadth of knowledge. Militant Thomist you did a fantastic job of connecting very complicated issues in a very understandable way. Kudos! I think at 1:12:10 the point was brought up that Lutherans might hold to a type of faith formed by charity. The problem is that Lutherans are not at all clear on what it means to have a dead vs. living faith. They even end up even contradicting each other in these areas because they are trying to fit a square peg (imputed righteousness/sola fide) into a round hole (the necessity of good works/living faith). I think this obviously clear around the Protestant idea of the assurance of salvation. I am very glad to hear that you both made the immediate connection as well! A common objection I hear Protestants make is Catholics not being able to have absolute assurance of their salvation. I have heard many Protestants say they couldn't be Catholic because of this. In my studies as a former Confessional Lutheran, I have struggled to understand how any Protestant can claim to have absolute assurance of salvation either. It seems to me that to maintain an absolute assurance of salvation, one has to believe in 1) sola fide and 2) antinomianism (that no sin can cause one with faith to lose their salvation, even, according to Luther, murder or adultery). And yet, most Protestants will adamantly deny their view entails antinomianism. First, it seems the Bible is clear that there are sins that can lead to spiritual death (1 John 5:16-17, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-32, James 2:14-26, etc.) In my research (mostly Lutherans), I have only found 2 usual ways that Classical Protestants reconciled their faith alone view of salvation with the possibility of grave sin. 1. No sin can remove our justification as long as we have faith. Antinomianism is true and the only mortal sin is apostasy. (Luther and Chemnitz) “Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone." (Luther, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church) 2. It is physically impossible for those who are saved to mortally sin. Those with a living faith will not mortally sin, those with a dead faith may. (Melanchthon) “Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV, 115; cf. Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article III) On 1, the assurance of salvation is maintained as faith covers everything absolutely but we deny vast sections of the Bible's teachings on necessity of not committing grave sins after justification (1 John 5:16-17, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-32, James 2:14-26, etc.). Also, note that I fully realize Luther would adamantly deny he was an antinomian but I would argue his statements on the matter are not logically consistent. On 2, there is no assurance of salvation because one can be mistaken if they have a living or a dead faith (James 2:14-26). You would seemingly have to look at your own works for evidence of having a living faith or not. But, since sin can cloud our judgment (Psalm 36), you could easily be mistaken about having a living faith and blind yourself to the fact you may be committing mortal/grave sins, for example a church-going alcoholic or adulterer. This seems to necessitate the conclusion that the assurance of salvation on the sola fide view requires antinomianism to be true despite the countless Bible verses that speak of grave sins and our not committing them being a condition of maintaining our justification/salvation. If we deny antinomianism, it then seems to necessitate the conclusion that one cannot have absolute assurance of salvation due to the living/dead faith distinction and sin's ability to cloud our own judgment as to whether we are committing grave sins and have a truly living faith. On the other hand, if you admit that some sins can cause one to lose salvation until they repent and return to a living faith/state of grace (e.g. church-going alcoholic or someone living in adultery), it seems to me that you have undercut the traditional sola fide view and are teaching the Catholic view of faith; that faith is the root of justification (sanctifying grace received through faith) but our obedience to our gift of justification is also a condition of final salvation (John 14:15, Matthew 5:48, John 14:23-24, Galatians 6:8 , 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Matt 7:21-23, John 15:10,14, Roman 8:12-13, Romans 12:1-2 ) and we will be judged by our deeds (Mt 25:31-46, Mt 7:21-23, Rm 2:6-11, Rev 20:11-15, Rev 2:23, Jm 2:24-26, Rm 2:13, 2 Cor 5:10, Mt. 16:27). I would very much like to hear a robust Protestant defense of the assurance of salvation as it continues to confuse me as to why Protestants claim this is a vital doctrine when I don't see how it can logically or biblically work. It truly seems that while Protestants want to affirm sanctification after justification, they don't want to go so far as put requirements for sanctification as part of keeping our salvation. God bless!
I've seen you've made a couple of quite extensive and packed comments here, especially regarding justification! Thanks for the engagement. It would be a lot of work to reply to all of this in writing, so if you'd want I'd gladly invite you on for a friendly discussion of some of the points you brought up if you're interested? You seem to be quite in the know on this topic so I think it might be fruitful :) God bless
Beautiful conversation! Two brilliant minds who really know their stuff having a friendly very high level philosophical and theological discussion, while still managing to include the layman by repeatedly clarifying terms that may be more obscure to the uninitiated. Very good job Mikkel! Thanks so much to Christian for coming over and having this discussion! God bless you and keep you all!
I think the part of this conversation where the discussion was around growth in holiness (30:00) shows one of the key rubber meets the road differences between Lutherans and Catholics. Because Lutherans see justification through the imputational model, there is no necessity to increase in holiness after justification. Sure, Lutherans will talk about sanctification and how an increase in sanctification is a byproduct of justification and evidence of one's justification. They can't go as far to say that growth in holiness is necessary in and of itself for the Christian and not doing so could lead to Jesus saying to them: Mat. 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' Lutherans would generally say that one could only lose their salvation if faith is also lost, and thus they lose the imputed righteousness of Christ. Here are many famous Luther quotes along the lines of the only mortal sin being apostasy. 3.8See, how rich therefore is a Christian, the one who is baptised! Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins - so long as the faith in God's promise made in baptism returns or remains -all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself. If only you confess Him and cling believing to Him that promises. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction - along with all those carefully thought out exercises of men - if you turn your attention to them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is done without faith in the truth of God, is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit. Luther, Martin. A PRELUDE BY MARTIN LUTHER ON THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH. "If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner [LW 48:281-282]. This just simply flies in the face of everything that Jesus teaches us in scripture and the other apostles (John 14:15, Matthew 5:48, John 14:23-24, Galatians 6:8 , 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Matt 7:21-23, John 15:10,14, Roman 8:12-13, Romans 12:1-2 , etc.). From my experience, this seems to be the prevalent view in modern Protestantism/Lutheranism, though. This just doesn't seem to lead to any kind urgency for Christians to live a life of holiness which the Bible clearly teaches over and over. On the other hand, for Catholics, this growth in Holiness leading to union with God (beatitude) is the whole point of life and justification. This is the process of theosis or divinization (which I realize some Lutherans have a version of, e.g., Mannermaa) which is the call to cooperate with the life of grace and increase in it through actively striving to live a holy life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a great section on the universal call to holiness: 2013 “All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity.”65 All are called to holiness: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”66 (915; 2545; 825) In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ’s gift, so that … doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints.67 2014 Spiritual progress tends toward ever more intimate union with Christ. This union is called “mystical” because it participates in the mystery of Christ through the sacraments-“the holy mysteries”-and, in him, in the mystery of the Holy Trinity. God calls us all to this intimate union with him, even if the special graces or extraordinary signs of this mystical life are granted only to some for the sake of manifesting the gratuitous gift given to all. (774) 2015 The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle.68 Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually lead to living in the peace and joy of the Beatitudes: (407; 2725; 1438) He who climbs never stops going from beginning to beginning, through beginnings that have no end. He never stops desiring what he already knows.69 2016 The children of our holy mother the Church rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance and the recompense of God their Father for the good works accomplished with his grace in communion with Jesus.70 Keeping the same rule of life, believers share the “blessed hope” of those whom the divine mercy gathers into the “holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”71 (162; 1821; 1274) 64 Rom 8:28-30. 65 LG 40 § 2. 66 Mt 5:48. 67 LG 40 § 2. 68 Cf. 2 Tim 4. 69 St. Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. in Cant. 8: PG 44, 941C. 70 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1576. 71 Rev 21:2. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., pp. 488-489). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference. God bless!
I think Roman Catholics and Lutherans can agree in principle on the Missourian notion of (universal) Objective Justification, but the difference lies in how we approach the question of (particular) Subjective Justification... for the Lutheran, faith alone unites us to the objective historia salutis person and work of Christ... and charity flows out of subjective justification, whereas for Roman Catholics, faith, hope and charity are all necessary causes preceding subjective justification (in other words, works not only maintain our union with Christ and the benefits therein, but our works actually cause our union with Christ). No one denies that Christ secures our salvation fully in time, the debate is over whether our progress in sanctification is a cause of our union with Christ (and the forensic declaration that occurs with it) or whether justification/salvation causes renewal.
//and charity flows out of subjective justification// Charity is not a fruit of faith but a distinct theological virtue per Romans 5:5. //works actually cause our union with Christ// Where are you getting this conclusion from?
@@vngelicath1580 So you are using "works" in place of charity in the first part of the sentence: "and charity flows out of subjective justification," while using it in a different sense in the second: "whereas for Roman Catholics, faith, hope and charity are all necessary causes preceding subjective justification". No competent Catholic would conflate charity as a work, especially preceding justification. Also, where are you getting your conclusion that "works" cause our union with Christ. Like I said, we do not conceive charity as principally a "work", so the claim that "works" cause our union with Christ is a complete misrepresentation.
How do works cause our union with Christ? Didn't you listen to what Christian was saying? Aquinas says explicitly we cannot prepare ourselvs for grace, and he says "it is written no man can come to me exept the Father who had sent me draw him, but if man can prepare himself he would not need to be draw by another, since man cannot prepare himself for grace" So in what way would our works here cause this union?
A good source to clarify this debate is the article:"Revisiting the Reformation: Aquinas and Luther on Justification" by Lukas Steffensmeier . God bless you guys
Great conversation. It seems as though Rome has a semantic out for everything though. I mean, they seem to dance around terms and make exceptions, caveats, and the like based upon "what they really mean," whilst anathematizing others based using the same terms. Regarding merit, we know that St. Augustine would certainly consider that every good work we do, even the willing, is of God, as is the faith we have itself. Charity, then, is a gift anyhow. It isn't our own righteousness, but God's, as Augustine states: "For even our good works, when they are understood to be rather His than ours, are imputed to us that we may enjoy this Sabbath rest. For if we attribute them to ourselves, they shall be servile." Elsewhere, he states: "The very reason, indeed, why [Paul] so often declares that righteousness is imputed to us, not out of our works, but our faith, whereas faith rather works through love, is that no man should think that he arrives at faith itself through the merit of his works; for it is faith which is the beginning whence good works first proceed; since (as has already been stated) whatsoever comes not from faith is sin." I'd also absolutely argue that we have an incredibly strong reason for assurance, as the Fathers certainly speak of. Paul certainly speaks of our assurance of salvation, as does Cyprian, Ambrose, and others. I also am curious as to how, according to the RC definition of faith (an intellectual assent), a child can actually have saving faith.
Augustine is not teaching anything contrary to Catholic dogma. In fact, we affirm that we are justified on the basis of God's righteousness (infused grace), not acquired righteousness. Regarding your question of infants/children, the same question can be posed to Protestants, since trust also requires intellectual assent. However, to answer your question directly, it is an inhering quality of the soul. For example, when I go to sleep, or if I were in a coma, I would still retain the gift of faith because it is an inhering gift.
The church consider that every good work we do is of God, but God wants to reward us anyway, its his merits, but he gave us an crown nonetheless. (Check John: the vine and the vinedresser, *in him* we can have works that are pleasant to God, even if it comes from him, he ackowledge our participation). Also, about "security" Paul himself says: "For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing Before the time, until the Lord come..." and "work out your salvation with fear and trembling". We want to follow the Apostle attitude in this matter. I'm curious, where did you see "eternal security" in Augustine (that believes purgatory), what we found in the fathers is a moral assurance of salvation *if* (as Paul say in Romans) we are not cut off from Christ by our sins. For what I know, all the Fathers believe in free will, it is the choice of man to choose God or evil, and that is the will of God, thats why we can talk about an merit for the elect. For RC the "saving faith" is what saint Paul says: faith working through charity (_fides caritate formata_) not the "faith" that even demons have (as saint James says).
Due to the Formula of Concord, we have to be careful to distinguish between Union with Christ (unio fidei formalis), in terms of the foundational marriage union of faith-justification... and the Union with Christ (mystica unio), in terms of the transformative indwelling of divine life/grace. The first is _our_ incorporation/union into Christ (the marriage whereby the gifts are exchanged) the second _Christ's_ incorporation/union into us (the ongoing renewal as a result of our marriage).
Good point! Though it seems like that many of the earlier authors, Gerhard and prior, in especially devotional literature, make the ontological grounding of our righteousness consist in the mystical union between believer and Christ. But you do well in pointing out the importance of distinguishing between our justification and how that comes to be, and its resulting effect, sanctification. I suppose I should have tried to press Wagner a bit more on this and on how his interpretation is compatible with Trent's exposition
@@truthuntogodliness Sure, and like with your example of Gerhard, it doesnt really matter what terms we use as long as it is being made clear that it is not "Christ in us" that justifies, but rather "us in Christ"
Really good stuff guys. I would say i now have a more "charitable" ;) view of Rome's view of justification and on faith formed by charity so thanks Christian for that. In terms of Christian's view that it is presumptuous for us to have assurance of our salvation (in the present sense knowing apostasy is possible in the future) by a fiduciary faith (that trusts, loves, and repents) - how does that contrast with Rome's view that if you commit mortal sin, and give a proper and contrite confession in the sacrament, you then can be sure/assured your sins are forgiven? Is it the mediation of the priest where you receive such infused grace where you go from a state of unjust to just and if you died the second after leaving confession you'd be granted salvation? how does that differ from the Lutheran or prot who by faith examines their conscience daily and repents through prayer (even if committing a mortal sin) and receives Christ's promise? Is the difference from Rome's view that the grace must be received in the sacrament itself, mediated by a priest who has received valid orders?
The distinction is that you can’t be certain that you have the correct dispositions to receive infused grace into your soul. The Absolution is conditional on your proper dispositions and can’t assent that you have truly been forgiven before God without error. So it’s essentially placed into the virtue of hope that one is forgiven not the virtue of faith. Luther would speak about faith holds to the absolution as true Because it’s Gods word. The movement one makes to trust in that absolution is borne out of a contrite heart but one isn’t to depend on just how “contrite” they are in order to truly trust and have assurance that the absolution is true because it is true.
Don't forget though...Trent would still hold you to be anathema if you have any hint of the Lutheran view of justification. It seems that there really can be no spectrum post Trent with regards to justification.
Really good conversation. Unfortunately with the professional apologists, there's an over emphasis on charity at the expense of truth. That wasn't the case here. Well done.
Really good conversation. Can you do a video on the fact none of the few hundred pages of the Book of Concord ever define the Canon of Scripture, and that Concord explicitly says 2nd Maccabees is Scripture?
The Book of Concord discusses the articles of faith which are to be confessed by the believers. The canon of Scripture is not an article of faith but a received tradition. 2nd Maccabees then, as the rest of the Deuterocanon, are part of Scripture and thus properly belonging in our copies of Holy Scripture, yet they are on account of their partial reception by only parts of the church fathers mean that their authority is less than the universally received protocanon (for this concept see for example Augustine's De doctr. christ. 2.8), in technical terms the difference is that we do not erect sedes doctrinæ from them, i.e. establish articles of faith from them, but use them as good and edifying books as well as using them to support already established doctrine. Historically Lutherans have always used and read the deuterocanon extensively. They are used in our liturgies, in our dogmatic text books, in our church ordinances, in our sermons etc. The modern Protestant apathy toward them is quite sad. I plan to make a video soon on the deuterocanon. Kind regards
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.
Jesus Christ teaches if we are angry with others, we shall be liable to judgment! ( Matthew 5:22). Is the angry Christian declared just and not held accountable for his anger on judgment day, or is the angry believer MADE JUST by first removing that anger before being allowed to enter into the beatific vision through cleansing after death? Why shall we each be judged as we have judged others and why shall we be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered, if Jesus Christ was ALREADY judged for us and held accountable for us? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Yet Christ forgives us the fault of not perfectly forgiving our neighbour too. Or are we to imagine that Christ will condemn us if, having left an old feud behind, we shall be condemn on the last time? If we forgive those who trespass against us, as those believers will who are live by faith, then surely Christ shall forgive us also for our imperfect forgiveness and for our forgetfulness.
@@truthuntogodliness as believers we are not condemned, but after death, we shall first have that anger removed through cleansing before entering the beautify vision, rather than being declared righteous, and still angry wpur brother in Heaven, we shall first have that anger removed after sea before entering into the beatific vision! And thus MADE RIGHTEOUS, not simply declared righteous but still the anger remains!Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@truthuntogodliness It didn't answer my questions! You see, Protestants teach we are declared righteous even after we sin. We are only declared righteous upon being baptized, where we have been washed and justified and sanctified! Again, the Christian angry with his brother, after death shall not be declared righteous as is falsely taught, but made righteous, as the anger must first be removed after death, before being allowed to enter into the beatific vision, as we shall each be judged as we have judged others and we shall each be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered, as we must all strive for that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 What did Christ actually do for you? you make a lot of examples of things you must do, but what did Christ's death and Resurrection actually accomplish for you? it seems as though Rome said it takes a free gift and turns it on its head. it's like giving someone a free car, but then charging them monthly payments. it's actually not a free car at all.
As a former Confessional LCMS Lutheran, I can honestly say it was a deep dive into the topic of justification that lead me to the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran, I had been taught many things about the Catholic Church that ended up simply not being true. I also found out that many of the key ideas for the Lutheran approach to justification were simply not found in the Church before the Reformation. Conversely, you can find ample historical evidence of the Catholic view of justification through out the different eras of the Church.
I strongly recommend any Protestants to take the time and learn more about what Catholics actually teach about justification (from Catholic sources!), because you are likely to find it is not what you think they teach. One common misconception in particular, is that Catholics are pelagians or semipelagians. They are in no way shape or form either, and have many Church documents and councils that condemn these positions.
After my research, I now think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories:
1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics).
2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics).
3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis)
4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes.
**I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy**. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace".
Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification:
Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum (italics added).
*Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186*
The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external.
In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126*
These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127*
The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on .
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127*
In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct.
Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135*
I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him.
"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186)
God bless!
I've seen you've made a couple of quite extensive and packed comments here, especially regarding justification! Thanks for the engagement. It would be a lot of work to reply to all of this in writing, so if you'd want I'd gladly invite you on for a friendly discussion of some of the points you brought up if you're interested? You seem to be quite in the know on this topic so I think it might be fruitful :)
God bless
Very impressed by your both of your's breadth of knowledge. Militant Thomist you did a fantastic job of connecting very complicated issues in a very understandable way. Kudos!
I think at 1:12:10 the point was brought up that Lutherans might hold to a type of faith formed by charity. The problem is that Lutherans are not at all clear on what it means to have a dead vs. living faith. They even end up even contradicting each other in these areas because they are trying to fit a square peg (imputed righteousness/sola fide) into a round hole (the necessity of good works/living faith). I think this obviously clear around the Protestant idea of the assurance of salvation. I am very glad to hear that you both made the immediate connection as well!
A common objection I hear Protestants make is Catholics not being able to have absolute assurance of their salvation. I have heard many Protestants say they couldn't be Catholic because of this. In my studies as a former Confessional Lutheran, I have struggled to understand how any Protestant can claim to have absolute assurance of salvation either.
It seems to me that to maintain an absolute assurance of salvation, one has to believe in 1) sola fide and 2) antinomianism (that no sin can cause one with faith to lose their salvation, even, according to Luther, murder or adultery). And yet, most Protestants will adamantly deny their view entails antinomianism.
First, it seems the Bible is clear that there are sins that can lead to spiritual death (1 John 5:16-17, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-32, James 2:14-26, etc.)
In my research (mostly Lutherans), I have only found 2 usual ways that Classical Protestants reconciled their faith alone view of salvation with the possibility of grave sin.
1. No sin can remove our justification as long as we have faith. Antinomianism is true and the only mortal sin is apostasy. (Luther and Chemnitz)
“Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone." (Luther, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church)
2. It is physically impossible for those who are saved to mortally sin. Those with a living faith will not mortally sin, those with a dead faith may. (Melanchthon)
“Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV, 115; cf. Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article III)
On 1, the assurance of salvation is maintained as faith covers everything absolutely but we deny vast sections of the Bible's teachings on necessity of not committing grave sins after justification (1 John 5:16-17, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-32, James 2:14-26, etc.). Also, note that I fully realize Luther would adamantly deny he was an antinomian but I would argue his statements on the matter are not logically consistent.
On 2, there is no assurance of salvation because one can be mistaken if they have a living or a dead faith (James 2:14-26). You would seemingly have to look at your own works for evidence of having a living faith or not. But, since sin can cloud our judgment (Psalm 36), you could easily be mistaken about having a living faith and blind yourself to the fact you may be committing mortal/grave sins, for example a church-going alcoholic or adulterer.
This seems to necessitate the conclusion that the assurance of salvation on the sola fide view requires antinomianism to be true despite the countless Bible verses that speak of grave sins and our not committing them being a condition of maintaining our justification/salvation. If we deny antinomianism, it then seems to necessitate the conclusion that one cannot have absolute assurance of salvation due to the living/dead faith distinction and sin's ability to cloud our own judgment as to whether we are committing grave sins and have a truly living faith.
On the other hand, if you admit that some sins can cause one to lose salvation until they repent and return to a living faith/state of grace (e.g. church-going alcoholic or someone living in adultery), it seems to me that you have undercut the traditional sola fide view and are teaching the Catholic view of faith; that faith is the root of justification (sanctifying grace received through faith) but our obedience to our gift of justification is also a condition of final salvation (John 14:15, Matthew 5:48, John 14:23-24, Galatians 6:8 , 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Matt 7:21-23, John 15:10,14, Roman 8:12-13, Romans 12:1-2 ) and we will be judged by our deeds (Mt 25:31-46, Mt 7:21-23, Rm 2:6-11, Rev 20:11-15, Rev 2:23, Jm 2:24-26, Rm 2:13, 2 Cor 5:10, Mt. 16:27).
I would very much like to hear a robust Protestant defense of the assurance of salvation as it continues to confuse me as to why Protestants claim this is a vital doctrine when I don't see how it can logically or biblically work. It truly seems that while Protestants want to affirm sanctification after justification, they don't want to go so far as put requirements for sanctification as part of keeping our salvation.
God bless!
I've seen you've made a couple of quite extensive and packed comments here, especially regarding justification! Thanks for the engagement. It would be a lot of work to reply to all of this in writing, so if you'd want I'd gladly invite you on for a friendly discussion of some of the points you brought up if you're interested? You seem to be quite in the know on this topic so I think it might be fruitful :)
God bless
Beautiful conversation! Two brilliant minds who really know their stuff having a friendly very high level philosophical and theological discussion, while still managing to include the layman by repeatedly clarifying terms that may be more obscure to the uninitiated. Very good job Mikkel! Thanks so much to Christian for coming over and having this discussion! God bless you and keep you all!
TUG and MT on justification: 😑😑
TUG and MT on having large intros: 🤝🏻
Hahahaha that's great
I think the part of this conversation where the discussion was around growth in holiness (30:00) shows one of the key rubber meets the road differences between Lutherans and Catholics. Because Lutherans see justification through the imputational model, there is no necessity to increase in holiness after justification. Sure, Lutherans will talk about sanctification and how an increase in sanctification is a byproduct of justification and evidence of one's justification. They can't go as far to say that growth in holiness is necessary in and of itself for the Christian and not doing so could lead to Jesus saying to them:
Mat. 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Lutherans would generally say that one could only lose their salvation if faith is also lost, and thus they lose the imputed righteousness of Christ.
Here are many famous Luther quotes along the lines of the only mortal sin being apostasy.
3.8See, how rich therefore is a Christian, the one who is baptised! Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins - so long as the faith in God's promise made in baptism returns or remains -all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself. If only you confess Him and cling believing to Him that promises. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction - along with all those carefully thought out exercises of men - if you turn your attention to them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is done without faith in the truth of God, is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit.
Luther, Martin. A PRELUDE BY MARTIN LUTHER ON THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH.
"If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner
[LW 48:281-282].
This just simply flies in the face of everything that Jesus teaches us in scripture and the other apostles (John 14:15, Matthew 5:48, John 14:23-24, Galatians 6:8 , 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Matt 7:21-23, John 15:10,14, Roman 8:12-13, Romans 12:1-2 , etc.).
From my experience, this seems to be the prevalent view in modern Protestantism/Lutheranism, though. This just doesn't seem to lead to any kind urgency for Christians to live a life of holiness which the Bible clearly teaches over and over.
On the other hand, for Catholics, this growth in Holiness leading to union with God (beatitude) is the whole point of life and justification. This is the process of theosis or divinization (which I realize some Lutherans have a version of, e.g., Mannermaa) which is the call to cooperate with the life of grace and increase in it through actively striving to live a holy life.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a great section on the universal call to holiness:
2013 “All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity.”65 All are called to holiness: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”66 (915; 2545; 825)
In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ’s gift, so that … doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints.67
2014 Spiritual progress tends toward ever more intimate union with Christ. This union is called “mystical” because it participates in the mystery of Christ through the sacraments-“the holy mysteries”-and, in him, in the mystery of the Holy Trinity. God calls us all to this intimate union with him, even if the special graces or extraordinary signs of this mystical life are granted only to some for the sake of manifesting the gratuitous gift given to all. (774)
2015 The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle.68 Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually lead to living in the peace and joy of the Beatitudes: (407; 2725; 1438)
He who climbs never stops going from beginning to beginning, through beginnings that have no end. He never stops desiring what he already knows.69
2016 The children of our holy mother the Church rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance and the recompense of God their Father for the good works accomplished with his grace in communion with Jesus.70 Keeping the same rule of life, believers share the “blessed hope” of those whom the divine mercy gathers into the “holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”71 (162; 1821; 1274)
64 Rom 8:28-30.
65 LG 40 § 2.
66 Mt 5:48.
67 LG 40 § 2.
68 Cf. 2 Tim 4.
69 St. Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. in Cant. 8: PG 44, 941C.
70 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1576.
71 Rev 21:2.
Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., pp. 488-489). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.
God bless!
I think Roman Catholics and Lutherans can agree in principle on the Missourian notion of (universal) Objective Justification, but the difference lies in how we approach the question of (particular) Subjective Justification... for the Lutheran, faith alone unites us to the objective historia salutis person and work of Christ... and charity flows out of subjective justification, whereas for Roman Catholics, faith, hope and charity are all necessary causes preceding subjective justification (in other words, works not only maintain our union with Christ and the benefits therein, but our works actually cause our union with Christ).
No one denies that Christ secures our salvation fully in time, the debate is over whether our progress in sanctification is a cause of our union with Christ (and the forensic declaration that occurs with it) or whether justification/salvation causes renewal.
//and charity flows out of subjective justification//
Charity is not a fruit of faith but a distinct theological virtue per Romans 5:5.
//works actually cause our union with Christ//
Where are you getting this conclusion from?
@@contrasedevacantism6811 I'm equivocating "works" and "love" as per Protestant theology
@@vngelicath1580 So you are using "works" in place of charity in the first part of the sentence: "and charity flows out of subjective justification,"
while using it in a different sense in the second: "whereas for Roman Catholics, faith, hope and charity are all necessary causes preceding subjective justification".
No competent Catholic would conflate charity as a work, especially preceding justification.
Also, where are you getting your conclusion that "works" cause our union with Christ. Like I said, we do not conceive charity as principally a "work", so the claim that "works" cause our union with Christ is a complete misrepresentation.
How do works cause our union with Christ? Didn't you listen to what Christian was saying?
Aquinas says explicitly we cannot prepare ourselvs for grace, and he says "it is written no man can come to me exept the Father who had sent me draw him,
but if man can prepare himself he would not need to be draw by another, since man cannot prepare himself for grace"
So in what way would our works here cause this union?
A good source to clarify this debate is the article:"Revisiting the Reformation: Aquinas and Luther on Justification" by Lukas Steffensmeier . God bless you guys
Great conversation I appreciate the part where you actually disagreed with eachother
Great conversation. It seems as though Rome has a semantic out for everything though. I mean, they seem to dance around terms and make exceptions, caveats, and the like based upon "what they really mean," whilst anathematizing others based using the same terms. Regarding merit, we know that St. Augustine would certainly consider that every good work we do, even the willing, is of God, as is the faith we have itself. Charity, then, is a gift anyhow. It isn't our own righteousness, but God's, as Augustine states:
"For even our good works, when they are understood to be rather His than ours, are imputed to us that we may enjoy this Sabbath rest. For if we attribute them to ourselves, they shall be servile."
Elsewhere, he states:
"The very reason, indeed, why [Paul] so often declares that righteousness is imputed to us, not out of our works, but our faith, whereas faith rather works through love, is that no man should think that he arrives at faith itself through the merit of his works; for it is faith which is the beginning whence good works first proceed; since (as has already been stated) whatsoever comes not from faith is sin."
I'd also absolutely argue that we have an incredibly strong reason for assurance, as the Fathers certainly speak of. Paul certainly speaks of our assurance of salvation, as does Cyprian, Ambrose, and others.
I also am curious as to how, according to the RC definition of faith (an intellectual assent), a child can actually have saving faith.
I think you'd appreciate my last video too, on the presence of sola fide in the early church fathers, i.e. up until 350 ca. Thanks for your comment
@@truthuntogodliness I saw that one. Excellent material. Keep up the great work.
Augustine is not teaching anything contrary to Catholic dogma. In fact, we affirm that we are justified on the basis of God's righteousness (infused grace), not acquired righteousness. Regarding your question of infants/children, the same question can be posed to Protestants, since trust also requires intellectual assent.
However, to answer your question directly, it is an inhering quality of the soul. For example, when I go to sleep, or if I were in a coma, I would still retain the gift of faith because it is an inhering gift.
The church consider that every good work we do is of God, but God wants to reward us anyway, its his merits, but he gave us an crown nonetheless. (Check John: the vine and the vinedresser, *in him* we can have works that are pleasant to God, even if it comes from him, he ackowledge our participation).
Also, about "security" Paul himself says: "For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing Before the time, until the Lord come..." and "work out your salvation with fear and trembling".
We want to follow the Apostle attitude in this matter.
I'm curious, where did you see "eternal security" in Augustine (that believes purgatory), what we found in the fathers is a moral assurance of salvation *if* (as Paul say in Romans) we are not cut off from Christ by our sins. For what I know, all the Fathers believe in free will, it is the choice of man to choose God or evil, and that is the will of God, thats why we can talk about an merit for the elect.
For RC the "saving faith" is what saint Paul says: faith working through charity (_fides caritate formata_) not the "faith" that even demons have (as saint James says).
Due to the Formula of Concord, we have to be careful to distinguish between Union with Christ (unio fidei formalis), in terms of the foundational marriage union of faith-justification... and the Union with Christ (mystica unio), in terms of the transformative indwelling of divine life/grace.
The first is _our_ incorporation/union into Christ (the marriage whereby the gifts are exchanged) the second _Christ's_ incorporation/union into us (the ongoing renewal as a result of our marriage).
Good point! Though it seems like that many of the earlier authors, Gerhard and prior, in especially devotional literature, make the ontological grounding of our righteousness consist in the mystical union between believer and Christ. But you do well in pointing out the importance of distinguishing between our justification and how that comes to be, and its resulting effect, sanctification. I suppose I should have tried to press Wagner a bit more on this and on how his interpretation is compatible with Trent's exposition
@@truthuntogodliness Sure, and like with your example of Gerhard, it doesnt really matter what terms we use as long as it is being made clear that it is not "Christ in us" that justifies, but rather "us in Christ"
Really good stuff guys. I would say i now have a more "charitable" ;) view of Rome's view of justification and on faith formed by charity so thanks Christian for that. In terms of Christian's view that it is presumptuous for us to have assurance of our salvation (in the present sense knowing apostasy is possible in the future) by a fiduciary faith (that trusts, loves, and repents) - how does that contrast with Rome's view that if you commit mortal sin, and give a proper and contrite confession in the sacrament, you then can be sure/assured your sins are forgiven? Is it the mediation of the priest where you receive such infused grace where you go from a state of unjust to just and if you died the second after leaving confession you'd be granted salvation? how does that differ from the Lutheran or prot who by faith examines their conscience daily and repents through prayer (even if committing a mortal sin) and receives Christ's promise? Is the difference from Rome's view that the grace must be received in the sacrament itself, mediated by a priest who has received valid orders?
The distinction is that you can’t be certain that you have the correct dispositions to receive infused grace into your soul. The Absolution is conditional on your proper dispositions and can’t assent that you have truly been forgiven before God without error. So it’s essentially placed into the virtue of hope that one is forgiven not the virtue of faith. Luther would speak about faith holds to the absolution as true Because it’s Gods word. The movement one makes to trust in that absolution is borne out of a contrite heart but one isn’t to depend on just how “contrite” they are in order to truly trust and have assurance that the absolution is true because it is true.
Don't forget though...Trent would still hold you to be anathema if you have any hint of the Lutheran view of justification. It seems that there really can be no spectrum post Trent with regards to justification.
@@tonyn2101 That's a great reply. Thanks for sharing that. I think this adequately summarizes the difference
Really good conversation. Unfortunately with the professional apologists, there's an over emphasis on charity at the expense of truth. That wasn't the case here. Well done.
By "professional" apologist are you referring to Christian B. Wagner or?
@@truthuntogodliness no. Guys like Jimmy Akin and Ortlund.
Really good conversation. Can you do a video on the fact none of the few hundred pages of the Book of Concord ever define the Canon of Scripture, and that Concord explicitly says 2nd Maccabees is Scripture?
The Book of Concord discusses the articles of faith which are to be confessed by the believers. The canon of Scripture is not an article of faith but a received tradition. 2nd Maccabees then, as the rest of the Deuterocanon, are part of Scripture and thus properly belonging in our copies of Holy Scripture, yet they are on account of their partial reception by only parts of the church fathers mean that their authority is less than the universally received protocanon (for this concept see for example Augustine's De doctr. christ. 2.8), in technical terms the difference is that we do not erect sedes doctrinæ from them, i.e. establish articles of faith from them, but use them as good and edifying books as well as using them to support already established doctrine.
Historically Lutherans have always used and read the deuterocanon extensively. They are used in our liturgies, in our dogmatic text books, in our church ordinances, in our sermons etc. The modern Protestant apathy toward them is quite sad. I plan to make a video soon on the deuterocanon.
Kind regards
One more subscriber! :)
Also: one more subscriber! :)
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.
I will say, that one essay the really patriotic guy in the 1930s liked may be a bit harsh.
@RaymondSaint yep
Jesus Christ teaches if we are angry with others, we shall be liable to judgment! ( Matthew 5:22). Is the angry Christian declared just and not held accountable for his anger on judgment day, or is the angry believer MADE JUST by first removing that anger before being allowed to enter into the beatific vision through cleansing after death? Why shall we each be judged as we have judged others and why shall we be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered, if Jesus Christ was ALREADY judged for us and held accountable for us? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Yet Christ forgives us the fault of not perfectly forgiving our neighbour too. Or are we to imagine that Christ will condemn us if, having left an old feud behind, we shall be condemn on the last time? If we forgive those who trespass against us, as those believers will who are live by faith, then surely Christ shall forgive us also for our imperfect forgiveness and for our forgetfulness.
@@truthuntogodliness as believers we are not condemned, but after death, we shall first have that anger removed through cleansing before entering the beautify vision, rather than being declared righteous, and still angry wpur brother in Heaven, we shall first have that anger removed after sea before entering into the beatific vision! And thus MADE RIGHTEOUS, not simply declared righteous but still the anger remains!Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 I think this is one will answer most of your questions :)
ua-cam.com/video/LF_crdJAhuQ/v-deo.html&t
@@truthuntogodliness It didn't answer my questions! You see, Protestants teach we are declared righteous even after we sin. We are only declared righteous upon being baptized, where we have been washed and justified and sanctified!
Again, the Christian angry with his brother, after death shall not be declared righteous as is falsely taught, but made righteous, as the anger must first be removed after death, before being allowed to enter into the beatific vision, as we shall each be judged as we have judged others and we shall each be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered, as we must all strive for that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 What did Christ actually do for you? you make a lot of examples of things you must do, but what did Christ's death and Resurrection actually accomplish for you? it seems as though Rome said it takes a free gift and turns it on its head. it's like giving someone a free car, but then charging them monthly payments. it's actually not a free car at all.