Excellent episode, it was great to see Fr. John Whiteford. It was very respectful and just a tiny bit heated which was great. I have an Orthodox bias, but everyone I thought was good faith. I hope you have more Orthodox guys come on!!
@FaithUnaltered Fr. You need to have a TRUE Orthodox Christian playlist/discussion list as well - collaborate with NFTU Voices from the Underground and start with NFTU host Father Joseph Suaidan who has taken part in discussions on TRUE Orthodox Christianity and Orthodox Christianity which includes a long section on how the True Orthodox (Father Joseph Suaidan) (traditionalist, persecuted since the 1917 Russian Revolutions (both of them, then extended following Constantinople's 1920 encyclical to Greece, Cyprus and Romania in the 1920s especially with violent imposition of the New Calendar, resisted by the traditionalist True Orthodox Christians, all of whom reject it) against modernism including co-worship with the heterodox and communion with them and other manifestations of "ecumenism" such as the branch theory of the church normally accompanied by membership of and/or some or all of the previous with the World Council of Churches and/or some or all of the previous with even non-Christian religions including those which explicitly reject the holiness of Christ and Christianity as opposed to "World Orthodox", whom you and many others refer to as "Eastern Orthodox" (such as Fr. John Whiteford, who, along with most of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) unified with and submitted to the Ecumenist Sergianist Soviet and Russian successor state recognised "Russian Orthodox Church" in 2007 in a formal union). The Russian state, along with all the officially Orthodox countries and others (including all officially Communist and/or Muslim and Jewish countries and other authorities such as the Palestinian Authority) continues to persecute True Orthodox Christians who constitute up to 12% of the Orthodox Christian population. In Romania from about 10% of the population in the 1920s, due largely to a very high birth rate in contrast to the rest of the population, True Orthodox Christians have now reached 30% of the population and whole villages have remained True Orthodox. If these trends continue then within a generation or two the majority of the Romanian population will be TRUE Orthodox Christian, thus reversing the violently imposed New Calendarist "Orthodoxy" forced on Romania in 1924.
I think the big, massive missing piece that stands out to me that ALWAYS makes this conversation unfruitful is that Orthodox and Reformed have different ideas of salvation. Their idea presupposes that salvation is being "good enough" in God's eyes and in the books of crimes that He keeps. Whereas for Orthodox salvation is about being truly like God so we can be united with Him. And thus we continue to talk right past each other because when we're saying works justify us, they're still thinking in terms of works make us good enough. I find the most helpful way to explain it to them is that faith is like when I realize I am "in love" with someone and want to dedicate my life to them, but works of love, even when I don't feel it, ontologically keep the love alive. They don't make me good enough, and it would be unhealthy to a relationship if she kept track of such things. But doing the deeds of faith/love helps form the faith. And if we feel love for our wife, but don't act it out, we see it as shallow childish affection. Likewise, the historical and Orthodox view of what keeps us from God is that we are not like Him. It is not that the God who is love keeps records of wrong (which Scripture says love does not do), but that the wicked deeds we do make our hearts wicked. If I am bitter and unforgiving to my abusive friend, I generally would avoid him. But if I forgive him, yet he is still abusive, he will have the experience of the distance as if he was not forgiven, because what do we have in common? How can we have a true friendship or intimacy? Likewise, what keeps us from God is not His rejection, nor a lack of forgiveness on His part. What keeps us from God is that we would find communion with Him extremely unpleasant. So what role do works play in justification? When we are given faith by God and accept this gift, we act on it and it builds the faith and makes it full. It builds our love for God. These works are laid out by God before Creation, so there's no issue about boasting here unless one is delusional (which would render any truth ineffective). But we must say "yes" to these works as the Theotokos said yes to God, and they will build our bond with Him. Faith comes first, but it dies without works. Works are not proof of salvation, because our view is not that salvation is a guarantee of a good result by signing a verbal contract with God. We don't see salvation simply as something God gives us. Our relationship with God, our view of salvation, is much more personal. Christ IS Salvation. There is no salvation without Him as there is no marriage without my wife. She doesn't give me wife, she doesn't give me marriage, she IS these things to me. Unfortunately, what is going on deep down inside most of Protestantism is that the primary goal isn't friendship with God, it is the catharsis and comfort of a post mortem promise. What I always see, and was shown in the video, is as soon as you suggest works are tied to justification, you hear the rebuttal "but how much is enough?" Why do they want to know that? Because if they don't have an answer, they feel insecure. I can't tell you the number of times I have heard this objection from the Reformed. Of course, I totally understand that they think the only alternative is to live in fear. But for us Orthodox, salvation isn't actually about us. Our faith isn't that God will give us what we want: to go to the good place after death. Our faith is about God and about all of Creation. This means that a person with faith, if theoretically God sent Him to Hell, would say "this must be what's best for everyone else, glory to God in all things." We see this heart in St Paul when he's ready to go to Hell if it will save others. It's a totally different mindset. The encounter we have with Christ as a real divine-human person is what gives us out comfort. It is an ontological reality, a relationship. It is not from a formula of Sola Fide. Our faith is in a person, not a doctrine. It is a faith we should pursue for Him, not for us. In fact, we Orthodox know that NOT having answers is actually very spiritually healthy, whereas having everything in tight knit boxes leads down very bad roads. (I think Beau drives this home more than anyone when he keeps bringing up he's not even sure what the disagreement actually is.)
Love the username btw I’m reading our thoughts determine our lives. I agree & as a Protestant catechumen orthodoxy is so much more holistic/ full vs Protestantisms framework.
Protestant for over 30 years and I am so glad I finally found the Orthodox Church. We struggled for a long time knowing something was very wrong. Once you see the mental gymnastics they have to do to it’s mind blowing.
The Bible was put together by the Eastern Orthodox Church, for the faithful, to be understood within the lens of Orthodoxy. Outside the Church, your understanding cannot be the same, as you are drawing on your own knowledge faculty. The Bible itself says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, written in a time when there was only one Christian Church which was Eastern Orthodox. Without the proper foundation, how can understanding be built, and not be in error?
But in these discussions - I’ve listened to Fr Whiteford on Justification before - I don’t understand why he doesn’t challenge the assumptions of Merit & the definitions of Faith & Justification. It seems he “fights” Protestants on their own erroneous turf. Orthodox don’t believe in salvation by Merit, or Faith as merely interior disposition, or Justification as distinct from Theosis - all of which he undoubtedly teaches.
@traceyedson9652 I don't know, I thought he did well in rebutting thier misconceptions of justification and merit with the orthodox view. He laid out our understanding of faith and works as cooperation with God in theosis clearly but I'll say they were granted a lot of wiggleroom on the grounds of their vernacular so I see what you mean.
Man…I love NOT being a Prot anymore. This great irony wherein “Jesus paid it all” but also you need to be “assured of your salvation” so you OBSESS over your sins. I don’t need “assurance” because I trust in God, His Gospel, and His Church. Simple as.
@@juandoming6688 it is in the church where we enter into communion with God through God's work of baptism, the eucharist, confession. We are nurtured in the church which is the body of Christ.
"Therefore, if it do not appear in our conversation [conduct], the faith we pretend to have is but feigned: because true faith is manifestly shewn by good living, and not by words only: as St. Augustin saith, Good living cannot be separated from true faith, which worketh by love: and St. Chrysostom, Faith is full of good works; and as soon as a man believeth, he shall be adorned with them. How plentiful it is in good works, St. Paul teacheth at large in the 11th chapter to the Hebrews; evidently declaring, that true faith is no unfruitful thing, but a thing of perfect virtue, of wonderful operation and strength, bringing forth all good motions and good works" -John Wesley, in "Of true Christian faith"
John Wesley notes on Galatians 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus - According to the institution which he hath established, according to the tenor of the Christian covenant. Neither circumcision - With the most punctual observance of the law. Nor uncircumcision - With the most exact heathen morality. Availeth anything - Toward present justification or eternal salvation. But FAITH - ALONE; even that faith which worketh by love - All inward and outward holiness.”
Good work today Father. You guys gave a strong case for justification from the scriptures/ consensus of the Father's. Meanwhile our protestant friends seemed more interested in giving us the private interpretation of John Wesley. Nonetheless, great discussion on both sides. ☦️
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 No. He affirms what Protestants affirm: faith alone, as he explicitly says. This (true) faith will work, but that is not the same thing as salvation by faith + works in the EO system. Thousands of Wesleyans agree and disagree with you. Just read his notes on James 2 to further this point. I’m surprised you’re arguing this clear testimony of Wesley’s theology. I even quoted from the 25-articles.
@@methodministries Your quote literally says "FAITH - ALONE; even that faith which worketh by love..." So clearly it is faith that works by love that we alone are saved by.
This was hard to listen to. I commend the patience of Father Whiteford and Mr Branson. I used to be so blind as a Protestant and make the exact same arguments these Prots did. Hearing they do not hear.
@@EnergeticProcession Jiub was speaking of Jay in a joking manner, since that's a common thing people say as to why they don't want to engage with Jay.
The 1:00:00 mark was the nail in the coffin for Lucas. He completely missed the point because he’s blinded by the faith alone mindset above everything else. Sola Fide is really the ultimate argument against Protestantism
Treating justification different in James than in Romans sort of proves the mental gymnastics that are necessary to support the Protestant assertion in my opinion.
To avoid contradiction, you either have to treat "justification" differently between Paul and James (the Protestant approach), or you have to treat "works" differently between Paul and James. That's not mental gymnastics, that's just being faithful to Scripture.
Thats because at the end of the day, James and Paul taught the exact same thing Jas_5:15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick and the Lord will raise him up - and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
I’d bet my house that neither Wesley nor Lucas are left handed. I believe their inability to understand is caused by their left-brain dominant, hyper rational, mode of thinking, combined with a western phronema. It’s the reason Lucas can’t help but asking what works and how many of them does he have to do to be justified. No Orthodox Christian thinks that way. Our works are our faith, repentance, and treating our neighbors as ourselves. This dialogue made it very clear to me that the slogan “faith alone” is so imbedded in the Protestant psyche that it is literally read into every passage of scripture, despite the exact opposite being stated in scripture. This is fascinating from a psychological perspective. The way they try to systematize Christianity as if it were a mathematical equation is a direct byproduct of their thinking. The are simply incapable of not trying to make steps (for lack of a better word) that lead to heaven, i.e., justification, then sanctification, then glorification, etc.The fact that the scriptures (which are written by men possessing an eastern phronema) provide nothing of the sort, and the fact that no Christian in the first 1500 years of the faith thought that way, is immaterial to them. It was a good discussion and everyone behaved as gentlemen, but it proved that the Church is going to need decades, if not centuries, to evangelize the West, particularly the ultra individualism of America.
@@joshuadavidson7985 While left handedness is an objective indicator of right-brain dominance, its absence isn’t determinative of a lack of right-brain function. Of those on the panel, Wes and Lucas were the only ones who exhibited noticeably low right-brain function - that’s why I singled them out. I know it’s not fair to make such an assessment on such a small sampling, but I did see enough to know neither were left handed, if that makes sense.
Lord have mercy. These Protestant guys are having such a hard time. Instead of dealing with what Scripture states they just repeat the last statement, again. 😊
@@mkbr1992 Paul talks about ‘energia’ in the Greek. And when Christ said “who touched me, power left me” the fathers say that’s the grace of God. His Divine Energy
@@petros810 Yes, but the problem is that most modern Protestant churches are far removed from the positions of the reformers. The reformers also had a high value of Mary, which is not present in most churches today. The emphasis is on “getting saved”. That becomes the focus point of a Christian life, not striving to become holy, which is something you reach for daily. In the Protestant community the idea of “works” gets treated like a four letter word.
@@DustyBooks2020I don’t disagree that many (do t know if it is most) prot churches have deviated from reformation That is why I am not even sure the term “Protestant” is helpful because it describe an umbrella of groups. I am Anglican, I find my self distancing myself from other Protestants more and more. I would rather dialogue with EO as an Anglican.
@@petros810 The term "evangelical" is probably more descriptive of this phenomenon nowadays. I was there, too. Even though they pay service to faith working through love and faith without works being dead, in practice, it rarely works that way. What matters is what I see in practice, not what people on the internet say. I also see Anglican/Episcopalian churches appointing female priests and abandoning all traditional morality in favor of modern cultural norms, so it's not like you're off the hook either.
"This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men." Titus 3:8 It is often said by Protestants that our works are like filthy rags. Yet here, Paul says that good works are profitable to men. Not that they in themselves save, but that they aren't disconnected from our salvation which is why faith cannot be demonstrated by just words but action. "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” Romans 1:17 Paul is quoting Habakkuk 2:4 which the Hebrew word for faith is emunah which means faithfulness, fidelity and steadfastness. I often recall in my Protestant days that just meant walking in trust and belief but it's much more than that. Paul seems to be urging the Roman Christians to remain faithful by living a life that is consistently driving us to continued action, in other words, not being stagnant or from faith to faith.
Great job Fr. John Whiteford! The Scriptures do not teach the Reformed doctrine of imputation (Christ meriting a created legal status that is nominally imputed to the Christian through the instrumental cause of initial faith), but rather, they teach that the Christian's faithfulness is counted to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3, 16-25), especially through baptism (Rom 6:1-7, Gal 3:25-29) and the other sacraments, and that we are increasingly made both just and holy simultaneously as we are led to, by the grace of God, co-energize with the divine energy (Phil 2:12-13), such that any righteousness of ours is really a participation in the uncreated righteousness inherent to God (Ps 116:5, Rom 3:21-26).
These protestants are so cringey. It's always "either/or" with them. And it's always so legal. They look and talk like lawyers. It's not either/or protestants, it's both/and.
Unsurprisingly, their founder John Calvin was a literal lawyer. His entire theology was tinged by his anachronistic ivory tower post-Renaissance legalistic myopia. Maybe Calvin could be excused as a product of his time and place, but the fact that his followers treat it as axiomatic that his very particular interpretation is the "plain meaning of Scripture" and you're "rejecting Scripture" if you call the Calvinist interpretation into question, is just endlessly irritating.
@@SinkingStarship one of my favorite quotes goes something like. "If only Blessed Augustine knew Greek better John Calvin may have stayed buried deep in the french penal system never to be heard from."
@@DCWoodWorkingActually Protestants affirm that salvation has both legal and transformative aspects to it. Protestants also Affirmative that both faith and good works are necessary in the Christian life. Many EO tend to reduce salvation to only a transformative process. Also many of them are either/or when it comes to the church. They alone are church of Christ, all non orthodox are not the church; sola orthodoxia. (ok, I just made that Latin up).
@@SinkingStarshipJohn Calvin founder? Really? Lutherans are not Calvinist. Methodists and most baptist are not Calvinist. Most Anglicans are not Calvinist.
Given the amount of educational institutions established by Protestant christianity, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more Protestant Christians that understand biblical Greek than Orthodox. Just because a 5-year-old can read Greek are you going to let them give you hermeneutics?
As one who has studied Wesley's theology and Patristics formally at the graduate level, I think the term "justification" takes on a broader sense in Orthodoxy to include not only--to use Wesley's terms--a "relative change" (positional righteousness) but also a "real change," what Wesleyans would call "regeneration." That is to say, most Protestants, including Wesleyans, reduce justification to the "relative change" only, whereas Eastern Orthodox would say that justification is a catchall for not only positional righteousness but also the interior work of regeneration. Thus, the Orthodox would say that Wesley, although very close to the Greek patristic view, tends to be reductionistic in his view of justification, since he is following the Reformers on this note. That is, the Orthodox are more holistic--Justification is both imputed AND imparted. A declarative word from God is a speech-act: the declaration makes it an ontological reality. I'm surprised the these Wesleyans will revert to classical Reformed arguments on Pauline justification rather than understanding Paul's "interlocutor," which underscores that the NPP is a better context to read Paul than what these two boys are doing. Btw, Lucas doesn't know how to debate and he only has a cursory knowledge of Wesley, and he comes across as a pseudo-intellectual. Whiteford seems to know Wesley better, and Wesleyan theologian Randy Maddox's book "Responsible Grace" underscores how Lucas's view of Wesleyan theology is truncated. And he has no understanding of Orthodox soteriology. Lots of building straw men. As far as Luther, a whole theological system should not be built on a person who is having a crisis of consciousness in faith. Lastly, the Epistle of James is framed by the notion of a favorable eschatological verdict at the Last Judgment, which coheres with his notion of Justification by Faith and Works.
At min 59 and following Lucas gets so tripped up in his Sola Fide doctrine to the point where he seems unable to affirm that the Lord calls us to “bear the fruits of repentance” as Fr JW keeps saying. The Lord spoke plainly and said “those who have ears to hear let them hear.” His two great commandments are to love God and neighbor as self. What is love? He told us and He showed us and still is showing us every day. And He calls us to do likewise. In Orthodoxy I’m taught not to parse His teaching like a lawyer, but to do it, and to trust in the Lord’s mercy. Meanwhile, should I be living in fear that God will punish me if I don’t measure up? Of course not. He is merciful. He is with me and helps me at every step of the way. Does that mean I shouldn’t do my best to love God and neighbor? Of course not. The Lord commands it
The Method Ministries guys handled themselves very well here. Their first couple of videos had such a strident and dismissive tone that they made me (a Protestant) pretty irritated, but they seemed more respectful and moderated when they had a dialogue partner. I’d love to see more of them on the channel 😊
@@arnoldvezbon6131 absolutely! 😊 I also think they made very poor arguments and showed themselves to be poorly informed about EO beliefs, even though I ultimately agree with many of their conclusions.
@@maximustheconfessor72yeah it’s definitely still a factor. Though at least in this discussion (as opposed to their solo videos) it was more an issue of tone than of content. It may be a side-effect of one of them being a Reformed Baptist. James White has had such a huge influence on that groups apologetics that they seem to equate condescension with being resolute/convinced. There absolutely is a way to disagree respectfully and emphatically without condescending. 🤷♂️
The whole exchange starting at 34:30 or so is wild. Lucas’ interpretation totally flies in the face of the text and Fr. John’s point. Fr. John clearly has the stronger interpretation, and Lucas seems to be arguing a point that but comes to a conclusion that is hard to arrive at. Put another way, I’d use his argument to argue against his point.
Father Stephen De Young would be a great asset to this discussion. His insight to this topic is unrivaled. He was also a pastor in the reformed church prior to entering Orthodoxy
Faith working in love is literally faith plus works. These protestant guys have such a strong need for dialectical tension and turning salvation into a math equation that they will declare faith working in love, and then in the very next breath wlll deny their own position. It is insane.
It is crazy that all Protestants, who profess sola scriptura, also cling to an anti-biblical doctrine of sola fide. James 2 explicitly rejects sola fide. Paul condemns works of the law - not all works. Galatians 5:6 Paul says “faith working through love.” Case closed.
For all its promise of assurance, it is rhe Protestants in this debate who anxiously press Fr Whiteford for details on exactly what works justify, and who speculate over how much corn is too much corn. Despite believing there are thjngs rhey need to do, Fr Whiteford and Dr Branson seem much more calm and assured.
In the Bible itself there are clear examples of people falling away from the Faith through their bad deeds, such as Judas who betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver. Judas's Faith alone, which had been correct, was not sufficient, therefore to save him. Had he repented rather than despaired, even after betraying Christ, then he could have been saved. Therefore even if one confines oneself to Sola Scriptura, and please also see Fr. John Whiteford's comments, on any reasonable reading, salvation is impossible without both true Faith and good Works.
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. I agree People(Unbelievers) fell away from God Proving they never believed on God by Faith on Jesus Christ, NO works of Man is required for Justification. The only condition is Faith in the Finished WORK of Jesus Christ, believe the Gospel Romans 3, 1 Cor 15:1-4
@@hudsontd7778 It is clear that, for example, as stated at roughly 1:31:00 -1:32:00, inter alia, that, as Paul points out, no-one can get to heaven if they don´t repent of certain sins, including those linked to sexual immorality. Deeds matter therefore and thus faith without the WORKS of abstaining from or repenting of these deeds is essential. Thus Faith and WORKS beyond the work of FAITH itself, are BOTH required as all true faithful Orthodox Christians believe.
This is where Protestants have had to create extra-biblical doctrine such as the invisible church and secret election, which are accretions, just to hold the spiritually deluded claims produced by Sola Scriptura. Faith alone is armchair Christianity. They want assurance of salvation. The martyrs, confessors, and ascetics attest that the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. Salvation is a battle - a battle against sins and passions, against our fallen state, against for powers of darkness and the evil one. The only assurance is for the one who perseveres to the end. It’s abominable that the Protestants would lead people to be so woefully unprepared for spiritual warfare and walking the narrow path.
Works doesn’t make us righteous compared to the Lord, but our works are how we’ll be judged nonetheless (Romans 2:6). It’s our works they show the surety of our faith, that we are participating in God’s love and divine will.
Point of fact. Saint Paul was writing the letter to the Romans because the Jewish Christians were returning to Rome after being expelled by the emperor. He wanted to make sure competing Gentile and Jewish churches didn’t arise.
Even that's not a disagreement IMO if the terms are indeed agreed upon. A work is an act. Protestants don't have the metaphysical framework to understand that Acts(energies) are distinct but inseparable from Nature(essence). You *need* works in to be saved in the sense that putting your faith in God is in itself an act. Confessing with your mind, soul, and mouth the Nicene Creed, entering into the Baptismal fount, are both good, saving works.
@@AwesomeWholesome As a Protestant, I agree that works save, but do not justify the same way Orthodox say it justifies. The emphasis a Protestant makes is that the sole instrument of justification is faith. However, works NEED to be tied to faith and justification if we are to remain biblical. Hence, works show up in other areas of salvation (e.g progressive sanctification).
@@AwesomeWholesomeFaith is not our work, but God’s. St. Paul is very clear that faith and good works are antithetical to each others as means of salvation eph2:8-9
“Justified” does NOT mean “declared righteous”! Nobody thinks that sanctification is a declaration of being holy, so why should we think that justification is a declaration of being just? Both words indicate a process, a direction of change. Most of the time Paul is using justification as the act of setting something right that was wrong. This is due to faith "ek pistis" - out from faith, a product of faith. It is a functional faith that influences how we think, reason, feel, and act. It is in that sense that we are justified by faith, set right by faith. The Greek word “dikaioō” (Strongs #1344) should be more accurately translated as “set right,” “rectified,” or “corrected,” as it is a CHANGE from wrong to right, whether in our minds or in other ways, like justifying a line of text or a crooked picture that is set right. Belief in Jesus sets us right, corrects us, rectifies us. For example... Galatians 2:17 "But if, in our ENDEAVOR to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners..." 2 Thessalonians 2:13, "God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, THROUGH sanctification..." Romans 6:19, "present your members as slaves to righteousness [dikaiosynē] LEADING to sanctification." Romans 6:20 “For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness [dikaiosynē].” 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 “Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified [set right, Gr. edikaiōthētet] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” The word translated as “justified” is being used as a synonym for being sanctified and washed clean. Romans 4:25-5:1 “Who was delivered up for [Gr. dia, through] our trespasses and raised for our justification [dikaiōsin/correction]. Therefore, since we have been justified [dikaiōthentes/set right] through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 4:25-5:1 says that Jesus died through our sin and he was raised to correct, to rectify (or justify, if you prefer) us. We are not merely declared righteousness, but rather we become righteous because of his resurrection and that due to having been set right we are able to obtain peace with God. This means that the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus motivated us to live lives pleasing to God. It is our “having been set right [dikaiōthentes] therefore [oun] out of [ek] faith [pisteōs]” that “we have peace with God.” It is not God declaring us right and then we find peace, but rather us first setting something right that was previously wrong which enables us to have peace with God as a byproduct, the result.
So refreshing to listen to the gracious respectful and productive discussion between Christians who disagree on theology. Thank you men for wonderful input. Wesley, around 2:13 you nailed regarding the context of Hebrews 10:25-27. “As you see the Day drawing near” (vs.25). The context is referring to a literal judgement of ethnic Israel that came to pass in 70 AD as was predicted over and over in the OT, such as Deut. 32:35, which the author of Hebrews cites in 10:30. I’m guessing you are a partial preterist.
“Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” - Philippians 2:12
Also it's really odd that he keeps saying "Wesleyans and Calvinists are under the same umbrella of Protestants, we are brothers in arms" when historically Protestants slaughtered each other over differences in beliefs.
Also the whole "God says you are righteous by depositing Godcoin into your heavenly Bitcoin wallet" requires a God that lies. You aren't actually metaphysically changed, God is declaring you as righteous when you aren't otherwise. It makes God speak a falsehood.
The Catholic Church killed as many as they could before the split and most that ditch their catholic beliefs just wanted to live in peace, but any that held on to their Priesthood like John Calvin, did kill a bunch over different beliefs.
Protestants believe that James is talking about sanctification, not justification. But James uses the word “justified.” He is clear that we are not “justified” (or saved) by faith alone.
Ha! At least the Orthodox have rituals just like the Apostles. We do not believe however that the rituals themselves save us. The Mysteries and Divine Services of the Holy Orthodox Church help us to align ourselves with God’s will and deepen our faith. There are surely secret sinners that do every outward act in the Church that will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Salvation is reaped through repentance, which is the work that each of us must do to have a relationship with Jesus. The Orthodox value relationship with God over forensic legalistic adjudication. It’s like Prots think that they can bind God into granting salvation through building a case based on a minimum standard that anyone can achieve with the least possible effort.
Here's a thought: God saves us...Halleluiah! Now what are we going to **do** about it? Even Fr. Alexander Schmemann lamented about the overt "obsession" with salvation. The same people who celebrate their salvation by faith alone are the most anxious, and have to keep talking and talking and talking about it. It's tiring!
Quick note, Wesley Todd is incorrect about Luther; Luther believed you did need the sacraments as he taught baptism saves, he also believed in a physical presence in the Eucharist and also many Lutheran churches practice the sacrament of confession
Lutheran churches confession is not a necessity its for those who want it mostly because they are struggling with doubt If it is required mostly for the youth they can read a generic confession. Also baptism saves but not absolutely necessary like the thief on the cross. Both baptism and the eucharist are works of God
@@Lizzie236 Thief on the cross lived and died in the OT times. How can you use him as an excuse when during his times Baptism was not yet in force.? Chronologically, commandment "go and Baptize" was given much later.
@johnnyd2383 the question is baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. The thief on the cross and your old testament jews wasn't baptised therefore it's not absolutely necessary for salvation. Your point is those are different circumstances so it doesn't prove anything. Yet your point proves the point that there are different circumstances that is dependent on God. In other words if someone just started going to church but hasn't been baptised yet they die in a car accident are they saved? Well that is also a different circumstance.
@@Lizzie236 Baptism as a requirement did not exist in OT times. It was circumcision. In NT times it is (Mark 16, 16) while circumcision is not. Anything unclear.?
These gentlemen need to watch Perry Robinson’s refutation of Anthony Rodgers on Shamounian. Justification by Faith Alone did not exist for 1500 years after Christ and there’s not even room for doubt
I'm not sure why Protestants are so insistent on having an "assurance of salvation"? Its the very fact that such a thing doesn't exist the forces us to seek Christ everyday.
@@hasselnttper3730 because those who are saved are being conformed by God into the image of his son. Part of being conformed into the image of his son includes acting like him. This requires both an intentional act of God and an intentional act of the saved individual. Secondly, once someone who is saved becomes saved, they have a heart of stone removed and are given a heart of flesh, they are also raised to spiritual life. Therefore a saved individual won’t desire to “retire and never go to church again” because their will and desire have been changed by God. Christian are new creatures in Chris Jesus. It’s as inane as asking “I transformed my apple tree into an orange tree, why doesn’t it just retire and grow apples again?” That’s why Jesus tells us, by their fruits you shall know them. The plant (us) doesn’t determine the fruits we produce and therefore change what type of plant we are, instead what type of plant we are determines what type of fruit we produce.
@@christopherneedham9584 I deleted my comment after I realized it was stoopid, but your reply also doesn't hold water in my opinion. I like the first part of your reply, it almost sounds like you're describing theosis (if the intentional act(s) you're talking about is more than just faith). It's the second part that I have problems with if you're coming at it from a protestant perspective that faith alone is enough. Here are my thoughts, though they may be retarded. I'm still learning every day: 1. We obviously have free will, so you can in fact decide to abandon your faith, thus changing what type of plant you are. 2. Additionally, it seems to me like you would have to argue "well, he never actually believed", or "he was never actually saved anyways" whenever someone abandons the faith. That's similar to what some muslims say whenever a muslim leaves islam, that "no one has ever left islam, so he wasn't real muslim to begin with". 3. If someone claims to have faith and thus salvation, but they still act like someone with a heart of stone (like most people including most protestants), wouldn't that refute this notion that faith is enough to have this transformation done? edit: And that's why salvation is a process called theosis, not an instant transformation the moment you believe or profess your belief.
@@hasselnttper3730 I will respond to your points. 1. I don’t think we have free will depending on what you mean by that. No, we cannot “choose to lose our salvation “. Jesus says in John 6 that “all the father has given to me will come to me and I will lose none of them” this refers to the covenant of redemption that God the father made with God the son before the world was even created. Those who will be saved are the ones whom God the Father gave Jesus, and those same people are the ones who Jesus will raise on the last day. Also John 6. 2. I do argue that if someone leaves the faith that “they never really were saved”. Jesus comes to give eternal life, and he doesn’t give someone eternal life and then take it away. So all whom are saved have eternal life (which is how Jesus talked about salvation) and those who aren’t saved do not. Furthermore, that’s how John talks about those who leave the church. “They went out from us because they were not of us”. He doesn’t say that they were once part of us and then left to become no longer part of us. But rather they left because they were never part of us. The same is found in Matthew 7, where someone says “Lord Lord, in your name I have cast our devils and done many mighty works, and God says’ depart from me for I never knew you” God does not say “I knew you once and forgot you” he says “I never knew you” this is presumably someone who dies believing they are saved and are doing good works in the name of Jesus. Whether or not a Muslim argues the same is irrelevant. 3. I don’t see how that would be refuted. Someone claiming faith doesn’t mean they have faith. That’s the whole point of James. Those who claim to have faith but don’t have works have a dead faith. Or a worthless faith that accomplishes nothing. Jesus says “by their fruits you shall know them”. That means if someone claims faith but they consistently over time demonstrate that they have only a dead faith, you will know that they are not saved. A real and living faith produces works in the life of that person who has it.
What really frustrates me about these discussions that people just equivocate "works of the law" that Paul uses and "works" that James uses. I would say that there is a distinction. Paul is pushing back against judaizers and James is clarifying that works _of faith_ are salvific. Faith without works is dead. Works without faith are dead. You cannot have one without the other. Hence, _sola_ fide cannot be right. I do not know why works in general get such a bad reputation when Jesus spoke so often of doing good works. And before someone gets at me at says that the sacraments are "works of the law", they are the work of God. Humans add nothing to the sacrament. The sole "worker" in the sacraments is the one true God.
@TheMhouk2 Then the rest of us just need to confess Christ for salvation. Works are a result of our conversion, not a . As evidenced by the thief on the cross and many other scriptures, such as "not through works so no man may boast," clearly we are not saved by works. If you look past the denominational dogma and just read the New Testament, it is plainly spelled out.
@@dianehall1422 Next time you find yourself on a cross next to the God-man you can receive your pardon similarly. Your argument is the same as defending abortion by using uncommon exceptions. You and I must follow the normative path of salvation.
Wesley - "Justification is forensic and legal" **sigh** NO. Listen to any Christian in the first millennia and they will tell you this is completely outside the point.
Hence they’re not valid churches, disconnected. But that’s a hard pill to swallow unfortunately. They have some truth & biases to over come to the fullness of how it’s been understood.
I'm halfway through, but currently I see the main issues are underlying disagreement on whether justification is legal and forensic or not.. It's frustrating because without ironing out this presupposition I cant see this going anywhere and each side just reassert their own positions. From my understanding, the legal, forensic position would typically require Christ to be in some way damned on the cross, which would destroy the entire position.
To put it simply, Scripture sometimes uses legal metaphors as an analogy to describe Christ's redemptive work; one facet of a multi-faceted gem, so to speak. But early modern scholastic lawyers like Calvin seized upon these metaphors and read their anachronistic presuppositions back into Scripture to build a theology completely alien to all that preceded it. It's a classic example of missing the forest for the trees.
When you look at the Greek language itself you are able to see that belief is an action word it is something you do. For instance if I am to say “The Cook” it is «Ο μάγειρος» but if I say “I am cooking” or “I cook” then it is «Μαγειρεύω». One is the title or a confession of what one does. The word for faith in Greek is «Πίστης» and this is the root word used when we say belief or “I believe” which is «Πιστεύω». Belief is a work… something you do…. Like Father John says.
1:23:15 "... if you view pornography daily ..." If daily is too much, how frequently may a man view pornography before it becomes troubling for his "assurance of salvation"? This is where the conversation always comes around to, the Protestant doctrine on Justification is itself a conceasion that the Protestant church cannot produce people who are "dead to sin and slaves to righteousness." The only question in each conversation is where each pastor or denomination draws their line, but its certainly short of "your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees" and "be holy, for I am holy."
I just can’t get over the fact that the Protestant doctrines were not present in the beginning of the Church. That’s a larger witness to proper interpretation of scripture to me. In Protestantism, Christianity is essentially a dead religion that needs to be reconstructed from the text ONLY which is how we’ve gotten to the many, many schisms. Why is there such a hard headedness towards what the early church actually believed ?
@@MonsieurRobotic I mean….the 5 Solas are fairly dogmatic across the board, but whatever you want to call them, they were not present in the early church. Protestantism essentially claims to be reviving a lost religion with no connection to the past except a hand full of letters and an Old Testament they don’t think is valid anymore.
@@Hezron389 Of course they weren't present in the early church. The entire point is folks made a determination/interpretation that was different from the original church. If they made a different determination why would it be present with the early church? Protestantism doesn't claim anything because it is an umbrella term for many different denominations that have different interpretations of Christianity. I'm BiC and I certainly don't claim I'm reviving a lost religion or that it has no connection to the past. Sure, there are some different interpretations but I think most Christian denominations largely agree on the core factors.
Not that I think I could articulate well enough to convince methodministries, but it seems that the contention is whether pistis is better translated faith (assumed devoid of works) and faithfulness. If faith, then works can be ontologically dissected from faith and not merely two sides of same coin. If faithfulness, then they are ontologically the same coin but different sides where orientation to God in love and imaging God’s love to neighbor are definitionaly separate, but ontologically the same. The second contention is assuming "works of the law" is generic as "any work"...vs the improper use of the Torah as means of justification instead of the outworking of love (as Paul and Christ reiterate all the Law/Torah hangs on Love of God and Love of Neighbor). If my goal is to merit salvation by acts of benevolence or strict adherence I will fail, but if my goal is to love God through loving neighbor (whatever you have done to the least of these...), and I am trusting God to be merciful to me when I fail to hit that target...this is, IMHO, what Eph 2:8-10 and context, paired with James is articulating. Faith without works is dead. ~ But it's the only way protestants can justify the ontological difference they have arbitrarily created by removing the organs of the creature instead of observing and learning from the living creature. Not saying we dont need to know the difference between heart and lungs, but its the relationship within the living creature that actually shows their function...not when they are dissected.
An easy refutation oc Lucas at 1:15:0 is also that in Romans 3 :31 is that paul went through many of the jewish views on how the purity acts of law of moses was seen and taken as what is required to come into the covenant as their understanding of Exodus 20 might incur and this is something that Jewish converts would even force on gentiles who werent as familiar with the old testament. Paul affirms faith establishes the law not abolishes it.
More than 5 times Fr. John said Orthodoxy didnt believe in works to earn salvation but somehow lucas strawmanning him saying so. He even do in his instagram page
It’s a logical conclusion based on the premises. Premise 1: faith alone is not salvific Premise 2: works must accompany faith in salvation Conclusion: those who are saved accomplish this by both faith and works
But that doesn’t mean that works alone save. It’s not an either-or but a both-and. If you only perform the law with the intent to buy favor from God, you will be rejected. If you profess faith but produce no fruit of good works then it’s a dead-faith. In orthodoxy there is great emphasis in aligning your will with God’s which means a salvific faith is one that is vibrant and alive, flowering with good works which are a living expression of the will of the Father. They are not motivated by a desire to earn merit, nor even an attempt to please God, but rather in being United to the Father’s will so that we produce good works because we naturally desire to do good.
This is going to sound terrible, but if someone says they are Methodist , I assume they aren’t based and traditional. I am sure there are outliers but that’s just what I have seen.
It’s not terrible it’s true since that’s generally the case due to the churches falling & becoming liberal. It’s like saying those who are Californians tend to be less conservative & more liberal
1:13:25 Paul is writing to the Church of Rome because the Jews recently had been expelled from Rome (Priscilla and Aquilla in Acts are Jews who were expelled from Rome) and now these Jews are beginning to return to Rome now that they are allowed and the mainly Gentile Church is trying to figure itself out now that Jews are returning, saying they need to be circumcised etc
These Protestants keep harping on about assurance. Calvin explicitly says that God gives some people the grace of salvation so that they think they are saved and then removes that grace, so how do any of these protestants know that they're saved? It's literally impossible on their view. Then Wesley says "look at if you're obedient or not" is that not exactly what the other guy cried about "it's all focused on you". Protestants make no sense, its all gibberish. Bring on Perry Robinson next time.
If a Christian is unsure about their salvation, they need to get back to basics. Salvation is a promise if you remain steadfast in the faith, as we are called to do. Paul likens it to a race. If you remain in faith, you will be saved. 1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will desert the faith and occupy themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings, 1Ti 4:2 influenced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared.
@@KYWingfold But the Orthodox guys aren't arguing for assurance of salvation. Orthodox Christianity doesn't promote assurance, we say that salvation is predicated on faithfulness to Christ. So when Protestants tell Orthodox people they don't have assurance of salvation we agree and say they don't have it either, despite what they may say from the outset.
Great discussion except for the unequal individual speaker volume UGH 😫 this happens so much on podcasts where the volume of each person is different. One person is extremely loud while another person is too quiet. This makes it so difficult and annoying trying to watch 🤷🏻
totally agree. If your voice sounds like your screaming everytime you speak, turn down the gain. JW is hard enough to hear regular without "LISTEN TO ME!!!!!!" mic levels in the discussion.🙄🙄
The Protestant cope is painful to watch. I get it. It’s hard to realize you’ve been wrong for so long but be humble and accept the truth. - ex Protestant
ex. Christian* and I say that with sorrow. Many will stand before Christ on judgment day and say "Lord, Lord" and point to all of their works, but you must KNOW Christ for him to welcome you. Your faith in Christ imputes His righteousness upon you, 2 Corinthians 5:21. You must not rely on your works to be saved because God will judge you by the book of works and only Jesus kept that way.
@@TS-ee7jx you should read all of Mathew 7 not just one verse. Just before that Christ is saying you will know them by their fruits bc good trees bear good fruits and bad trees bear bad fruits. What does bearing fruits mean to you? He’s clearly saying the people who are “claiming” to have done these works in his name are LAWLESS (his words not mine). Just because they THINK they are doing works in His name, doesn’t mean they are. That’s the point. Not that works with faith (faith is an action not a belief) won’t save you. So in this parable we have bad trees aka fakes and good trees aka those who worship/ live according to the Father’s will. One group BELIEVES they are doing good things in the Lords name. The other group actually is. See the parable of the goats and sheep when Christ is literally splitting them into groups based on their FAITHFUL works. I’ll post the entire context for anyone wondering below but suggest you read all of Matthew chapter 7 and all of the gospel. Quote mining leads to delusion. Matthew 7:15-25. Read verse 19 over and over until it sinks in. 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. I Never Knew You 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Build on the Rock 24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
@@TS-ee7jx Sheep and goats, my friend. Are the goats condemned because they didn't believe the right things? No, it is because they didn't do the things they ought to have done. I would rather be a humble and repentant drunkard than a proud and self-righteous tee-totaler.
How many times does Fr John have to say that works don’t save??? When your heart is changed (infused righteousness) you have an active faith, which is faith working through love (Gal 5:6). James 2 is clear on this.
@@MonsieurRobotic Mostly agreed, but when EO and RCC procalim "anathemas" on anyone outside of their tradition (which is a formal conviction of sending someone to perdition--hell), I tihnk we can push back on their constructs.
@@MonsieurRoboticWithout boundaries there is no salvation. Christ and the Apostles proclaimed curses on false doctrine. The only Church that does that consistently by upholding historical anathemas is Eastern Orthodoxy. Papal ecclesiology allows for ecumenism not only among others who are Christian but also non-Christian religions. Having disgust and calling it an exclusionary club is just the coping of a relative faith not willing to establish absolute boundaries.
So funny how the method ministries guy claims Fr John is teaching works based salvation then goes on to say if you watch pornography you are not saved. That's literally works based salvation lmao.
Do you know why God said he took no pleasure in the blood of bulls and that the Jews sacrifices were a stench in Gods nostrils? Its because the sacrifices were merely ritualistic, lacking faith in God. Just as a faithless baptism is swimming, faithless sacrifices are nothing more than a bbq. Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
@@anon8638 Porn is sinful, its a conscious choice to sin. A Christian cannot watch porn and just go through life like everything is just fine, its a form of corruption. Its fundamentally incompatible with a Christians way of life, and I would argue says alot about the persons spiritual condition to begin with. You would need to repent of that and bring it to the cross and get away from that as quick as possible. I would seriously question if a person actually knows Christ if they were watching that.
@@CryoftheProphet agreed. But people have addictions, and who are we to know someone's faith despite those addictions? How do we know how much they repent at night and how much they will repent in the last hour? To my point, MM are arguing against works based salvation. Yet they say a bad work precludes you from heaven. Do you not see how that contradicts?
Commentary from the Orthodox Study Bible on Ephesians 2:8-10: Works cannot earn us this great treasure (faith)-it is a pure gift-but those who receive this gift do good. We are not saved by good works, but for good works That sounds pretty much in line with the protestant position.
It isn't, when you understand that what a Protestant means by faith ("intellectual assent with some fuzzy emotions sprinkled in") is not the same as what Orthodox mean by faith: the response not just of the mind, but of one's heart and behavior, in harmony. Authentic faith can't be separated from how you actually behave, and that in no way contradicts St. Paul who has a very particular semantic range when he uses the term "works," essentially referring to Pharisaical bean-counting and box-ticking; NOT, as Protestants misuse it, as "any positive or negative action at all."
@@SinkingStarshipwrong! You are strawmanning the historical Protestant position. Saving faith is not mere intellectualism, emotional feeling, but trust. It is itself a work of God. There was reason that Luther used the term sola fide and not sola credo.
@@thereisnopandemic like,like,like. It wasn’t a discussion about energies of God here. More like Matthew 7 15-20. Oh, wait, “good fruits” doesn’t mean works. 😂😂😂
@@thereisnopandemic Well energies are a discussion for people more mature in their Christian life. Protestants are still arguing about justification. They are still on milk. "I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;"
The Calvinist and Arminianism are extremely different and there intense debates between both camps. Calvin is also quoted that any attacks against his doctrine he saw as an attack against the Bible itself. He was extremely against anyone questioning his doctrine or asking questions about. Protestants are extreme uneducated when it comes to their own church history , as I have been myself. Rock and Sand is a great place to start in finding out the Protestant history and its shocking
Fr. Josiah trenhams book has been a BIG help for me understanding church history, seeing the ugly side of Protestantism. What/where were you before coming to orthodoxy ?
Saying the same thing because we all deep down know we have to work out our faith with love, but bc of Faith Alone they have to double speak constantly even though they agree with Fr John. Protestants have to say “belief and faith aren’t works” to support faith alone, but the Bible doesn’t make that distinction and says belief is a work. Which is crazy because faith alone people are also sola scriptora except when the Bible says the opposite. Wow lord have mercy on us. Recently started to understand all of this through Gods grace as a non denominational pastor. Thanks for the dialogue!
Lucas keeps bringing up the fact that the “interlocutor” isn’t a true Christian…. Yes… Because he doesn’t have works. That’s the very reason he’s being criticized. What does Lucas think this proves for his side? The whole point is he’s missing works, so he’s not a Christian!!
Lucas is arguing that the whole point is that he isn't a Christian, so therefore he is missing the works. The other side is that he is missing the works, so therefore he is not a Christian. One side puts the works as a prerequisite for salvation and the other puts works as the outgrowth, or fruit of a saving faith.
@@christopherneedham9584 but he’s arguing that he has faith, so he’s trying to say that he is a Christian. But you can’t have faith without works and be a Christian.
@@marincusman9303 I’m confused. Both people were saying that he was not a Christian, the person James was talking about believed he was a Christian, but he had a dead faith. This was agreed on by both Lucas and Fr John. The argument is over A. He is not a Christian because he didn’t have works, Or B. His lack of works be because he wasn’t a Christian. Nobody argued that he was a Christian because James said he had dead faith.
@@christopherneedham9584 I don’t think B is tenable because you’d have to bring in some idea of a secret election. He’s trying to be Christian. He’s not because he doesn’t have works, he would be if he did. To say B is to say something like he wasn’t already regenerated in order to have a true working faith
Well Christ said to keep the commandments in order to be saved. The judgement of both the saved and damned is always explicitly based on deeds, not on faith alone. That's not to say that we earn salvation, as it's also based on the forgiveness of God for our past sins, but to say that deeds have no part to play is incorrect.
@@tynytian The judgment on the Last Day is a public vindication so, of course, it involves bringing the works of the righteous to light before all, but this does not mean that on the basis of the works one has come into the status of righteous. None such works could be called good if those doing the labor weren't, beforehand, good. A good tree produces good fruit, the good fruit does not make the tree good. Such couldn't have arisen if there wasn't a prior condition. The entire discussion is absurd, as if anyone is advocating against good works. Trust me, it won't harm you or your conscience if you don't look at yourself, but it may harm the righteousness of faith if you do. To look to Christ in the trust of faith is to be positioned to labor freely, that is, to do all manner of good works which, as a matter of record, are just as heartily commended by the Lutheran Reformers as any Eastern priest, monastic, or patriarch.
@@marcuswilliams7448 Luke 10:25-28 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” 27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]” 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
Only 1:03:00 in, but parts of this are a little disappointing both ways. The Protestants collapse salvation into justification at times, thinking that verses that speak of salvation through faith indicate justification by faith alone, but I don’t see the EO ever tag them on this.
Calvinists always mention "assurance " but seem to spend their lives trying to "assure" themselves. I dont think they have the "comfort" that they claim. I think this is because to stay consistent they have given a loophole which is if in the end you turn from God, you were never really saved in the first place. This is really madness. None of the saints in the last 2 millennia were ever "sure" of their salvation .. they spent their lives in repentance and crying out Lord have mercy.... this obsession with assurance does not reflect the Christianity of the first 15 centuries or that which is still present in our Holy Orthodox Church..
I'm surprised the these Wesleyans will revert to classical Reformed arguments on Pauline justification rather than understanding Paul's "interlocutor," which underscores that the NPP is a better context to read Paul than what these two boys are doing.
I can understand Father’s quips and snappy replies. I would have liked to have seen more regarding the means by the justification (penal substitutionary atonement) - I think that gets to the root in this discussion. (To be fair I’m typing this about an hour in. So if you did discuss this; have mercy on me!)
I agree. He seemed content to stay in the talking-past-each-other phase of the conversation that Dr. Branson was pointing out. Not that I would do any better of course, I’m just a guy typing lol
@@TheBillyDWilliams I think establishing the MEANS by which Justification happens would have helped clear the air a bit. They were both firmly speaking of Justification from their understanding of "what was accomplished on the Cross" -- Both sides mention this phrase a few times...but mean different things when they say it.
The only way to deal with Protestants is go to their level, deal with the text Ephesians 2:8-9 and don’t leave the subject until they answer it. 1.who is Paul addressing??? (The Jews) What Law is he addressing??? (Law of Moses and the law of circumcision) who is doing the boasting? ( the Jews cause they are saying they keep the law) And then when they run to Abraham, you ask what are all the things Abraham did before he was ever called the father of faith, matter of fact what was the first command he gave Abraham???? Wait wasn’t it a work??? Leave your family and go to a foreign land…. Then they will say well what works are we to have??? Matthew 25 Explains the difference between the goat and the sheep. The beatitudes. John 3:5 baptism of water and spirit John 6:54 the eucharist. And there’s tons more make disciples all the nations . Start CHURCHES, and bishops and priest so they can oversee those churches. Some time the meaning of believe is obey. Confessing Jesus with your mouth. You’re doing something to receive and to keep your salvation , are you earning it??? course not but you’re being obedient and obeying the commands and the commands that are given are works. How is it remotely even possible to love your neighbor or to love God with all your heart without works I would love to see this .
Other than Greece’s secular government legalizing gay marriage, how is liberalism of Protestantism in any way comparable to what is going on within Orthodoxy. Saying it’s a shared problem is disingenuous at best.
And what goes in in Greece's secular government does not directly have anything to do with The Orthodox Church itself. The Orthodox Church is not permitting or blessing gay marriage, so what would the point be.
He also tells us we can't be made right with God by keeping the law. Galatians 5:4 NKJV - You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
@@shema9172 Jesus Christ would beg to differe: John 6:29 "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."
@@dustins382 that's not true, it's nearly identical with the exception of how you say things. I had to deal with this as a chaplain's assistant in the marine corps, and only recently became sda.
@@FishermensCorner soul sleep (and by extension your whole conception of heaven/hell), how you view the old covenant, how you describe the Trinity, what Christ did while He was in the tomb, who raised Christ from the dead, Michael the archangel, "could Christ have sinned?", just to name a few off the top of my head. My brother is SDA and I've studied it pretty extensively, we disagree on 90% or more.
@dustins382 Soul sleep is not 7-Day adventist. Like just stop there, Orthodox believe in semi annihilism, which is essentially the same.... ooh the conscious lives on to some useless State forever, that's effectively the same thing. That's just your romanism showing. Jude is referencing the book of enoch, so the character type of Michael the Archangel is carrying that of Jesus not that it's literally Michael the Archangel, it's a character typology, do you think Jesus is a literal lamb? The Trinity is the same as the orthodox, what are you talking about, we don't subscribe to the Catholic filioque... the Seventh Day Adventist Church had an issue with the Roman description of the trinity... any more straw man you want to kick?
@@FishermensCorner I've never talked to an SDA that says there's consciousness before the resurrection. Aka soul sleep. Do you believe the Apostles are conscious and with Christ right now and have been since their passing almost 2000 years ago? Perhaps it's an individual position you hold, not the official SDA teaching. "Semi-annihilationism"? What? Romanism coming through? You haven't stated our position correctly at all. I understand you guys don't hold the Jesus/Michael the same way as JW, but that's still not a position we hold as Orthodox, so you've switched from saying we agree to trying to convince be it's true, which is a concession to my point that we don't agree. And no, you don't have the same concept of the Trinity at all, even if we both don't have the filioque, the positions we each hold do not agree, so we can't say this is something we agree on. I've strawmanned nothing, I've only stated the areas we disagree on and you've done nothing to prove that we actually do agree.
If James 2 is about someone who have "Dead Faith", than "living Faith" (the one who justifies) is an operative/working faith, or "faith that works through love", and Fr. Jhon (and all Orthodox) agree that this faith indeed saves. The council of Jerusalem also affirms that.
Beau, you truly have a heart for God. Forgive me. The argument at hand is simply regarding tradition. The Protestant will always fight for autonomy, self-governance, and individuality. It’s comical because the Protestants aren’t even the same denomination. Opposite to them and their semantics, Fr. John and the Orthodox Christian will continue to pray for those who have left the true faith to repent and worship in Spirit and truth. Christ is risen!
What do Protestants believe happens if they’ve been saved and have faith alone in Jesus but then fall into terrible sins? Are they damned and condemned forever since their justification is nullified because they bear bad fruit? Why wasn’t their sincere faith enough to produce good works? I can’t help but feel that this would produce a feeling either that Jesus failed you and was unfaithful or that they’re not capable of producing faith strong enough or good enough to achieve the once-and-for-all “justification” that produces good fruit. Just an internal critique of Sola Fide.
48:20 is Lucas arguing that if someone has faith that works by love then their faith stops working by love, that their faith dead faith is still justifying because they haven't officially apostocized?
The Lord Himself Tells that What Our Justification is! We will be judged by our works/actions! Matthew 25:31-46 The Final Judgment 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
The question becomes by what power are these works done? Are they by God’s spirit working within a person or by the person’s own will? Protestants would say the former, which does not conflict with Sola Fide.
2:28:14 this isnt sola scriptura its prima scriptura if its the foremost authority then it would still need reliable methodology on how one is to use it which the nicene fathers Such as Athansius argue for a particular reading against the opposing reading which still used the same source so the matter of how truth is carried still requires methodology for using the accepted sources.
Good works like love and other fruits of the Spirit are not the same thing as works of the law. The context matters not just the word “works.” The Pharisees thought following their law “works of the law” was going to save them but it’s through faith not their works. Salvation is through faith in Christ which involves loving Him and others as you love yourself. Mark 12:28-34
Since though he has said here, He that believes in the Son has eternal life, and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him;) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, This by itself is eternal life, nor, He that does but believe in the Son has eternal life, but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing does contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment.Homily 31 on John
@@NavelOrangeGazeryes, typical reformed Baptist view. Looking at your works on a scale like that in order to get assurance. Very legalistic, very works righteousness really. Good works are inseparable from faith because faith includes repentance. But we don’t look at our good works as a measuring stick for whether we are justified or not, we look to Christ for assurance/hope of salvation and for mercy. We participate in the sacraments of His church, that promises forgiveness of sins. We don’t say, “I’ve done all these works, therefore I know I’m saved.” That’s expecting a reward from God, like you merited it. Instead of relying on His promise to us and His mercy.
@@jdsmith2k7 it's actually astounding how despite being arch enemies the Reformed are stuck in the papal mindset when it comes to looking at this issue.
"Works of the law" is not the same as "works" (as in deeds). Very disingenuous to ignore the antecedent "...of the law" and treat it as if they're being used in the same way.
They talk of "faith" in a way that describes "Grace". No way am I counting on my belief, faith in Christ. I count on Christ - His Love, Grace to make me "faithful"....
honest question. You said..."No way am I counting on my belief" Do you think He should MAKE you have faith? and if He does, can that be, is that really, "Faith"? Can he actually "Love" you and give you "Grace" if he MAKES you do any of it? Does you Mom, your wife, your friend LOVE you if they are MADE to love you??
if the doctrine of sola fide was true wouldn't by necessity make monergism true, destroying freewill? Faith and repentance are clearly a work if you believe that you need to have these you by definition require works, unless Monergism is true and it's all God doing the work. Can any Prot who affirms free will, and sola fide give me a counter argument?
Excellent episode, it was great to see Fr. John Whiteford. It was very respectful and just a tiny bit heated which was great. I have an Orthodox bias, but everyone I thought was good faith.
I hope you have more Orthodox guys come on!!
Oh we have a whole playlist for our interviews with Orthodox Christians like Jay Dyer and Dr. David Bradshaw
@FaithUnaltered Fr. You need to have a TRUE Orthodox Christian playlist/discussion list as well - collaborate with NFTU Voices from the Underground and start with NFTU host Father Joseph Suaidan who has taken part in discussions on TRUE Orthodox Christianity and Orthodox Christianity which includes a long section on how the True Orthodox (Father Joseph Suaidan) (traditionalist, persecuted since the 1917 Russian Revolutions (both of them, then extended following Constantinople's 1920 encyclical to Greece, Cyprus and Romania in the 1920s especially with violent imposition of the New Calendar, resisted by the traditionalist True Orthodox Christians, all of whom reject it) against modernism including co-worship with the heterodox and communion with them and other manifestations of "ecumenism" such as the branch theory of the church normally accompanied by membership of and/or some or all of the previous with the World Council of Churches and/or some or all of the previous with even non-Christian religions including those which explicitly reject the holiness of Christ and Christianity as opposed to "World Orthodox", whom you and many others refer to as "Eastern Orthodox" (such as Fr. John Whiteford, who, along with most of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) unified with and submitted to the Ecumenist Sergianist Soviet and Russian successor state recognised "Russian Orthodox Church" in 2007 in a formal union). The Russian state, along with all the officially Orthodox countries and others (including all officially Communist and/or Muslim and Jewish countries and other authorities such as the Palestinian Authority) continues to persecute True Orthodox Christians who constitute up to 12% of the Orthodox Christian population. In Romania from about 10% of the population in the 1920s, due largely to a very high birth rate in contrast to the rest of the population, True Orthodox Christians have now reached 30% of the population and whole villages have remained True Orthodox. If these trends continue then within a generation or two the majority of the Romanian population will be TRUE Orthodox Christian, thus reversing the violently imposed New Calendarist "Orthodoxy" forced on Romania in 1924.
@@adrianwhyatt594 holy run-on sentence Batman!
@@TheBillyDWilliams Thanks, Robin!
I think the big, massive missing piece that stands out to me that ALWAYS makes this conversation unfruitful is that Orthodox and Reformed have different ideas of salvation. Their idea presupposes that salvation is being "good enough" in God's eyes and in the books of crimes that He keeps. Whereas for Orthodox salvation is about being truly like God so we can be united with Him. And thus we continue to talk right past each other because when we're saying works justify us, they're still thinking in terms of works make us good enough.
I find the most helpful way to explain it to them is that faith is like when I realize I am "in love" with someone and want to dedicate my life to them, but works of love, even when I don't feel it, ontologically keep the love alive. They don't make me good enough, and it would be unhealthy to a relationship if she kept track of such things. But doing the deeds of faith/love helps form the faith. And if we feel love for our wife, but don't act it out, we see it as shallow childish affection.
Likewise, the historical and Orthodox view of what keeps us from God is that we are not like Him. It is not that the God who is love keeps records of wrong (which Scripture says love does not do), but that the wicked deeds we do make our hearts wicked. If I am bitter and unforgiving to my abusive friend, I generally would avoid him. But if I forgive him, yet he is still abusive, he will have the experience of the distance as if he was not forgiven, because what do we have in common? How can we have a true friendship or intimacy? Likewise, what keeps us from God is not His rejection, nor a lack of forgiveness on His part. What keeps us from God is that we would find communion with Him extremely unpleasant.
So what role do works play in justification? When we are given faith by God and accept this gift, we act on it and it builds the faith and makes it full. It builds our love for God. These works are laid out by God before Creation, so there's no issue about boasting here unless one is delusional (which would render any truth ineffective). But we must say "yes" to these works as the Theotokos said yes to God, and they will build our bond with Him. Faith comes first, but it dies without works. Works are not proof of salvation, because our view is not that salvation is a guarantee of a good result by signing a verbal contract with God. We don't see salvation simply as something God gives us. Our relationship with God, our view of salvation, is much more personal. Christ IS Salvation. There is no salvation without Him as there is no marriage without my wife. She doesn't give me wife, she doesn't give me marriage, she IS these things to me.
Unfortunately, what is going on deep down inside most of Protestantism is that the primary goal isn't friendship with God, it is the catharsis and comfort of a post mortem promise. What I always see, and was shown in the video, is as soon as you suggest works are tied to justification, you hear the rebuttal "but how much is enough?" Why do they want to know that? Because if they don't have an answer, they feel insecure. I can't tell you the number of times I have heard this objection from the Reformed.
Of course, I totally understand that they think the only alternative is to live in fear. But for us Orthodox, salvation isn't actually about us. Our faith isn't that God will give us what we want: to go to the good place after death. Our faith is about God and about all of Creation. This means that a person with faith, if theoretically God sent Him to Hell, would say "this must be what's best for everyone else, glory to God in all things." We see this heart in St Paul when he's ready to go to Hell if it will save others. It's a totally different mindset.
The encounter we have with Christ as a real divine-human person is what gives us out comfort. It is an ontological reality, a relationship. It is not from a formula of Sola Fide. Our faith is in a person, not a doctrine. It is a faith we should pursue for Him, not for us. In fact, we Orthodox know that NOT having answers is actually very spiritually healthy, whereas having everything in tight knit boxes leads down very bad roads.
(I think Beau drives this home more than anyone when he keeps bringing up he's not even sure what the disagreement actually is.)
Very thoughtful comment, you got to the heart of the matter.
Love the username btw I’m reading our thoughts determine our lives. I agree & as a Protestant catechumen orthodoxy is so much more holistic/ full vs Protestantisms framework.
This is the single most helpful UA-cam comment I've ever read. Thank you for taking the time to type it out.
Protestant for over 30 years and I am so glad I finally found the Orthodox Church. We struggled for a long time knowing something was very wrong. Once you see the mental gymnastics they have to do to it’s mind blowing.
💯
So you started believing that Jesus Christ was the Lord only once you went to an orthodox building?
@@CryoftheProphet I knew Him. Now I partake. Glory to God.
@@svenrn3545 Did you or did you not believe that Jesus was in fact the Lord prior to swapping to the eastern tradition?
The Bible was put together by the Eastern Orthodox Church, for the faithful, to be understood within the lens of Orthodoxy. Outside the Church, your understanding cannot be the same, as you are drawing on your own knowledge faculty. The Bible itself says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, written in a time when there was only one Christian Church which was Eastern Orthodox. Without the proper foundation, how can understanding be built, and not be in error?
I’ve met Fr John when he visited Canada. He is very beloved by our community.
Thank God for Fr.John Whiteford!
But in these discussions - I’ve listened to Fr Whiteford on Justification before - I don’t understand why he doesn’t challenge the assumptions of Merit & the definitions of Faith & Justification. It seems he “fights” Protestants on their own erroneous turf. Orthodox don’t believe in salvation by Merit, or Faith as merely interior disposition, or Justification as distinct from Theosis - all of which he undoubtedly teaches.
For what? He sounds like a fundamentalist
@ronniebrown2667 I like that Father John is to the point, loud and clear, and very knowledgeable of scripture and its context.
@traceyedson9652 I don't know, I thought he did well in rebutting thier misconceptions of justification and merit with the orthodox view. He laid out our understanding of faith and works as cooperation with God in theosis clearly but I'll say they were granted a lot of wiggleroom on the grounds of their vernacular so I see what you mean.
@TristonLafferty he was only dogmatically saying what verses and the fathers meant without making much of an argument.
Man…I love NOT being a Prot anymore. This great irony wherein “Jesus paid it all” but also you need to be “assured of your salvation” so you OBSESS over your sins. I don’t need “assurance” because I trust in God, His Gospel, and His Church. Simple as.
It is true. They accuse the orthodox of being legalistic but it's really the other way around.
Where is it written that the church imputes your sin once and for all?
@@juandoming6688 it is in the church where we enter into communion with God through God's work of baptism, the eucharist, confession. We are nurtured in the church which is the body of Christ.
May God grant Father John Whiteford many years.
It's always edifying to hear Fr John in these discussions.
"Therefore, if it do not appear in our conversation [conduct], the faith we pretend to have is but feigned: because true faith is manifestly shewn by good living, and not by words only: as St. Augustin saith, Good living cannot be separated from true faith, which worketh by love: and St. Chrysostom, Faith is full of good works; and as soon as a man believeth, he shall be adorned with them. How plentiful it is in good works, St. Paul teacheth at large in the 11th chapter to the Hebrews; evidently declaring, that true faith is no unfruitful thing, but a thing of perfect virtue, of wonderful operation and strength, bringing forth all good motions and good works" -John Wesley, in "Of true Christian faith"
John Wesley notes on Galatians 5:6,
“For in Christ Jesus - According to the institution which he hath established, according to the tenor of the Christian covenant. Neither circumcision - With the most punctual observance of the law. Nor uncircumcision - With the most exact heathen morality. Availeth anything - Toward present justification or eternal salvation. But FAITH - ALONE; even that faith which worketh by love - All inward and outward holiness.”
Good work today Father. You guys gave a strong case for justification from the scriptures/ consensus of the Father's. Meanwhile our protestant friends seemed more interested in giving us the private interpretation of John Wesley. Nonetheless, great discussion on both sides. ☦️
@@methodministries He affirms we are saved by Faith alone that works by love. So not faith alone without works, as the quote I cited makes clear.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 No. He affirms what Protestants affirm: faith alone, as he explicitly says. This (true) faith will work, but that is not the same thing as salvation by faith + works in the EO system. Thousands of Wesleyans agree and disagree with you. Just read his notes on James 2 to further this point. I’m surprised you’re arguing this clear testimony of Wesley’s theology. I even quoted from the 25-articles.
@@methodministries Your quote literally says "FAITH - ALONE; even that faith which worketh by love..." So clearly it is faith that works by love that we alone are saved by.
This was hard to listen to. I commend the patience of Father Whiteford and Mr Branson. I used to be so blind as a Protestant and make the exact same arguments these Prots did. Hearing they do not hear.
Enjoyed the discussion☦️ Perry Robinson of Energetic Procession would be a great interview on this topic as well.
I've tried to get him on but he won't.
@@FaithUnaltered Maybe noted former calvinist and current infamous kgb sorcerer Jay Dyer. He could definitely add to this topic.
@@NavelOrangeGazerhe is too mean 😂
@@saint-jiub Mean????? How am I mean?
@@EnergeticProcession Jiub was speaking of Jay in a joking manner, since that's a common thing people say as to why they don't want to engage with Jay.
The 1:00:00 mark was the nail in the coffin for Lucas. He completely missed the point because he’s blinded by the faith alone mindset above everything else. Sola Fide is really the ultimate argument against Protestantism
Treating justification different in James than in Romans sort of proves the mental gymnastics that are necessary to support the Protestant assertion in my opinion.
cope (I'm only messing w u, not tryna be serious lol)
To avoid contradiction, you either have to treat "justification" differently between Paul and James (the Protestant approach), or you have to treat "works" differently between Paul and James. That's not mental gymnastics, that's just being faithful to Scripture.
@@chrismathew2295 Matthew J Thomas has a good book on the “works of the law”. Reconciles the works false dichotomy.
Came back to listen to the first 20-30mins I missed. This was an enjoyable discussion. Please have the panel back on for part 2 if they are willing!
Dr. Beau cracks me up. I’m… not exactly sure what we’re arguing about 😂
Thats because at the end of the day, James and Paul taught the exact same thing
Jas_5:15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick and the Lord will raise him up - and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
I’d bet my house that neither Wesley nor Lucas are left handed. I believe their inability to understand is caused by their left-brain dominant, hyper rational, mode of thinking, combined with a western phronema. It’s the reason Lucas can’t help but asking what works and how many of them does he have to do to be justified. No Orthodox Christian thinks that way. Our works are our faith, repentance, and treating our neighbors as ourselves. This dialogue made it very clear to me that the slogan “faith alone” is so imbedded in the Protestant psyche that it is literally read into every passage of scripture, despite the exact opposite being stated in scripture. This is fascinating from a psychological perspective. The way they try to systematize Christianity as if it were a mathematical equation is a direct byproduct of their thinking. The are simply incapable of not trying to make steps (for lack of a better word) that lead to heaven, i.e., justification, then sanctification, then glorification, etc.The fact that the scriptures (which are written by men possessing an eastern phronema) provide nothing of the sort, and the fact that no Christian in the first 1500 years of the faith thought that way, is immaterial to them. It was a good discussion and everyone behaved as gentlemen, but it proved that the Church is going to need decades, if not centuries, to evangelize the West, particularly the ultra individualism of America.
As far as I am aware, no one on the panel was left handed. Lol
@@joshuadavidson7985 While left handedness is an objective indicator of right-brain dominance, its absence isn’t determinative of a lack of right-brain function. Of those on the panel, Wes and Lucas were the only ones who exhibited noticeably low right-brain function - that’s why I singled them out. I know it’s not fair to make such an assessment on such a small sampling, but I did see enough to know neither were left handed, if that makes sense.
Lord have mercy. These Protestant guys are having such a hard time. Instead of dealing with what Scripture states they just repeat the last statement, again. 😊
How do u reconcile all the verses of Jesus referring to election and then all the epistles of Paul doing the same?
Do u abrogated with one verse in James? Why ?
There’s a fundamental difference of what exactly The Grace of God is. For the prots, it’s a legal transaction, for EO it’s Divine Energy.
Yes
Does the phrase "Divine Energy" ever occur in the Bible? Especially with regard to Grace?
@@mkbr1992 Paul talks about ‘energia’ in the Greek.
And when Christ said “who touched me, power left me” the fathers say that’s the grace of God. His Divine Energy
Pauline theology is divisive and contrary to what Jesus taught
@@aaronmyers4665 you might be assuming this is Pauline theology, I’m not sure what that is. But thanks anyways
Now that I am 46 and moving into Orthodoxy I get so angry over the “faith alone” argument. How it is taught in most churches does not produce fruit.
Inevitably, it leads to easy believism and makes people think they can live however, they want and still be Christians.
@@ThriftyConceitEasy believeism is a distortion of sola fide. If you read the reformers they reject this notion.
@@petros810 Yes, but the problem is that most modern Protestant churches are far removed from the positions of the reformers. The reformers also had a high value of Mary, which is not present in most churches today. The emphasis is on “getting saved”. That becomes the focus point of a Christian life, not striving to become holy, which is something you reach for daily. In the Protestant community the idea of “works” gets treated like a four letter word.
@@DustyBooks2020I don’t disagree that many (do t know if it is most) prot churches have deviated from reformation That is why I am not even sure the term “Protestant” is helpful because it describe an umbrella of groups. I am Anglican, I find my self distancing myself from other Protestants more and more. I would rather dialogue with EO as an Anglican.
@@petros810 The term "evangelical" is probably more descriptive of this phenomenon nowadays. I was there, too. Even though they pay service to faith working through love and faith without works being dead, in practice, it rarely works that way. What matters is what I see in practice, not what people on the internet say. I also see Anglican/Episcopalian churches appointing female priests and abandoning all traditional morality in favor of modern cultural norms, so it's not like you're off the hook either.
"This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men." Titus 3:8
It is often said by Protestants that our works are like filthy rags. Yet here, Paul says that good works are profitable to men. Not that they in themselves save, but that they aren't disconnected from our salvation which is why faith cannot be demonstrated by just words but action.
"For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” Romans 1:17
Paul is quoting Habakkuk 2:4 which the Hebrew word for faith is emunah which means faithfulness, fidelity and steadfastness. I often recall in my Protestant days that just meant walking in trust and belief but it's much more than that. Paul seems to be urging the Roman Christians to remain faithful by living a life that is consistently driving us to continued action, in other words, not being stagnant or from faith to faith.
Interestingly, the NET Bible translates Habakkuk 2:4 exactly as you suggest.
@fr.johnwhiteford6194 thanks for double checking Fr. John
Great job Fr. John Whiteford!
The Scriptures do not teach the Reformed doctrine of imputation (Christ meriting a created legal status that is nominally imputed to the Christian through the instrumental cause of initial faith), but rather, they teach that the Christian's faithfulness is counted to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3, 16-25), especially through baptism (Rom 6:1-7, Gal 3:25-29) and the other sacraments, and that we are increasingly made both just and holy simultaneously as we are led to, by the grace of God, co-energize with the divine energy (Phil 2:12-13), such that any righteousness of ours is really a participation in the uncreated righteousness inherent to God (Ps 116:5, Rom 3:21-26).
These protestants are so cringey. It's always "either/or" with them. And it's always so legal. They look and talk like lawyers. It's not either/or protestants, it's both/and.
Yes. They want a reductionist theology. Many times the answer is not either/or but both/and.
Unsurprisingly, their founder John Calvin was a literal lawyer. His entire theology was tinged by his anachronistic ivory tower post-Renaissance legalistic myopia. Maybe Calvin could be excused as a product of his time and place, but the fact that his followers treat it as axiomatic that his very particular interpretation is the "plain meaning of Scripture" and you're "rejecting Scripture" if you call the Calvinist interpretation into question, is just endlessly irritating.
@@SinkingStarship one of my favorite quotes goes something like. "If only Blessed Augustine knew Greek better John Calvin may have stayed buried deep in the french penal system never to be heard from."
@@DCWoodWorkingActually Protestants affirm that salvation has both legal and transformative aspects to it. Protestants also
Affirmative that both faith and good works are necessary in the Christian life. Many EO tend to reduce salvation to only a transformative process. Also many of them are either/or when it comes to the church. They alone are church of Christ, all non orthodox are not the church; sola orthodoxia. (ok, I just made that Latin up).
@@SinkingStarshipJohn Calvin founder? Really? Lutherans are not Calvinist. Methodists and most baptist are not Calvinist. Most Anglicans are not Calvinist.
4 minutes in, and it's already paradoxical and comical. Protestants explaining Greek word meanings to Orthodox. O tempora, o mores!
Given the amount of educational institutions established by Protestant christianity, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more Protestant Christians that understand biblical Greek than Orthodox. Just because a 5-year-old can read Greek are you going to let them give you hermeneutics?
As one who has studied Wesley's theology and Patristics formally at the graduate level, I think the term "justification" takes on a broader sense in Orthodoxy to include not only--to use Wesley's terms--a "relative change" (positional righteousness) but also a "real change," what Wesleyans would call "regeneration." That is to say, most Protestants, including Wesleyans, reduce justification to the "relative change" only, whereas Eastern Orthodox would say that justification is a catchall for not only positional righteousness but also the interior work of regeneration. Thus, the Orthodox would say that Wesley, although very close to the Greek patristic view, tends to be reductionistic in his view of justification, since he is following the Reformers on this note. That is, the Orthodox are more holistic--Justification is both imputed AND imparted. A declarative word from God is a speech-act: the declaration makes it an ontological reality.
I'm surprised the these Wesleyans will revert to classical Reformed arguments on Pauline justification rather than understanding Paul's "interlocutor," which underscores that the NPP is a better context to read Paul than what these two boys are doing.
Btw, Lucas doesn't know how to debate and he only has a cursory knowledge of Wesley, and he comes across as a pseudo-intellectual. Whiteford seems to know Wesley better, and Wesleyan theologian Randy Maddox's book "Responsible Grace" underscores how Lucas's view of Wesleyan theology is truncated. And he has no understanding of Orthodox soteriology. Lots of building straw men.
As far as Luther, a whole theological system should not be built on a person who is having a crisis of consciousness in faith.
Lastly, the Epistle of James is framed by the notion of a favorable eschatological verdict at the Last Judgment, which coheres with his notion of Justification by Faith and Works.
At min 59 and following Lucas gets so tripped up in his Sola Fide doctrine to the point where he seems unable to affirm that the Lord calls us to “bear the fruits of repentance” as Fr JW keeps saying. The Lord spoke plainly and said “those who have ears to hear let them hear.” His two great commandments are to love God and neighbor as self. What is love? He told us and He showed us and still is showing us every day. And He calls us to do likewise. In Orthodoxy I’m taught not to parse His teaching like a lawyer, but to do it, and to trust in the Lord’s mercy. Meanwhile, should I be living in fear that God will punish me if I don’t measure up? Of course not. He is merciful. He is with me and helps me at every step of the way. Does that mean I shouldn’t do my best to love God and neighbor? Of course not. The Lord commands it
The Method Ministries guys handled themselves very well here. Their first couple of videos had such a strident and dismissive tone that they made me (a Protestant) pretty irritated, but they seemed more respectful and moderated when they had a dialogue partner. I’d love to see more of them on the channel 😊
Some ones level of "niceness" has no bearing on the veracity of the claims.
@@arnoldvezbon6131 absolutely! 😊 I also think they made very poor arguments and showed themselves to be poorly informed about EO beliefs, even though I ultimately agree with many of their conclusions.
The condescension is palpable with those two. The way the said "my EO friends" made my skin crawl.
@@maximustheconfessor72yeah it’s definitely still a factor. Though at least in this discussion (as opposed to their solo videos) it was more an issue of tone than of content.
It may be a side-effect of one of them being a Reformed Baptist. James White has had such a huge influence on that groups apologetics that they seem to equate condescension with being resolute/convinced. There absolutely is a way to disagree respectfully and emphatically without condescending. 🤷♂️
The whole exchange starting at 34:30 or so is wild. Lucas’ interpretation totally flies in the face of the text and Fr. John’s point. Fr. John clearly has the stronger interpretation, and Lucas seems to be arguing a point that but comes to a conclusion that is hard to arrive at. Put another way, I’d use his argument to argue against his point.
.
Father Stephen De Young would be a great asset to this discussion. His insight to this topic is unrivaled. He was also a pastor in the reformed church prior to entering Orthodoxy
Faith working in love is literally faith plus works. These protestant guys have such a strong need for dialectical tension and turning salvation into a math equation that they will declare faith working in love, and then in the very next breath wlll deny their own position. It is insane.
Constant dialectical tension in everything. Like "tradition vs scripture"... There's no need for the tension.
It is crazy that all Protestants, who profess sola scriptura, also cling to an anti-biblical doctrine of sola fide. James 2 explicitly rejects sola fide. Paul condemns works of the law - not all works. Galatians 5:6 Paul says “faith working through love.” Case closed.
Jesus lied to this woman, correct?
Luk_7:50 He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
For all its promise of assurance, it is rhe Protestants in this debate who anxiously press Fr Whiteford for details on exactly what works justify, and who speculate over how much corn is too much corn. Despite believing there are thjngs rhey need to do, Fr Whiteford and Dr Branson seem much more calm and assured.
In the Bible itself there are clear examples of people falling away from the Faith through their bad deeds, such as Judas who betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver. Judas's Faith alone, which had been correct, was not sufficient, therefore to save him. Had he repented rather than despaired, even after betraying Christ, then he could have been saved. Therefore even if one confines oneself to Sola Scriptura, and please also see Fr. John Whiteford's comments, on any reasonable reading, salvation is impossible without both true Faith and good Works.
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
I agree People(Unbelievers) fell away from God Proving they never believed on God by Faith on Jesus Christ, NO works of Man is required for Justification.
The only condition is Faith in the Finished WORK of Jesus Christ, believe the Gospel Romans 3, 1 Cor 15:1-4
@@hudsontd7778 It is clear that, for example, as stated at roughly 1:31:00 -1:32:00, inter alia, that, as Paul points out, no-one can get to heaven if they don´t repent of certain sins, including those linked to sexual immorality. Deeds matter therefore and thus faith without the WORKS of abstaining from or repenting of these deeds is essential. Thus Faith and WORKS beyond the work of FAITH itself, are BOTH required as all true faithful Orthodox Christians believe.
This is where Protestants have had to create extra-biblical doctrine such as the invisible church and secret election, which are accretions, just to hold the spiritually deluded claims produced by Sola Scriptura. Faith alone is armchair Christianity. They want assurance of salvation. The martyrs, confessors, and ascetics attest that the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. Salvation is a battle - a battle against sins and passions, against our fallen state, against for powers of darkness and the evil one. The only assurance is for the one who perseveres to the end. It’s abominable that the Protestants would lead people to be so woefully unprepared for spiritual warfare and walking the narrow path.
Works doesn’t make us righteous compared to the Lord, but our works are how we’ll be judged nonetheless (Romans 2:6). It’s our works they show the surety of our faith, that we are participating in God’s love and divine will.
Point of fact. Saint Paul was writing the letter to the Romans because the Jewish Christians were returning to Rome after being expelled by the emperor. He wanted to make sure competing Gentile and Jewish churches didn’t arise.
Both Orthodox and Protestants agree that man is not justified by works alone. The disagreement is where works are placed in salvation.
Even that's not a disagreement IMO if the terms are indeed agreed upon.
A work is an act.
Protestants don't have the metaphysical framework to understand that Acts(energies) are distinct but inseparable from Nature(essence). You *need* works in to be saved in the sense that putting your faith in God is in itself an act. Confessing with your mind, soul, and mouth the Nicene Creed, entering into the Baptismal fount, are both good, saving works.
@@AwesomeWholesome As a Protestant, I agree that works save, but do not justify the same way Orthodox say it justifies. The emphasis a Protestant makes is that the sole instrument of justification is faith. However, works NEED to be tied to faith and justification if we are to remain biblical. Hence, works show up in other areas of salvation (e.g progressive sanctification).
If works need to be tied to acts to be saved, how are the aborted and the still born apart of the Resurrection?
@@AwesomeWholesomeFaith is not our work, but God’s. St. Paul is very clear that faith and good works are antithetical to each others as means of salvation eph2:8-9
“Justified” does NOT mean “declared righteous”!
Nobody thinks that sanctification is a declaration of being holy, so why should we think that justification is a declaration of being just? Both words indicate a process, a direction of change.
Most of the time Paul is using justification as the act of setting something right that was wrong. This is due to faith "ek pistis" - out from faith, a product of faith. It is a functional faith that influences how we think, reason, feel, and act. It is in that sense that we are justified by faith, set right by faith.
The Greek word “dikaioō” (Strongs #1344) should be more accurately translated as “set right,” “rectified,” or “corrected,” as it is a CHANGE from wrong to right, whether in our minds or in other ways, like justifying a line of text or a crooked picture that is set right. Belief in Jesus sets us right, corrects us, rectifies us. For example...
Galatians 2:17 "But if, in our ENDEAVOR to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners..."
2 Thessalonians 2:13, "God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, THROUGH sanctification..."
Romans 6:19, "present your members as slaves to righteousness [dikaiosynē] LEADING to sanctification."
Romans 6:20 “For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness [dikaiosynē].”
1 Corinthians 6:10-11 “Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified [set right, Gr. edikaiōthētet] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” The word translated as “justified” is being used as a synonym for being sanctified and washed clean.
Romans 4:25-5:1 “Who was delivered up for [Gr. dia, through] our trespasses and raised for our justification [dikaiōsin/correction]. Therefore, since we have been justified [dikaiōthentes/set right] through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Romans 4:25-5:1 says that Jesus died through our sin and he was raised to correct, to rectify (or justify, if you prefer) us. We are not merely declared righteousness, but rather we become righteous because of his resurrection and that due to having been set right we are able to obtain peace with God. This means that the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus motivated us to live lives pleasing to God. It is our “having been set right [dikaiōthentes] therefore [oun] out of [ek] faith [pisteōs]” that “we have peace with God.” It is not God declaring us right and then we find peace, but rather us first setting something right that was previously wrong which enables us to have peace with God as a byproduct, the result.
So refreshing to listen to the gracious respectful and productive discussion between Christians who disagree on theology. Thank you men for wonderful input. Wesley, around 2:13 you nailed regarding the context of Hebrews 10:25-27. “As you see the Day drawing near” (vs.25). The context is referring to a literal judgement of ethnic Israel that came to pass in 70 AD as was predicted over and over in the OT, such as Deut. 32:35, which the author of Hebrews cites in 10:30. I’m guessing you are a partial preterist.
“Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”
- Philippians 2:12
Also it's really odd that he keeps saying "Wesleyans and Calvinists are under the same umbrella of Protestants, we are brothers in arms" when historically Protestants slaughtered each other over differences in beliefs.
Also the whole "God says you are righteous by depositing Godcoin into your heavenly Bitcoin wallet" requires a God that lies. You aren't actually metaphysically changed, God is declaring you as righteous when you aren't otherwise. It makes God speak a falsehood.
The Catholic Church killed as many as they could before the split and most that ditch their catholic beliefs just wanted to live in peace, but any that held on to their Priesthood like John Calvin, did kill a bunch over different beliefs.
@@matrixphanatics yeah there's a report that says the wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants total killed more people than WW2.
The ultimate "knowing them by their fruits". I've never read or heard of ANY killings over the last 2000 years in the name of Orthodoxy.
@@maximustheconfessor72 never??
Protestants believe that James is talking about sanctification, not justification. But James uses the word “justified.” He is clear that we are not “justified” (or saved) by faith alone.
This is not what Protestants believe.
Then how is Christianity different than any other religion if we are saved by works and rituals?
Ha! At least the Orthodox have rituals just like the Apostles. We do not believe however that the rituals themselves save us. The Mysteries and Divine Services of the Holy Orthodox Church help us to align ourselves with God’s will and deepen our faith. There are surely secret sinners that do every outward act in the Church that will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Salvation is reaped through repentance, which is the work that each of us must do to have a relationship with Jesus. The Orthodox value relationship with God over forensic legalistic adjudication. It’s like Prots think that they can bind God into granting salvation through building a case based on a minimum standard that anyone can achieve with the least possible effort.
Here's a thought: God saves us...Halleluiah! Now what are we going to **do** about it? Even Fr. Alexander Schmemann lamented about the overt "obsession" with salvation. The same people who celebrate their salvation by faith alone are the most anxious, and have to keep talking and talking and talking about it. It's tiring!
I'm a confessional lutheran. We talk about all of those thing.
Quick note, Wesley Todd is incorrect about Luther; Luther believed you did need the sacraments as he taught baptism saves, he also believed in a physical presence in the Eucharist and also many Lutheran churches practice the sacrament of confession
Lutheran churches confession is not a necessity its for those who want it mostly because they are struggling with doubt
If it is required mostly for the youth they can read a generic confession. Also baptism saves but not absolutely necessary like the thief on the cross. Both baptism and the eucharist are works of God
@@Lizzie236 Thief on the cross lived and died in the OT times. How can you use him as an excuse when during his times Baptism was not yet in force.? Chronologically, commandment "go and Baptize" was given much later.
@johnnyd2383 the question is baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. The thief on the cross and your old testament jews wasn't baptised therefore it's not absolutely necessary for salvation. Your point is those are different circumstances so it doesn't prove anything. Yet your point proves the point that there are different circumstances that is dependent on God. In other words if someone just started going to church but hasn't been baptised yet they die in a car accident are they saved? Well that is also a different circumstance.
@@Lizzie236 Baptism as a requirement did not exist in OT times. It was circumcision. In NT times it is (Mark 16, 16) while circumcision is not. Anything unclear.?
@johnnyd2383 yes I am aware of this and you missed the point
These gentlemen need to watch Perry Robinson’s refutation of Anthony Rodgers on Shamounian. Justification by Faith Alone did not exist for 1500 years after Christ and there’s not even room for doubt
I'm not sure why Protestants are so insistent on having an "assurance of salvation"? Its the very fact that such a thing doesn't exist the forces us to seek Christ everyday.
John says "I write this so you may know that you have eternal life" why would he write something to provide assurance if there isn't a such thing?
So true
@@hasselnttper3730 because those who are saved are being conformed by God into the image of his son. Part of being conformed into the image of his son includes acting like him. This requires both an intentional act of God and an intentional act of the saved individual.
Secondly, once someone who is saved becomes saved, they have a heart of stone removed and are given a heart of flesh, they are also raised to spiritual life. Therefore a saved individual won’t desire to “retire and never go to church again” because their will and desire have been changed by God. Christian are new creatures in Chris Jesus. It’s as inane as asking “I transformed my apple tree into an orange tree, why doesn’t it just retire and grow apples again?” That’s why Jesus tells us, by their fruits you shall know them. The plant (us) doesn’t determine the fruits we produce and therefore change what type of plant we are, instead what type of plant we are determines what type of fruit we produce.
@@christopherneedham9584 I deleted my comment after I realized it was stoopid, but your reply also doesn't hold water in my opinion. I like the first part of your reply, it almost sounds like you're describing theosis (if the intentional act(s) you're talking about is more than just faith).
It's the second part that I have problems with if you're coming at it from a protestant perspective that faith alone is enough. Here are my thoughts, though they may be retarded. I'm still learning every day:
1. We obviously have free will, so you can in fact decide to abandon your faith, thus changing what type of plant you are.
2. Additionally, it seems to me like you would have to argue "well, he never actually believed", or "he was never actually saved anyways" whenever someone abandons the faith. That's similar to what some muslims say whenever a muslim leaves islam, that "no one has ever left islam, so he wasn't real muslim to begin with".
3. If someone claims to have faith and thus salvation, but they still act like someone with a heart of stone (like most people including most protestants), wouldn't that refute this notion that faith is enough to have this transformation done? edit: And that's why salvation is a process called theosis, not an instant transformation the moment you believe or profess your belief.
@@hasselnttper3730 I will respond to your points.
1. I don’t think we have free will depending on what you mean by that. No, we cannot “choose to lose our salvation “. Jesus says in John 6 that “all the father has given to me will come to me and I will lose none of them” this refers to the covenant of redemption that God the father made with God the son before the world was even created. Those who will be saved are the ones whom God the Father gave Jesus, and those same people are the ones who Jesus will raise on the last day. Also John 6.
2. I do argue that if someone leaves the faith that “they never really were saved”. Jesus comes to give eternal life, and he doesn’t give someone eternal life and then take it away. So all whom are saved have eternal life (which is how Jesus talked about salvation) and those who aren’t saved do not. Furthermore, that’s how John talks about those who leave the church. “They went out from us because they were not of us”. He doesn’t say that they were once part of us and then left to become no longer part of us. But rather they left because they were never part of us. The same is found in Matthew 7, where someone says “Lord Lord, in your name I have cast our devils and done many mighty works, and God says’ depart from me for I never knew you” God does not say “I knew you once and forgot you” he says “I never knew you” this is presumably someone who dies believing they are saved and are doing good works in the name of Jesus. Whether or not a Muslim argues the same is irrelevant.
3. I don’t see how that would be refuted. Someone claiming faith doesn’t mean they have faith. That’s the whole point of James. Those who claim to have faith but don’t have works have a dead faith. Or a worthless faith that accomplishes nothing. Jesus says “by their fruits you shall know them”. That means if someone claims faith but they consistently over time demonstrate that they have only a dead faith, you will know that they are not saved. A real and living faith produces works in the life of that person who has it.
What really frustrates me about these discussions that people just equivocate "works of the law" that Paul uses and "works" that James uses. I would say that there is a distinction. Paul is pushing back against judaizers and James is clarifying that works _of faith_ are salvific. Faith without works is dead. Works without faith are dead. You cannot have one without the other. Hence, _sola_ fide cannot be right. I do not know why works in general get such a bad reputation when Jesus spoke so often of doing good works.
And before someone gets at me at says that the sacraments are "works of the law", they are the work of God. Humans add nothing to the sacrament. The sole "worker" in the sacraments is the one true God.
@@samuelwillowcreek8764 What works did the thief on the cross have?
@@dianehall1422 confessing the saviour with all he had left to offer, his dying breath.
@TheMhouk2 Then the rest of us just need to confess Christ for salvation. Works are a result of our conversion, not a . As evidenced by the thief on the cross and many other scriptures, such as "not through works so no man may boast," clearly we are not saved by works. If you look past the denominational dogma and just read the New Testament, it is plainly spelled out.
@@dianehall1422 Next time you find yourself on a cross next to the God-man you can receive your pardon similarly. Your argument is the same as defending abortion by using uncommon exceptions. You and I must follow the normative path of salvation.
Wesley - "Justification is forensic and legal"
**sigh** NO. Listen to any Christian in the first millennia and they will tell you this is completely outside the point.
The problem is these guys don't care about first millennium Christianity
Hence they’re not valid churches, disconnected. But that’s a hard pill to swallow unfortunately. They have some truth & biases to over come to the fullness of how it’s been understood.
Easy win for Orthodoxy lol
I'm halfway through, but currently I see the main issues are underlying disagreement on whether justification is legal and forensic or not.. It's frustrating because without ironing out this presupposition I cant see this going anywhere and each side just reassert their own positions. From my understanding, the legal, forensic position would typically require Christ to be in some way damned on the cross, which would destroy the entire position.
To put it simply, Scripture sometimes uses legal metaphors as an analogy to describe Christ's redemptive work; one facet of a multi-faceted gem, so to speak. But early modern scholastic lawyers like Calvin seized upon these metaphors and read their anachronistic presuppositions back into Scripture to build a theology completely alien to all that preceded it. It's a classic example of missing the forest for the trees.
When you look at the Greek language itself you are able to see that belief is an action word it is something you do. For instance if I am to say “The Cook” it is «Ο μάγειρος» but if I say “I am cooking” or “I cook” then it is «Μαγειρεύω». One is the title or a confession of what one does. The word for faith in Greek is «Πίστης» and this is the root word used when we say belief or “I believe” which is «Πιστεύω». Belief is a work… something you do…. Like Father John says.
1:23:15 "... if you view pornography daily ..."
If daily is too much, how frequently may a man view pornography before it becomes troubling for his "assurance of salvation"?
This is where the conversation always comes around to, the Protestant doctrine on Justification is itself a conceasion that the Protestant church cannot produce people who are "dead to sin and slaves to righteousness."
The only question in each conversation is where each pastor or denomination draws their line, but its certainly short of "your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees" and "be holy, for I am holy."
I just can’t get over the fact that the Protestant doctrines were not present in the beginning of the Church. That’s a larger witness to proper interpretation of scripture to me. In Protestantism, Christianity is essentially a dead religion that needs to be reconstructed from the text ONLY which is how we’ve gotten to the many, many schisms. Why is there such a hard headedness towards what the early church actually believed ?
What do you mean by "Protestant doctrines?"
@@MonsieurRobotic the common ones. Mostly the 5 Solas
@@Hezron389 The solas aren't doctrines at all. They are statements about faith. A doctrine would be something like the Bible.
@@MonsieurRobotic I mean….the 5 Solas are fairly dogmatic across the board, but whatever you want to call them, they were not present in the early church. Protestantism essentially claims to be reviving a lost religion with no connection to the past except a hand full of letters and an Old Testament they don’t think is valid anymore.
@@Hezron389 Of course they weren't present in the early church. The entire point is folks made a determination/interpretation that was different from the original church. If they made a different determination why would it be present with the early church?
Protestantism doesn't claim anything because it is an umbrella term for many different denominations that have different interpretations of Christianity. I'm BiC and I certainly don't claim I'm reviving a lost religion or that it has no connection to the past. Sure, there are some different interpretations but I think most Christian denominations largely agree on the core factors.
Not that I think I could articulate well enough to convince methodministries, but it seems that the contention is whether pistis is better translated faith (assumed devoid of works) and faithfulness. If faith, then works can be ontologically dissected from faith and not merely two sides of same coin. If faithfulness, then they are ontologically the same coin but different sides where orientation to God in love and imaging God’s love to neighbor are definitionaly separate, but ontologically the same.
The second contention is assuming "works of the law" is generic as "any work"...vs the improper use of the Torah as means of justification instead of the outworking of love (as Paul and Christ reiterate all the Law/Torah hangs on Love of God and Love of Neighbor). If my goal is to merit salvation by acts of benevolence or strict adherence I will fail, but if my goal is to love God through loving neighbor (whatever you have done to the least of these...), and I am trusting God to be merciful to me when I fail to hit that target...this is, IMHO, what Eph 2:8-10 and context, paired with James is articulating.
Faith without works is dead. ~
But it's the only way protestants can justify the ontological difference they have arbitrarily created by removing the organs of the creature instead of observing and learning from the living creature. Not saying we dont need to know the difference between heart and lungs, but its the relationship within the living creature that actually shows their function...not when they are dissected.
An easy refutation oc Lucas at 1:15:0 is also that in Romans 3 :31 is that paul went through many of the jewish views on how the purity acts of law of moses was seen and taken as what is required to come into the covenant as their understanding of Exodus 20 might incur and this is something that Jewish converts would even force on gentiles who werent as familiar with the old testament. Paul affirms faith establishes the law not abolishes it.
More than 5 times Fr. John said Orthodoxy didnt believe in works to earn salvation but somehow lucas strawmanning him saying so. He even do in his instagram page
It’s a logical conclusion based on the premises.
Premise 1: faith alone is not salvific
Premise 2: works must accompany faith in salvation
Conclusion: those who are saved accomplish this by both faith and works
But that doesn’t mean that works alone save. It’s not an either-or but a both-and.
If you only perform the law with the intent to buy favor from God, you will be rejected. If you profess faith but produce no fruit of good works then it’s a dead-faith.
In orthodoxy there is great emphasis in aligning your will with God’s which means a salvific faith is one that is vibrant and alive, flowering with good works which are a living expression of the will of the Father. They are not motivated by a desire to earn merit, nor even an attempt to please God, but rather in being United to the Father’s will so that we produce good works because we naturally desire to do good.
This is going to sound terrible, but if someone says they are Methodist , I assume they aren’t based and traditional. I am sure there are outliers but that’s just what I have seen.
It’s not terrible it’s true since that’s generally the case due to the churches falling & becoming liberal. It’s like saying those who are Californians tend to be less conservative & more liberal
1:13:25 Paul is writing to the Church of Rome because the Jews recently had been expelled from Rome (Priscilla and Aquilla in Acts are Jews who were expelled from Rome) and now these Jews are beginning to return to Rome now that they are allowed and the mainly Gentile Church is trying to figure itself out now that Jews are returning, saying they need to be circumcised etc
These Protestants keep harping on about assurance. Calvin explicitly says that God gives some people the grace of salvation so that they think they are saved and then removes that grace, so how do any of these protestants know that they're saved? It's literally impossible on their view.
Then Wesley says "look at if you're obedient or not" is that not exactly what the other guy cried about "it's all focused on you".
Protestants make no sense, its all gibberish.
Bring on Perry Robinson next time.
If a Christian is unsure about their salvation, they need to get back to basics. Salvation is a promise if you remain steadfast in the faith, as we are called to do. Paul likens it to a race. If you remain in faith, you will be saved.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will desert the faith and occupy themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings,
1Ti 4:2 influenced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared.
EO have to argue with RCC about which church is true and in which true salvation lies. Anxiety about salvation is possible in any tradition.
@@KYWingfold But the Orthodox guys aren't arguing for assurance of salvation. Orthodox Christianity doesn't promote assurance, we say that salvation is predicated on faithfulness to Christ.
So when Protestants tell Orthodox people they don't have assurance of salvation we agree and say they don't have it either, despite what they may say from the outset.
Great discussion except for the unequal individual speaker volume UGH 😫 this happens so much on podcasts where the volume of each person is different. One person is extremely loud while another person is too quiet. This makes it so difficult and annoying trying to watch 🤷🏻
Got any idea how to fix it when everyone has the "automatically adjust mic volume" button checked on streamyard??
@@FaithUnaltered Buck Johnson uses Podsworth Media, which has an app to fix these kinds of problems.
Using earbuds helps a lot
@@AhFahted what does that have to do with mic volume?
totally agree. If your voice sounds like your screaming everytime you speak, turn down the gain. JW is hard enough to hear regular without "LISTEN TO ME!!!!!!" mic levels in the discussion.🙄🙄
The Protestant cope is painful to watch. I get it. It’s hard to realize you’ve been wrong for so long but be humble and accept the truth.
- ex Protestant
ex. Christian* and I say that with sorrow. Many will stand before Christ on judgment day and say "Lord, Lord" and point to all of their works, but you must KNOW Christ for him to welcome you. Your faith in Christ imputes His righteousness upon you, 2 Corinthians 5:21. You must not rely on your works to be saved because God will judge you by the book of works and only Jesus kept that way.
@@TS-ee7jx you should read all of Mathew 7 not just one verse. Just before that Christ is saying you will know them by their fruits bc good trees bear good fruits and bad trees bear bad fruits. What does bearing fruits mean to you? He’s clearly saying the people who are “claiming” to have done these works in his name are LAWLESS (his words not mine). Just because they THINK they are doing works in His name, doesn’t mean they are. That’s the point. Not that works with faith (faith is an action not a belief) won’t save you. So in this parable we have bad trees aka fakes and good trees aka those who worship/ live according to the Father’s will. One group BELIEVES they are doing good things in the Lords name. The other group actually is. See the parable of the goats and sheep when Christ is literally splitting them into groups based on their FAITHFUL works.
I’ll post the entire context for anyone wondering below but suggest you read all of Matthew chapter 7 and all of the gospel. Quote mining leads to delusion. Matthew 7:15-25. Read verse 19 over and over until it sinks in.
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
I Never Knew You
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Build on the Rock
24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
@@TS-ee7jx Sheep and goats, my friend. Are the goats condemned because they didn't believe the right things? No, it is because they didn't do the things they ought to have done.
I would rather be a humble and repentant drunkard than a proud and self-righteous tee-totaler.
How many times does Fr John have to say that works don’t save??? When your heart is changed (infused righteousness) you have an active faith, which is faith working through love (Gal 5:6). James 2 is clear on this.
So we agree then. Faith alone so the Spirit enters a person, awakening a heart to good works working through love.
@@MonsieurRobotic Mostly agreed, but when EO and RCC procalim "anathemas" on anyone outside of their tradition (which is a formal conviction of sending someone to perdition--hell), I tihnk we can push back on their constructs.
@@MonsieurRoboticWithout boundaries there is no salvation. Christ and the Apostles proclaimed curses on false doctrine. The only Church that does that consistently by upholding historical anathemas is Eastern Orthodoxy. Papal ecclesiology allows for ecumenism not only among others who are Christian but also non-Christian religions. Having disgust and calling it an exclusionary club is just the coping of a relative faith not willing to establish absolute boundaries.
So funny how the method ministries guy claims Fr John is teaching works based salvation then goes on to say if you watch pornography you are not saved. That's literally works based salvation lmao.
Do you know why God said he took no pleasure in the blood of bulls and that the Jews sacrifices were a stench in Gods nostrils? Its because the sacrifices were merely ritualistic, lacking faith in God. Just as a faithless baptism is swimming, faithless sacrifices are nothing more than a bbq.
Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
@@CryoftheProphet I don't understand how any of that links to my comment. We Orthodox believe in faith.
@@anon8638 Porn is sinful, its a conscious choice to sin. A Christian cannot watch porn and just go through life like everything is just fine, its a form of corruption.
Its fundamentally incompatible with a Christians way of life, and I would argue says alot about the persons spiritual condition to begin with.
You would need to repent of that and bring it to the cross and get away from that as quick as possible.
I would seriously question if a person actually knows Christ if they were watching that.
@@CryoftheProphet bro 💀, what are you saying? Orthodox Church didnt believe in works based salvation to earn salvation
@@CryoftheProphet agreed. But people have addictions, and who are we to know someone's faith despite those addictions? How do we know how much they repent at night and how much they will repent in the last hour?
To my point, MM are arguing against works based salvation. Yet they say a bad work precludes you from heaven. Do you not see how that contradicts?
Does Protestantism feminise men or are feminine men drawn to Protestantism?
Yes.
I suppose your extremely long tassels make you far more rightous??
Yes, it’s all over Protestantism
From my own experience and sin, and the witness of my former AG church, it’s both.
You caught what i did. I believe they like to call it "Metro sexual".
Watching this I can’t help but feel Beau was out of place. Why not bring on someone who’s written a lot on justification like seraphim Hamilton?
Beau should have just brought popcorn and ate it on camera the entire time.
We love Beau anyway. May God bless him for his efforts.
@@David-kz2im true!
Appreciate him either way but I agree bring seraphim for part 2!
Commentary from the Orthodox Study Bible on Ephesians 2:8-10:
Works cannot earn us this great treasure (faith)-it is a pure gift-but those who receive this gift do good. We are not saved by good works, but for good works
That sounds pretty much in line with the protestant position.
It isn't, when you understand that what a Protestant means by faith ("intellectual assent with some fuzzy emotions sprinkled in") is not the same as what Orthodox mean by faith: the response not just of the mind, but of one's heart and behavior, in harmony. Authentic faith can't be separated from how you actually behave, and that in no way contradicts St. Paul who has a very particular semantic range when he uses the term "works," essentially referring to Pharisaical bean-counting and box-ticking; NOT, as Protestants misuse it, as "any positive or negative action at all."
@@SinkingStarship I think many protestants would just agree with you.
They may agree but in doing so they are rejection justification by fauth alone.
@@SinkingStarshipwrong! You are strawmanning the historical Protestant position. Saving faith is not mere intellectualism, emotional feeling, but trust. It is itself a work of God. There was reason that Luther used the term sola fide and not sola credo.
@@petros810can you be saved without obedience or repentance? If not, that’s a denial of sola fide from my perspective as those are works.
Protestant’s mental gymnastics is giving me a headache.
Like Energies huh
@@thereisnopandemic like,like,like. It wasn’t a discussion about energies of God here. More like Matthew 7 15-20. Oh, wait, “good fruits” doesn’t mean works. 😂😂😂
@@thereisnopandemic Well energies are a discussion for people more mature in their Christian life. Protestants are still arguing about justification. They are still on milk.
"I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;"
@@thereisnopandemicHe saw too much of the uncreated light for one day....or maybe it was just a lack of oxygen.
The Calvinist and Arminianism are extremely different and there intense debates between both camps. Calvin is also quoted that any attacks against his doctrine he saw as an attack against the Bible itself. He was extremely against anyone questioning his doctrine or asking questions about. Protestants are extreme uneducated when it comes to their own church history , as I have been myself. Rock and Sand is a great place to start in finding out the Protestant history and its shocking
Fr. Josiah trenhams book has been a BIG help for me understanding church history, seeing the ugly side of Protestantism. What/where were you before coming to orthodoxy ?
Poor prots...Completely of their depth...
Saying the same thing because we all deep down know we have to work out our faith with love, but bc of Faith Alone they have to double speak constantly even though they agree with Fr John. Protestants have to say “belief and faith aren’t works” to support faith alone, but the Bible doesn’t make that distinction and says belief is a work. Which is crazy because faith alone people are also sola scriptora except when the Bible says the opposite. Wow lord have mercy on us. Recently started to understand all of this through Gods grace as a non denominational pastor. Thanks for the dialogue!
Lucas keeps bringing up the fact that the “interlocutor” isn’t a true Christian…. Yes… Because he doesn’t have works. That’s the very reason he’s being criticized. What does Lucas think this proves for his side? The whole point is he’s missing works, so he’s not a Christian!!
Lucas is arguing that the whole point is that he isn't a Christian, so therefore he is missing the works. The other side is that he is missing the works, so therefore he is not a Christian. One side puts the works as a prerequisite for salvation and the other puts works as the outgrowth, or fruit of a saving faith.
@@christopherneedham9584 but he’s arguing that he has faith, so he’s trying to say that he is a Christian. But you can’t have faith without works and be a Christian.
@@marincusman9303 I’m confused. Both people were saying that he was not a Christian, the person James was talking about believed he was a Christian, but he had a dead faith. This was agreed on by both Lucas and Fr John. The argument is over A. He is not a Christian because he didn’t have works,
Or B. His lack of works be because he wasn’t a Christian.
Nobody argued that he was a Christian because James said he had dead faith.
The interlocutor in Romans that St. Paul was engaging were not true Christians either. Good point.
@@christopherneedham9584 I don’t think B is tenable because you’d have to bring in some idea of a secret election. He’s trying to be Christian. He’s not because he doesn’t have works, he would be if he did. To say B is to say something like he wasn’t already regenerated in order to have a true working faith
Philip Melanchthon writes in Apology IV On Justification that we are justified in order that we do good works.
Well Christ said to keep the commandments in order to be saved. The judgement of both the saved and damned is always explicitly based on deeds, not on faith alone. That's not to say that we earn salvation, as it's also based on the forgiveness of God for our past sins, but to say that deeds have no part to play is incorrect.
@@tynytian The judgment on the Last Day is a public vindication so, of course, it involves bringing the works of the righteous to light before all, but this does not mean that on the basis of the works one has come into the status of righteous. None such works could be called good if those doing the labor weren't, beforehand, good. A good tree produces good fruit, the good fruit does not make the tree good. Such couldn't have arisen if there wasn't a prior condition.
The entire discussion is absurd, as if anyone is advocating against good works. Trust me, it won't harm you or your conscience if you don't look at yourself, but it may harm the righteousness of faith if you do. To look to Christ in the trust of faith is to be positioned to labor freely, that is, to do all manner of good works which, as a matter of record, are just as heartily commended by the Lutheran Reformers as any Eastern priest, monastic, or patriarch.
@@marcuswilliams7448 Luke 10:25-28
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
Who is the interlocutor? A Protestant.
Only 1:03:00 in, but parts of this are a little disappointing both ways. The Protestants collapse salvation into justification at times, thinking that verses that speak of salvation through faith indicate justification by faith alone, but I don’t see the EO ever tag them on this.
Calvinists always mention "assurance " but seem to spend their lives trying to "assure" themselves. I dont think they have the "comfort" that they claim. I think this is because to stay consistent they have given a loophole which is if in the end you turn from God, you were never really saved in the first place. This is really madness. None of the saints in the last 2 millennia were ever "sure" of their salvation
.. they spent their lives in repentance and crying out Lord have mercy.... this obsession with assurance does not reflect the Christianity of the first 15 centuries or that which is still present in our Holy Orthodox Church..
No one, absent continual, personal revelation given to few, have perfect belief! Help, thou my unbelief!
@@kristenswensen6451 Assurance of salvation is a pillar of Calvinism. If assurance is core doctrine, then it's odd that nobody is actually assured.
Orthodoxy doesn't believe in Assurance, yet we aren't worried about it. We do our best, we repent, and God will judge.
I'm surprised the these Wesleyans will revert to classical Reformed arguments on Pauline justification rather than understanding Paul's "interlocutor," which underscores that the NPP is a better context to read Paul than what these two boys are doing.
I can understand Father’s quips and snappy replies. I would have liked to have seen more regarding the means by the justification (penal substitutionary atonement) - I think that gets to the root in this discussion. (To be fair I’m typing this about an hour in. So if you did discuss this; have mercy on me!)
I agree. He seemed content to stay in the talking-past-each-other phase of the conversation that Dr. Branson was pointing out. Not that I would do any better of course, I’m just a guy typing lol
@@TheBillyDWilliams I think establishing the MEANS by which Justification happens would have helped clear the air a bit. They were both firmly speaking of Justification from their understanding of "what was accomplished on the Cross" -- Both sides mention this phrase a few times...but mean different things when they say it.
The only way to deal with Protestants is go to their level, deal with the text Ephesians 2:8-9 and don’t leave the subject until they answer it.
1.who is Paul addressing??? (The Jews)
What Law is he addressing??? (Law of Moses and the law of circumcision)
who is doing the boasting? ( the Jews cause they are saying they keep the law)
And then when they run to Abraham, you ask what are all the things Abraham did before he was ever called the father of faith, matter of fact what was the first command he gave Abraham???? Wait wasn’t it a work??? Leave your family and go to a foreign land….
Then they will say well what works are we to have???
Matthew 25 Explains the difference between the goat and the sheep.
The beatitudes.
John 3:5 baptism of water and spirit
John 6:54 the eucharist.
And there’s tons more make disciples all the nations .
Start CHURCHES, and bishops and priest so they can oversee those churches.
Some time the meaning of believe is obey.
Confessing Jesus with your mouth.
You’re doing something to receive and to keep your salvation , are you earning it???
course not but you’re being obedient and obeying the commands and the commands that are given are works.
How is it remotely even possible to love your neighbor or to love God with all your heart without works I would love to see this .
Wish I was there
1:00:30. Method wanted to cry about having the well being poisoned and then turned and poisoned the well after Fr. Whitefords response. 💀💀💀
This was amazing. need more of this.
Other than Greece’s secular government legalizing gay marriage, how is liberalism of Protestantism in any way comparable to what is going on within Orthodoxy. Saying it’s a shared problem is disingenuous at best.
And what goes in in Greece's secular government does not directly have anything to do with The Orthodox Church itself. The Orthodox Church is not permitting or blessing gay marriage, so what would the point be.
Exactly. A silly argument.
Even in Greece, the bishop excommunicated all the politicians that voted for this.
Paul teaches FAITH WORKING THROUGH LOVE in Galatians 5:6.
He also tells us we can't be made right with God by keeping the law.
Galatians 5:4 NKJV - You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
DAYYUMM 34:30. Fr John W
Genuinely curious, how is "Faith is a Work" not the end of the argument?
It is.
Becuase is stupid, Faith is a gift
Another example of creating dialectical tension of either/or when the reality is both/and
@@shema9172 Jesus Christ would beg to differe: John 6:29 "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."
@fr.johnwhiteford6194 Faith is a work of God. It is a gift to men. You believing in Jesus is God's work in you, it is not of yourself.
I align with Eastern Orthodox like 90% of the time
I'm sorry but you don't. You're SDA, there's 90% or more we don't agree on.
@@dustins382 that's not true, it's nearly identical with the exception of how you say things. I had to deal with this as a chaplain's assistant in the marine corps, and only recently became sda.
@@FishermensCorner soul sleep (and by extension your whole conception of heaven/hell), how you view the old covenant, how you describe the Trinity, what Christ did while He was in the tomb, who raised Christ from the dead, Michael the archangel, "could Christ have sinned?", just to name a few off the top of my head. My brother is SDA and I've studied it pretty extensively, we disagree on 90% or more.
@dustins382 Soul sleep is not 7-Day adventist. Like just stop there, Orthodox believe in semi annihilism, which is essentially the same.... ooh the conscious lives on to some useless State forever, that's effectively the same thing. That's just your romanism showing. Jude is referencing the book of enoch, so the character type of Michael the Archangel is carrying that of Jesus not that it's literally Michael the Archangel, it's a character typology, do you think Jesus is a literal lamb? The Trinity is the same as the orthodox, what are you talking about, we don't subscribe to the Catholic filioque... the Seventh Day Adventist Church had an issue with the Roman description of the trinity... any more straw man you want to kick?
@@FishermensCorner I've never talked to an SDA that says there's consciousness before the resurrection. Aka soul sleep. Do you believe the Apostles are conscious and with Christ right now and have been since their passing almost 2000 years ago? Perhaps it's an individual position you hold, not the official SDA teaching.
"Semi-annihilationism"? What? Romanism coming through? You haven't stated our position correctly at all.
I understand you guys don't hold the Jesus/Michael the same way as JW, but that's still not a position we hold as Orthodox, so you've switched from saying we agree to trying to convince be it's true, which is a concession to my point that we don't agree.
And no, you don't have the same concept of the Trinity at all, even if we both don't have the filioque, the positions we each hold do not agree, so we can't say this is something we agree on.
I've strawmanned nothing, I've only stated the areas we disagree on and you've done nothing to prove that we actually do agree.
If James 2 is about someone who have "Dead Faith", than "living Faith" (the one who justifies) is an operative/working faith, or "faith that works through love", and Fr. Jhon (and all Orthodox) agree that this faith indeed saves. The council of Jerusalem also affirms that.
I wonder, since when this "Johnny come laltely" sect called Methodism is the authority in interpreting scripture?
"Sola Fide is a useful and comforting doctrine"
So? Doesn't make it true. Seems like an odd creed to be based on pragmatism and feelings.
Beau, you truly have a heart for God. Forgive me. The argument at hand is simply regarding tradition. The Protestant will always fight for autonomy, self-governance, and individuality. It’s comical because the Protestants aren’t even the same denomination. Opposite to them and their semantics, Fr. John and the Orthodox Christian will continue to pray for those who have left the true faith to repent and worship in Spirit and truth. Christ is risen!
Indeed He is Risen!
What do Protestants believe happens if they’ve been saved and have faith alone in Jesus but then fall into terrible sins? Are they damned and condemned forever since their justification is nullified because they bear bad fruit? Why wasn’t their sincere faith enough to produce good works? I can’t help but feel that this would produce a feeling either that Jesus failed you and was unfaithful or that they’re not capable of producing faith strong enough or good enough to achieve the once-and-for-all “justification” that produces good fruit. Just an internal critique of Sola Fide.
A man with a true and living connection to the vine of Christ will recognise and repent from their sins, terrible though they may be.
48:20 is Lucas arguing that if someone has faith that works by love then their faith stops working by love, that their faith dead faith is still justifying because they haven't officially apostocized?
The Lord Himself Tells that What Our Justification is! We will be judged by our works/actions!
Matthew 25:31-46
The Final Judgment
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
The question becomes by what power are these works done? Are they by God’s spirit working within a person or by the person’s own will? Protestants would say the former, which does not conflict with Sola Fide.
2:28:14 this isnt sola scriptura its prima scriptura if its the foremost authority then it would still need reliable methodology on how one is to use it which the nicene fathers Such as Athansius argue for a particular reading against the opposing reading which still used the same source so the matter of how truth is carried still requires methodology for using the accepted sources.
Tyler, please bring Perry Robinson in this discussion.
Been trying to get him. He won't unfortunately. We'd love to host an episode with Perry tho so if he changes his mind he's more than welcome :)
Good works like love and other fruits of the Spirit are not the same thing as works of the law. The context matters not just the word “works.” The Pharisees thought following their law “works of the law” was going to save them but it’s through faith not their works. Salvation is through faith in Christ which involves loving Him and others as you love yourself. Mark 12:28-34
Since though he has said here, He that believes in the Son has eternal life, and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him;) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, This by itself is eternal life, nor, He that does but believe in the Son has eternal life, but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing does contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment.Homily 31 on John
This got painful.
The worst part is the "you know your assured by weighing your good works" part they completely cut the legs out from their own arguement on that one.
@@NavelOrangeGazeryes, typical reformed Baptist view. Looking at your works on a scale like that in order to get assurance. Very legalistic, very works righteousness really.
Good works are inseparable from faith because faith includes repentance. But we don’t look at our good works as a measuring stick for whether we are justified or not, we look to Christ for assurance/hope of salvation and for mercy. We participate in the sacraments of His church, that promises forgiveness of sins. We don’t say, “I’ve done all these works, therefore I know I’m saved.” That’s expecting a reward from God, like you merited it. Instead of relying on His promise to us and His mercy.
@@jdsmith2k7 it's actually astounding how despite being arch enemies the Reformed are stuck in the papal mindset when it comes to looking at this issue.
Starts 2:28
"Works of the law" is not the same as "works" (as in deeds). Very disingenuous to ignore the antecedent "...of the law" and treat it as if they're being used in the same way.
I feel like I'm on crazy pills when they confuse the Levitical works Paul is referring to with "works" referring to living like Christ.
They talk of "faith" in a way that describes "Grace". No way am I counting on my belief, faith in Christ. I count on Christ - His Love, Grace to make me "faithful"....
honest question. You said..."No way am I counting on my belief" Do you think He should MAKE you have faith?
and if He does, can that be, is that really, "Faith"?
Can he actually "Love" you and give you "Grace" if he MAKES you do any of it?
Does you Mom, your wife, your friend LOVE you if they are MADE to love you??
@@atyt11 He doesnt make do anything. He invites but even my response is inspired by His Grace. That movement by both is...Love
Its a relationship. Gods Love (as Grace?), my response ("works"?).
@@kristenswensen6451 you said...."His Love, Grace to make me "faithful" so That is why I asked
@@atyt11 good call out as my language could have been clearer.
if the doctrine of sola fide was true wouldn't by necessity make monergism true, destroying freewill? Faith and repentance are clearly a work if you believe that you need to have these you by definition require works, unless Monergism is true and it's all God doing the work. Can any Prot who affirms free will, and sola fide give me a counter argument?
Saint Paul makes the distinction between Faith and works OF THE LAW. This is a very particular issue.