You are twisting Scripture to fit the heresies of the Protestant founders. Nowhere, does Ephesians say "faith- alone". It says "grace through faith". And then it says "apart from works" meaning that this grace is not earnt by the works of the Old Law. St Paul in his letters, when condemning works always condemns the works of the Old Law and teaches that they do not earn grace which is free, but he NEVER says that good works are not required as part of our Faith. A faith that SAVES must have good works. Jesus Christ, St Paul, St James, all teach that a faith that saves MUST have good works, and that my friend is NOT Faith-alone: “‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven’” (Matt. 7:21). “For he will render every man according to his works . . .” (Rom. 2:6-8). “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom. 2:13). “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?” (Jas. 2:14). “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (Jas. 2:17).
You know the core value of all 'Protestants' is basically the freedom to interpret and learn from and reinterpret the Bible as truth becomes apparent, and so we/they aren't all blind followers of religious authorities like 'founders' and 'popes' so on, right? So the idea of founders' heresies is a Roman Catholic accusation which doesn't have much behind it. Protestants are able to self-correct without waiting for a pope to approve.
@@DD-bx8rb I’m not twisting anything to fit anything. The scripture is clear - the issue you have is that it contradicts ‘tradition’. I can’t change that but in any case, scripture takes precedence 100% of the time because Paul said all scripture is profitable, to make the man of God perfect.
@@honestfaithdiscussions I'm a protestant, and I agree with @DD-bx8rb. You added things to the verse that isn't there, (i.e. "faith-alone"). You also seem to conveniently ignore how the early church fathers echoed the admonishments in the book of James, especially the parts about faith and works. These types of polemic does not help. There's plenty of reasons to critique the early fathers, but we must do so honestly.
@ James was a minister to the circumcision just like Peter, John and every other apostle except Paul. His book opens with ‘James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, TO THE 12 TRIBES scattered among the nations.’ Paul was a the only apostle given the ministry to the ‘uncircumcision’ i.e gentiles. This is so important to understand. Works are not required for salvation full stop. We are saved by faith apart from the works of the law. Abraham ‘believed’ God and it was counted to him for righteousness. That is ‘faith alone’. We are created in Christ UNTO good works - we do not focus on good works - good works are a work of the Holy Spirit in us.. if we focus on behaviour the human nature assumes that we must do good works to justify ourselves before God which is the furtherst thing from the truth. Please don’t try to mix up what James was saying to Israel with what Paul clearly said to us.
@@honestfaithdiscussionstotally agreed. The definition of works with faith is not the same in RCC and protestant teaching. RCC believes salvation is faith and works. Protestants believe salvation is faith alone and works come from that faith. Heal the sick, love your neighbor....
This video is tired old erroneous Protestant diatribe. Your tactic is to twist the NT Scriptures to fit the doctrines of the Protestant founders, and then claim the Early Church Fathers were at variance with the NT Scriptures. Your Protestant doctrines find no support the teaching of the Church established and guaranteed by Jesus Christ in the apostolic age, nor the age of the Early Fathers, nor down through the centuries. You clearly illustrate you complete lack of knowledge on what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches. I recommend to you the site Catholic Answers. Peace be with your spirit.
@@DD-bx8rb I might just point out here that the errors of the fathers following Peter and John and every other ‘minister to the circumcision’ rather than Paul the apostle to the gentiles carried on down to be picked up by the reformers also.. they may have found justification by faith which had been hidden and removed entirely by the Catholic Church but even they still held onto many things that were not necessary either and continue to do so until this day. I’m not attacking Catholic, orthodox or Protestants directly here I’m simply pointing out how the early church fathers chose the religious path over the truth - nothing has changed.
@@honestfaithdiscussions You are claiming for yourself the "right interpretation" over all the other Bible-alone practitioners. Where is yours, or their, divine guarantee for these conclusions you and they have arrived at? We see in the NT that the divine gaurantee to teach truth does NOT reside with individual interpetation. Your practice is NOT found in Scripture. Rather, in the NT the Church is Final Authority. And neither does the NT tell us that Church as Final Authority is to ever be replaced. As you are employing a false practice we are not obliged to listen to you. You have no authority. Nothing has changed.
@ You raise a good point about authority and interpretation of Scripture. I believe that Scripture itself is the final authority, not because of personal interpretation, but because the Word of God is “God-breathed” and sufficient for teaching, correction, and instruction (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Paul commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures themselves to verify his teaching (Acts 17:11). If authority rested solely in an institution, Paul would have directed them to “the Church” for confirmation, but instead, he pointed them to God’s Word. While I recognise the dangers of subjective interpretation, Scripture places the responsibility on each believer to test what they hear against God’s revealed Word: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8) The Bible clearly teaches that no earthly institution, tradition, or person is infallible apart from God’s Word itself. Even Paul warned about false teachers arising from within the Church itself (Acts 20:29-30). This makes it critical for every believer to study the Scriptures diligently and rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding (John 16:13). I agree that the early Church had authority in terms of delivering the truth of the gospel. However, this authority was based on what they taught, not merely who they were. Paul even rebuked Peter when his actions contradicted the gospel (Galatians 2:11-14). Apostolic authority in the New Testament was confirmed through the gospel message itself, not institutional status alone. The only “divine guarantee” is the gospel of Jesus Christ - His death, burial, and resurrection as full payment for sin (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). The Holy Spirit guarantees salvation for those who trust in Christ, not those who trust in any specific earthly authority (Ephesians 1:13-14). Ultimately, Christ is the Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18), and His Word endures forever (Isaiah 40:8). The NT Church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). The Church today must still align with this foundation, not claim new authority outside of Scripture. It’s not about claiming personal authority, it’s about submitting to the authority of God’s Word. If I am ever found to be teaching anything contrary to Scripture, I fully accept correction. But to deny the individual’s responsibility to know the Word is to ignore the very teaching of Scripture itself. Truth isn’t found in human tradition, councils, or institutions, it’s found in Jesus Christ and His revealed Word.
@@honestfaithdiscussions No my friend, Scripture says our final authority is the Church that Jesus Christ established and guaranteed. Scripture never says our final authority is the practice of Scripture study, or that this practice will one day replace the Church. 2 Tim 3:16 does NOT say scripture is "sufficient". You have lied. It says scripture is "profitable" for making the man perfect or complete. Yes, the Bereans certainly searched the Scriptures (a very worthy practice indeed!). But look what they did NEXT. Unlike the Thessalonian Jews in Acts who stuck to their "Bible-alone", the Bereans did the OPPOSITE to "Bible-alone". They accepted the Oral teaching of the Church through St Paul, IN ADDITION to their Bible, they got baptized, and they submitted to the Church as their Final Authority. The Bereans were the Catholics, because their authority-paradigm was the Catholic paradigm: Written Tradition(Scripture), Oral Tradition, and Church as Final Authority. The NT does NOT ever say this paradigm is to change to a practice of Bible-alone. Your practice gives doctrinal confusion and continual division even on your "essentials" of Faith-alone and Bible-alone. People don't divide over "secondaries", they divide over crucials; Bible-alone is an unworkable failed practice, clearly of Satan. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and He gave authority to the apostles, and their successors by the laying on of hands, men such as Timothy, Barnabas, Silas, Luke, Apollos, Matthias, etc. "The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15) and NOT a fool running around with a Bible (7 books removed and poor translation to boot). The divine-guarantee resides with the living teaching authority of the Church. You do not possess the divine guarantee for your traditions of men.
@DD-bx8rb No one likes my comments ! You’re doing very well with yours though.. 💪 I understand your perspective, and I appreciate the time you’ve taken to share it. However, I firmly believe that the ultimate authority is God’s Word, not human institutions or traditions. That’s just not going to change. Scripture consistently points to itself as the foundation of truth (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Acts 17:11), and Jesus rebuked those who elevated traditions above God’s Word (Mark 7:13). While the Church plays an important role in teaching and upholding truth, it is subject to Scripture, not above it. I hope we can agree that God’s Word is the final standard, even if we interpret it differently.
This is an interesting discussion. However, it divides groups of believers by technical considerations. It does note how some of the beliefs influenced the early churches, but such is a form of speculation.
Unfortunately you got it wrong near the beginning, so your entire lesson is suspect. Saint Paul never said we are justified by faith "alone", but rather we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law, which only means the ritualistic works like circumcision and following the dietary laws, etc. but most importantly Paul did not teach that we can ignore works of charity, which are required by Christ for salvation. (See Matthew 25:31-46)
@@jspanyer goodness me… Yes he didnt say faith alone in those exact words. You got me ! However, theres no exact verse in the Old Testament that says that Jesus Christ would come and be born in Bethlehem and die on the cross to pay for sin.. but thats what it says none the less regardless of whether you or anyone else can see it.. Paul emphasises salvation by faith alone in Romans 3:28:“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Oh - ok - fair enough., apart from the deeds of the law right? But every other work you can dream up is what He wants is that it? Ephesians 2:8-9 : “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” So what does this mean? Is it a gift or not? How much did you pay for the last gift that you received? Galatians 2:16 (KJV):“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” So we aren’t justified by ‘our faith’ - we’re justified by the faith of Christ - thats what it says here - does that sound like it has anything to do with what you or I do? Romans 4:5 (KJV):“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” What was that? To him that worketh not? It sounds pretty clear to me.. I believe - He justifies - my belief makes me righteous not because of what I did but because of what Christ did. Philippians 3:9 (KJV): “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” Not mine own righteousness brother… Not mine - His righteousness ! The righteousness of God.. Not the righteousness of jspanyer because that is not going to work friend. But you’re right over there big guy.. Paul never actually uses the exact phrase “faith alone,”.. How dare we! The thing is brother, his consistent message throughout all of his epistles is that justification comes through faith in Jesus Christ apart from works. His arguments in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians specifically refute any notion that human effort contributes to salvation. This is the cornerstone of the gospel he preached.
@honestfaithdiscussions unfortunately you follow Paul instead of Christ, but even Paul got it right when he said he worked constantly to help others (charity) while also preaching his gospel.
Neither Scripture nor the early church writers taught faith alone in the way that modern evangelicals do. I'm not even Catholic, but I know that modern protestantism practices a different Christianity.
@ They did not add anything in that way. They’re consistent with the gospels and Paul. 1 Cor 5 and 1 John 3 tell you that you’re interpretation of works is skewed. “Go and sin no more,” was our command, and proof we love Him (John 14:21). James 2 makes it awfully clear what God meant by “works.”
You seem to start with a base assumption that Paul's teachings are more correct. You are implying that teachings by bishops who were more familiar with John's teachings are incorrect because you think they contradict Paul's. What indicates to you that something that Paul taught or emphasized is more correct than something that John taught or emphasized? Paul's focus was on teaching the gentiles. Due to their different background different things needed to be emphasized than what was emphasized for Jews. It does not make any of his messages more or less true or pertinent. Everything that John taught is just as relevant to me as anything that Paul taught, he just emphasized different aspects for his audience. All of it is equally true though. I also don't think it is fair to consider some of these things contradictions. For example, you pointed to the appointment of Bishops and priesthood leaders in a hierarchy as necessarily contradictory of Paul's teaching that we are all equal in Christ. It seems that you have a very narrow interpretation of what it must mean to be "equal in christ". Your narrow interpretation doesn't really seem to hold up to scrutiny as well. God does not call people to teach us and be stewards over his church because they are "better" or of different moral value, or because he loves them more than he loves any of this other children. Nor does the church teach that. Are you denying the legitimacy of the very office of Bishop? Were the Apostles wrong to call Bishops, Elders, etc? When Christ called his Apostles and in Mark called 70s was that a contradiction of the principles that we are all equal in Christ? Such callings are given or references are made to them in nearly all books of the New Testament. Paul himself called people to these offices. Obviously the existence of Bishops is not some sort of mistake. So how is it a contradiction of Paul's teachings for Catholics and Orthodox to still have Bishop's today? That really doesn't make sense. You opened the discussion with the need to contextualize each of the apostles and their message, and then preceded to give more weight to one apostles teachings vs. another and narrowly interpret verses that could reasonably interpreted far more broadly. It's like you are looking for ways that they could be interpreted as incorrect instead of trying to see how they could all fit together. I look for truth by finding how each of the separate teachings can make sense as pieces of a larger puzzle. I don't see contradictions, I see different pieces of the truth taught in specific contexts for specific audiences. My biggest complaint with protestants is this frequent tendency to emphasize certain verses that you like and forget about all of the numerous verses that might seem to contradict your narrow interpretation of that verse. Important truths are lost that way.
@sammarchant2703 Thanks for the comment. I don’t believe Paul’s teachings are more correct than John’s. Both were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and their messages are equally true. The difference lies in their audience and purpose. Paul’s mission was specifically to the Gentiles, which makes his writings uniquely applicable to the Gentile church in this dispensation of grace. John’s writings, while also valuable, focus more heavily on Israel and eschatology (end times). Rightly dividing the Word helps us understand the context of these teachings without contradiction. When Paul speaks of equality in Christ (Galatians 3:28), he’s referring to our standing before God-salvation is available to all through faith, regardless of gender, race, or status. However, this doesn’t negate the existence of roles or offices in the church. Paul himself appointed elders and leaders (Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy 3), but these were meant to serve, not to lord authority over others (Matthew 20:25-28). My critique isn’t of church leadership itself, but of how some traditions have transformed these roles into hierarchical systems that can overshadow the priesthood of all believers. I agree that all Scripture fits together like pieces of a larger puzzle. My concern arises when traditions or teachings appear to place emphasis on man-made hierarchy or practices that might obscure the simplicity of the gospel as presented by Paul (2 Corinthians 11:3). For example, Paul emphasizes that salvation is by grace through faith, while some traditions may unintentionally convey a works-based system, which could confuse believers. I understand your frustration with Protestants who might emphasize certain verses while neglecting others. My goal is not to dismiss the broader truth but to rightly divide Scripture in its proper context so that all teachings align cohesively. For example, the role of bishops or elders is valid, but it must be understood in the framework of service rather than authority for salvation or grace distribution. Ultimately, my focus is on maintaining the simplicity and purity of the gospel, ensuring that all teachings point back to Christ’s finished work on the cross. I value your perspective and hope we can continue to explore how Scripture harmonizes rather than contradicts.
@@honestfaithdiscussions Thanks for responding, I wanted to first quote your parts and then respond for the sake of clarity but my comment was too long for UA-cam, hopefully it will be obvious which parts I am responding to. - My response- You are right, and I am sure we are on the same page, but with just my addition that there is only one church. There isn’t a church of the gentiles and a church for the Jews, which I am sure you agree with. But just for the sake of clarity, we are talking about the need to emphasize different aspects of the same gosple principles in the same church that is the extent of the differences. I just don’t really agree that the words of Paul are more pertinent, they are useful in as far as they clarify certain principles, but I wouldn’t say they are more useful than the writing of any of the other apostles. On Bishops, authority, and hierarchy- My response- I don’t think you could find a single modern day catholic or orthodox leader who would disagree with you on the principle that the purpose of these positions is to serve. I think there are important reasons that Christ directed his apostles to ordain Bishops and elders etc. and much of the issue here depends on how you define hierarchy. Clearly Christ set up his church with Apostles who were the primary leaders with primary authority. These apostles ordained Bishops who were given local primary authority. Hierarchy can be bad in the sense of giving some people higher moral value for instance, but it is also a necessary aspect of organization in another sense. We need people of authority who can clarify doctrinal confusion and keep God’s church an organized body. Yes, in the past these hierarchical structures have been abused, but that is not an inherent critique of them. They are necessary structures in God’s church that should be used to serve and unify the body of Christ and as is the case for any other tool can be and sometimes are used for less than righteous purposes as well. - I also think we could have a discussion regarding the Priesthood of all believers. This is another principles that is frequently misrepresented among protestants. I don’t know if you really want to go into it here though. On scriptures as pieces of the puzzle and the issue of God's grace- Here is where I have some of my primary concerns. 1. It is abundantly obvious to me that the Bible is not clear enough on every issue to make sola scripture a possibility. We have so few writings from the Apostles many of which are meant to address specific principles and seem to assume that the readers already understand other vital principles. The numerous protestant denominations are evidence of this problem. Sincere believing protestants with the most righteous of intentions have very wide ranging views on so many fundamental doctrines because the Bible can simply be reasonably interpreted to mean so many different things. Protestants disagree on the necessity of baptism, the dynamics between faith, works, and grace, what day of the week is the sabbath day, how priesthood authority works, etc. We know we are supposed to have One lord, one church, one baptism. One unified body of Christ. That is clearly not the case. We are a divided group that can’t agree on even the most basic doctrines. I don’t think that we can rely on the Bible alone without looking to other sources like tradition, writings of early church fathers etc. Father Josiah Trenham has a great little talking point on this principle where he points out that Apostles would spend weeks, months, even years teaching in a certain area and the only record we would have for it is a tiny epistle or two that you could read in an hour. Secondly, I am glad that you agree that all scripture fits together like a puzzle, unfortunately common interpretations of the what it means to be saved by grace are inaccurate and oversimplified. Let’s first remind ourselves that the Bible never says “grace alone” that was something Martin Luther threw in there. The most famous sermon by Paul immediately follows his instruction that it is through grace we are saved with the question “1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” We are saved by grace because not a single person is capable of making it through life without sinning, but the scriptures are abundantly clear that part of God’s grace is to save us from our sinful nature.. Yes, we are saved by grace, but to emphasize only the first half of this principle is misleading and dangerous. Those who claim that all we have to do is profess Jesus are misleading God’s children. Anyone who truly believes in Jesus who could truly and sincerely profess that he is our savior will give up their life of sin and follow him. What I see frequently from many protestant denominations is so much of a focus on “saved by grace” and not enough on what it really means to be saved by grace. We can share countless other verses where various apostles state that there is no place for sinners in the Kingdom of Heaven. Our works may not be currency that earn our way to heaven, but that doesn’t make it any less of a requirement from God to change our lives and dedicate them to him. Emphasizing the need for good works is not a contradiction of the gospel that we are saved by Grace, it is the other half of the principle. Both sides are equally important. On the Gospel's simplicity and focus on the cross- Here I add my final note, I suppose the term “simple” is somewhat subjective. But what I see is not an issue with catholics and orthodox being overly complex in their teachings. I see an issue with some protestant sects being overly simplistic. They teach what people want to hear by leaving out the part where we need to take up our cross and follow him, where we have to let our old selves die and be born again in Christ. I see people with itching ears teaching and listening to the Gospel that seems nice to them. The God that requires nothing of them. The one where Faith means merely stating a fact rather than an attitude of trust in God and a desire to follow him. Forgetting that we may be saved by grace through faith, but “faith without works is dead”. It is incorrect to teach that our works buy our way to heaven. It is equally incorrect to teach that God does not require us to leave our life of sin and follow him. And that failing to do so means we don't actually have faith in him. Now I know very little about you, so I am not saying that you necessarily are guilty of preaching this oversimplified gospel. I am just saying it is an extremely common problem in the protestant world.
@sammarchant2703 Thankyou for your comment and I will do my best to respond to this in the next couple of days but I wanted to say just one thing - there is no such thing as a Protestant church who will say that works are not required - even they take up tithes and offerings, practice water baptisms, do alter calls, encourage people to ‘ask Jesus into their hearts’ I have no idea where they get that from it’s certainly not from scripture but in any case they might argue that they don’t do it for salvation but instead as a ‘sign’ of their faith.. but never the less, I don’t agree with them and I don’t believe the scripture does either. I’ve just done a video on faith and works - hopefully that helps with how I understand things somewhat but I won’t leave your comment alone as I really appreciate it and I’d like to respond to each point properly. 🙏
There is no contradiction or confusion in the Word of God. All Scripture is inspired by God. All Scripture is infallible and inerrant. Scripture is the final authority for all faith and practice. Therefore there is no contradiction or confusion between Paul, Peter, James and John. The whole matter was worked out in the Council as narrated in the book of Acts. The Modernistic Higher Critical view is the subjective erroneous, fallible theory of wicked and corrupt men.
@@honestfaithdiscussions I have listened to the whole video and everything that I wrote is correct. Again, there is no contradiction, paradox or confusion as to what Paul, Peter and John wrote concerning Justification by Faith Alone. All Scripture is inspired by God. All of the Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God, including everything Paul, Peter and John wrote concerning Justification, works, the Sacraments, Eschatology, the Law, the Gospel, Sanctification, the Jews, the Gentiles and especially Israel. It is all inspired by the Holy Spirit without any error or contradiction, for it is all the Word of God. That is basic Biblical Doctrine. If you believe that what Paul wrote on Salvation by Grace Alone thru Faith Alone in Christ Alone is in direct contradiction as to what Peter and John wrote i.e. Salvation by works or our obedience, then you sir, are a heretic. It was the same Holy Spirit that inspired Paul, Peter and John to write what they wrote inerrantly and infallibly. That is basic Biblical Doctrine that the Modernistic Higher Critics deny. Modernism denies the inspiration of Holy Scripture. Modernism denies the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. Modernism denies that there are no contradictions in Scripture. Peter and John never taught Salvation by works. That is a blatant lie.
@@honestfaithdiscussions While it is true that Paul was considered the Apostle, primarily to the Gentiles and Peter was considered the Apostle, primarily to the Jews, both were inspired writers by the same God. The same can be said regarding Paul and James on Justification. Paul explains the Sola Fide principle regarding Justification by Faith Alone while James compliments Paul by explaining that Faith without works is dead. This is not a contradiction. James explains his position by inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the context: Show me thy Faith without thy works and I will show thee my faith by my works. In other words, the evidence that a man is truly of the Christian Faith is his works. A man who says he is a Christian and has no works to demonstrate his statement to be true, is a liar. A man who truly is of the Christian Faith will live out his Faith by his works. Works are always the fruit of Faith. One who has been justified by Faith Alone will live a life of good works. One who says I have faith, void of works, that man's faith is vain. Both in Romans and Galatians Paul explains Justification in terms of a Sovereign Judicial (Legal) Act of God to declare the sinner, righteous before his Tribunal thru imputation. This is also referred to as the Doctrine of Double Imputation. All of the sins of his Elect are imputed to Christ and all of the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner. What James explains in his book is not in reference to the (Penal) Legal or Judicial but to the Demonstrative. Works are a demonstration of one who has already been Justified.
@ I fully agree that all Scripture is inspired by God, infallible, and without contradiction. I believe Paul, Peter, and John were all inspired by the same Holy Spirit, and none of them taught salvation by works or obedience to the Law as a means of justification. What I was pointing out is the importance of rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Paul clearly explained that salvation is by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). However, Peter and John, when addressing their audiences, emphasized the necessity of good works as a result of genuine faith-not as a means of earning salvation. For example: James 2:17: Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 1 John 3:18: My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. These passages do not teach salvation by works but rather demonstrate that true saving faith will produce good works as fruit. Paul himself affirmed this when he wrote: Ephesians 2:10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Regarding the Law: Paul taught that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (Romans 3:28). However, James 2:24 says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. This apparent “contradiction” is only resolved when we see James speaking of evidence of faith before men, while Paul speaks of justification before God based solely on faith. God sees the heart; people see the actions that flow from genuine faith. Lastly, regarding Israel and the Church: Paul distinguishes between Israel and the Church in his letters (Romans 9-11). Peter wrote primarily to Jewish believers scattered abroad (1 Peter 1:1). John’s writings, especially in Revelation, heavily reference Israel’s prophetic future. None of these teachings contradict; they serve distinct purposes for different audiences under God’s overarching plan. The issue isn’t Scripture’s authority, it’s how we interpret it in context. Let’s focus on comparing Scripture with Scripture, recognising that all of it is true when rightly understood.
@@honestfaithdiscussions In your video you constantly and consistently contrast Paul's teaching with the teaching of Peter and John to point out that their opposing views were the source of contradiction and confusion in the Church Fathers. Apparently, you are not being honest here. Something is amiss.
@@vandersignus according to the scripture - grace is the unmerited favour of God - and faith is the means by which a believer receives that grace. No faith? No grace. That’s what the bible teaches. I should also reiterate that our faith is actually in Christs faith - because we are not justified by our own faith - but actually by the faith OF Christ.
God is not a bigamist. He has one covenant (marriage). That is Israel (Jewish believers and gentile believers). You provide a section of one of Paul’s writings that says “so all Israel shall be saved.” However, clearly there are Jews who will not accept Jesus so they will not be saved. So clearly Paul is getting at something else when he says all Israel will be saved. One bride for the bridegroom.
@@jermur5338 you’ll notice that all Israel will be saved AFTER the fullness of the gentiles has come in and NOT BEFORE. Today there is no distinction from Jew and gentile. Israel was obliterated by 70AD - so for now, salvation is offered to all with no distinction. Don’t be confused by people trying to say they are Jews today because they are not - they have been misled - likewise with the establishment of modern Israel in 1948 - deception. Today this time we live in is called the dispensation of the grace of God. God will deal with Israel when this dispensation draws to a close - you can read about what will happen to Israel and how in Ezekiel 37.
@ interesting. So who is Israel today? What Israel will God deal with in the future if the people who call themselves Jews are not actually Jews? Honest question. I’m not trying to be combative. This is one of the reasons I have not accepted dispensationalism.
@@jermur5338 Great question, and I appreciate your honest curiosity. When the Bible talks about “all Israel being saved” in Romans 11:25-27, it refers to the restoration of Israel in a future prophetic sense, this is not the modern political state we see today, but the real descendants of Jacob (the 12 tribes). The first 10 tribes were wiped out by 722BC, the remaining 2 tribes either listened to the apostle Paul and believed the gospel of grace that he preached and became members of the body of Christ just like us, (the remnant according to the election of Grace) where there is no difference between Jew and gentile; OR, they didn’t believe at all, rejected Christ and as a result they literally all went to the graves by 70AD. If any of them survived they were dispersed out of the area and the bloodline eventually became no more. Paul makes it clear that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the “fullness of the Gentiles” comes in. If we look around today, we are still in the time of the gentiles, we are still in the dispensation of grace where salvation is freely available as a gift, but this will not be the case forever. When this dispensation ends, (fullness of the gentiles) the tribulation begins, this is Daniel’s 70th week. God will then turn His focus back to Israel as a nation, fulfilling His promises made in the Old Testament. Ezekiel 37 gives a vivid prophecy about the dry bones coming to life, symbolizing Israel’s national and spiritual restoration when God not only puts His Spirit back into them but gives them brand new bodies too. As for who “Israel” is today: the short answer is - they aren’t here today.. all must be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ finished work on the cross. There is no exceptions to any group, there is no group of genuine Hebrew Jews who are Gods chosen people and exempt from belief in the gospel - there is just no such group.. salvation as a free gift is unique to this age of grace. However, when the church is removed (the rapture), God will resume His direct dealings with His Israel according to His covenant promises (Daniel’s 70th week). You might say, but these people killed and rejected their messiah? Stuff them right? Yeah I get that but through their fall, salvation went to us for free.. and in any case, Paul explains that God will have mercy on whom He’ll have mercy. God doesn’t mess up His promises or break them so He will do what He needs to do. The modern state of Israel in 1948 is not the fulfillment of biblical prophecy concerning the restoration of Israel, though many confuse the two. The Bible says God Himself will regather Israel, and this will occur after the tribulation, when Jesus returns to establish His kingdom (Matthew 24:30-31). The gathering of the elect is a different event to the snatching away of the church at the fullness of the gentiles. The people calling themselves Jews today can’t verify that they are genuine descendants of the 12 tribes, as much as the odd article here and there might try to claim it, it’s impossible to truly verify anyone.. most modern day Jews are descendants of the Khazarian empire around the 6th century anyway, but God knows who His people are, even if humans don’t. Revelation 7 talks about the sealing of 144,000 from 12 tribes of Israel too, showing that God has preserved these people for His future purposes.
@@andyscheurer6336 By ‘unchurched,’ if you mean not belonging to a modern institutional denomination, then yes. But if you mean disconnected from the body of Christ, then absolutely not. The true Church, according to Scripture, is made up of those who trust in Christ’s finished work on the cross, are sealed by the Holy Spirit, and are members of His body, not just members of a particular religious institution. Paul never instructed Gentiles to join a specific religious organization, but instead preached the gospel of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9) and taught that we are baptized into one body by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). I trust in Jesus alone for salvation rather than religious systems.
I’m currently unchurched, not because I wanted to be. I was a fundamental baptist and realized I couldn’t be there anymore due to so many errors. I’m currently looking at orthodoxy which is basically my last stop before being being disconnected from religious groups (not God). I’ll always be a believer though.
@@andyscheurer6336 I grew up in a Pentecostal church myself, left when I was 17, started searching for truth when I was 28.. spent about 5 years going to all kinds of different churches, Baptist, non denominational, I studied theology backwards, I’m surrounded by ‘orthodox’ and ‘Catholic’ people in my family and friend groups, none of it has ever sat well with me - but once I threw all the opinions of men away and started reading Paul’s letters - the apostle to the gentiles, that’s when my world changed.. understanding what Paul taught helped me to understand exactly what Jesus did and why, all of the things Jesus said began to make sense and now I just follow what Paul says - I put my trust in Christ for salvation and now I rest in Him and share this truth with others. All of these religious organisations do nothing but diminish the simplicity of Christ - I can’t be a part of any of that but I wish you the best on your journey.
@@honestfaithdiscussions How can you improve? News Flash! You could start by proving to us that the doctrinal conclusions you arrive at through your Bible reading are correct. Prove to us that God has given you the "right interpretation" over all the other Sola Scriptura practitioners. It's a very simple issue which you never address.
@ Let me be clear, I don’t claim to have some unique special revelation or secret interpretation that no one else has. The issue isn’t about ‘my interpretation’ versus ‘yours’, it’s about what God’s Word actually says, not what religious traditions or institutions have added over time. The Bible itself teaches that it is sufficient and understandable for anyone willing to study it diligently. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. The standard isn’t what ‘I think’ or what ‘any church says’ the standard is what God’s Word teaches plainly. This is why I always encourage everyone to ‘search the Scriptures’ like the Bereans did in Acts 17:11. They didn’t rely on Paul’s authority alone, they verified everything by the Scriptures and we would do well to do the same. The Bible itself tells us how Scripture interprets Scripture so I ask you, is it really about me proving ‘my interpretation,’ or is it about each of us being willing to set aside tradition, emotion, and religious assumptions, and letting God’s Word speak for itself? If something I’ve shared seems wrong, I’d love to discuss it, but using Scripture as the final authority, not opinions or church traditions. Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
@ the biggest problem we have is very few read their Bible for themselves - it’s easier to listen to others and get all of their opinions.. very few know what anything means so they go and ask someone else and it becomes a case of the blind leading the blind. I didn’t learn any of this from anyone else - i certainly didn’t make it up, I learnt it from searching the scriptures with a humble heart on my knees before God. I’m no different to anyone else I just know the Lord and He knows me because I study His Word and I know how to test everything. I wonder how many of us do that? Test everything! It’s no wonder everyone is confused.
@@honestfaithdiscussions OK, so woo woo woo....lets slow down there.... You say that of all the sincere Bible readers guided by God, that neither you nor any other Bible reader has a divine guarantee for the conclusions arrived at through their Bible reading. So.... how can we get the truth that Jesus Christ promised He would give???
@@JesusSavedMySoul11284 yes they are, because we are on the journey to our permanent place of holiness through our belief in Christ. But that name"saint" for the sake of identification is reserved for those whom the Lord has demonstrated to have made it through and gained the crown.
@@honestfaithdiscussions yes they are, because we are on the journey to our permanent place of holiness through our belief in Christ. But that name"saint" for the sake of identification is reserved for those whom the Lord has demonstrated to have made it through and gained the crown.
You are twisting Scripture to fit the heresies of the Protestant founders. Nowhere, does Ephesians say "faith- alone". It says "grace through faith". And then it says "apart from works" meaning that this grace is not earnt by the works of the Old Law. St Paul in his letters, when condemning works always condemns the works of the Old Law and teaches that they do not earn grace which is free, but he NEVER says that good works are not required as part of our Faith. A faith that SAVES must have good works. Jesus Christ, St Paul, St James, all teach that a faith that saves MUST have good works, and that my friend is NOT Faith-alone: “‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven’” (Matt. 7:21). “For he will render every man according to his works . . .” (Rom. 2:6-8). “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom. 2:13). “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?” (Jas. 2:14). “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (Jas. 2:17).
You know the core value of all 'Protestants' is basically the freedom to interpret and learn from and reinterpret the Bible as truth becomes apparent, and so we/they aren't all blind followers of religious authorities like 'founders' and 'popes' so on, right? So the idea of founders' heresies is a Roman Catholic accusation which doesn't have much behind it. Protestants are able to self-correct without waiting for a pope to approve.
@@DD-bx8rb I’m not twisting anything to fit anything. The scripture is clear - the issue you have is that it contradicts ‘tradition’. I can’t change that but in any case, scripture takes precedence 100% of the time because Paul said all scripture is profitable, to make the man of God perfect.
@@honestfaithdiscussions I'm a protestant, and I agree with @DD-bx8rb. You added things to the verse that isn't there, (i.e. "faith-alone"). You also seem to conveniently ignore how the early church fathers echoed the admonishments in the book of James, especially the parts about faith and works.
These types of polemic does not help. There's plenty of reasons to critique the early fathers, but we must do so honestly.
@ James was a minister to the circumcision just like Peter, John and every other apostle except Paul. His book opens with ‘James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, TO THE 12 TRIBES scattered among the nations.’ Paul was a the only apostle given the ministry to the ‘uncircumcision’ i.e gentiles. This is so important to understand. Works are not required for salvation full stop. We are saved by faith apart from the works of the law. Abraham ‘believed’ God and it was counted to him for righteousness. That is ‘faith alone’. We are created in Christ UNTO good works - we do not focus on good works - good works are a work of the Holy Spirit in us.. if we focus on behaviour the human nature assumes that we must do good works to justify ourselves before God which is the furtherst thing from the truth. Please don’t try to mix up what James was saying to Israel with what Paul clearly said to us.
@@honestfaithdiscussionstotally agreed. The definition of works with faith is not the same in RCC and protestant teaching. RCC believes salvation is faith and works. Protestants believe salvation is faith alone and works come from that faith. Heal the sick, love your neighbor....
This video is tired old erroneous Protestant diatribe. Your tactic is to twist the NT Scriptures to fit the doctrines of the Protestant founders, and then claim the Early Church Fathers were at variance with the NT Scriptures. Your Protestant doctrines find no support the teaching of the Church established and guaranteed by Jesus Christ in the apostolic age, nor the age of the Early Fathers, nor down through the centuries. You clearly illustrate you complete lack of knowledge on what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches. I recommend to you the site Catholic Answers. Peace be with your spirit.
@@DD-bx8rb I might just point out here that the errors of the fathers following Peter and John and every other ‘minister to the circumcision’ rather than Paul the apostle to the gentiles carried on down to be picked up by the reformers also.. they may have found justification by faith which had been hidden and removed entirely by the Catholic Church but even they still held onto many things that were not necessary either and continue to do so until this day. I’m not attacking Catholic, orthodox or Protestants directly here I’m simply pointing out how the early church fathers chose the religious path over the truth - nothing has changed.
@@honestfaithdiscussions You are claiming for yourself the "right interpretation" over all the other Bible-alone practitioners. Where is yours, or their, divine guarantee for these conclusions you and they have arrived at? We see in the NT that the divine gaurantee to teach truth does NOT reside with individual interpetation. Your practice is NOT found in Scripture. Rather, in the NT the Church is Final Authority. And neither does the NT tell us that Church as Final Authority is to ever be replaced. As you are employing a false practice we are not obliged to listen to you. You have no authority. Nothing has changed.
@ You raise a good point about authority and interpretation of Scripture. I believe that Scripture itself is the final authority, not because of personal interpretation, but because the Word of God is “God-breathed” and sufficient for teaching, correction, and instruction (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Paul commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures themselves to verify his teaching (Acts 17:11). If authority rested solely in an institution, Paul would have directed them to “the Church” for confirmation, but instead, he pointed them to God’s Word.
While I recognise the dangers of subjective interpretation, Scripture places the responsibility on each believer to test what they hear against God’s revealed Word:
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)
The Bible clearly teaches that no earthly institution, tradition, or person is infallible apart from God’s Word itself. Even Paul warned about false teachers arising from within the Church itself (Acts 20:29-30). This makes it critical for every believer to study the Scriptures diligently and rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding (John 16:13).
I agree that the early Church had authority in terms of delivering the truth of the gospel. However, this authority was based on what they taught, not merely who they were. Paul even rebuked Peter when his actions contradicted the gospel (Galatians 2:11-14). Apostolic authority in the New Testament was confirmed through the gospel message itself, not institutional status alone.
The only “divine guarantee” is the gospel of Jesus Christ - His death, burial, and resurrection as full payment for sin (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). The Holy Spirit guarantees salvation for those who trust in Christ, not those who trust in any specific earthly authority (Ephesians 1:13-14).
Ultimately, Christ is the Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18), and His Word endures forever (Isaiah 40:8). The NT Church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). The Church today must still align with this foundation, not claim new authority outside of Scripture.
It’s not about claiming personal authority, it’s about submitting to the authority of God’s Word. If I am ever found to be teaching anything contrary to Scripture, I fully accept correction. But to deny the individual’s responsibility to know the Word is to ignore the very teaching of Scripture itself. Truth isn’t found in human tradition, councils, or institutions, it’s found in Jesus Christ and His revealed Word.
@@honestfaithdiscussions No my friend, Scripture says our final authority is the Church that Jesus Christ established and guaranteed. Scripture never says our final authority is the practice of Scripture study, or that this practice will one day replace the Church.
2 Tim 3:16 does NOT say scripture is "sufficient". You have lied. It says scripture is "profitable" for making the man perfect or complete.
Yes, the Bereans certainly searched the Scriptures (a very worthy practice indeed!). But look what they did NEXT. Unlike the Thessalonian Jews in Acts who stuck to their "Bible-alone", the Bereans did the OPPOSITE to "Bible-alone". They accepted the Oral teaching of the Church through St Paul, IN ADDITION to their Bible, they got baptized, and they submitted to the Church as their Final Authority. The Bereans were the Catholics, because their authority-paradigm was the Catholic paradigm: Written Tradition(Scripture), Oral Tradition, and Church as Final Authority. The NT does NOT ever say this paradigm is to change to a practice of Bible-alone. Your practice gives doctrinal confusion and continual division even on your "essentials" of Faith-alone and Bible-alone. People don't divide over "secondaries", they divide over crucials; Bible-alone is an unworkable failed practice, clearly of Satan. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and He gave authority to the apostles, and their successors by the laying on of hands, men such as Timothy, Barnabas, Silas, Luke, Apollos, Matthias, etc. "The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15) and NOT a fool running around with a Bible (7 books removed and poor translation to boot). The divine-guarantee resides with the living teaching authority of the Church. You do not possess the divine guarantee for your traditions of men.
@DD-bx8rb No one likes my comments ! You’re doing very well with yours though.. 💪 I understand your perspective, and I appreciate the time you’ve taken to share it. However, I firmly believe that the ultimate authority is God’s Word, not human institutions or traditions. That’s just not going to change. Scripture consistently points to itself as the foundation of truth (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Acts 17:11), and Jesus rebuked those who elevated traditions above God’s Word (Mark 7:13). While the Church plays an important role in teaching and upholding truth, it is subject to Scripture, not above it. I hope we can agree that God’s Word is the final standard, even if we interpret it differently.
thanks for this informative video, you’ve given me clarity on some subjects and much to think about
@@JesusSavedMySoul11284 I’m glad you found it informative. Feel free to share any thoughts or if you have any questions..
This is an interesting discussion. However, it divides groups of believers by technical considerations. It does note how some of the beliefs influenced the early churches, but such is a form of speculation.
@@fredsmith8498 sure. Would you call them technical considerations?
Unfortunately you got it wrong near the beginning, so your entire lesson is suspect. Saint Paul never said we are justified by faith "alone", but rather we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law, which only means the ritualistic works like circumcision and following the dietary laws, etc. but most importantly Paul did not teach that we can ignore works of charity, which are required by Christ for salvation. (See Matthew 25:31-46)
@@jspanyer goodness me… Yes he didnt say faith alone in those exact words. You got me ! However, theres no exact verse in the Old Testament that says that Jesus Christ would come and be born in Bethlehem and die on the cross to pay for sin.. but thats what it says none the less regardless of whether you or anyone else can see it..
Paul emphasises salvation by faith alone in Romans 3:28:“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Oh - ok - fair enough., apart from the deeds of the law right? But every other work you can dream up is what He wants is that it?
Ephesians 2:8-9 : “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” So what does this mean? Is it a gift or not? How much did you pay for the last gift that you received?
Galatians 2:16 (KJV):“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” So we aren’t justified by ‘our faith’ - we’re justified by the faith of Christ - thats what it says here - does that sound like it has anything to do with what you or I do?
Romans 4:5 (KJV):“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” What was that? To him that worketh not? It sounds pretty clear to me.. I believe - He justifies - my belief makes me righteous not because of what I did but because of what Christ did.
Philippians 3:9 (KJV): “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” Not mine own righteousness brother… Not mine - His righteousness ! The righteousness of God.. Not the righteousness of jspanyer because that is not going to work friend.
But you’re right over there big guy.. Paul never actually uses the exact phrase “faith alone,”.. How dare we! The thing is brother, his consistent message throughout all of his epistles is that justification comes through faith in Jesus Christ apart from works. His arguments in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians specifically refute any notion that human effort contributes to salvation. This is the cornerstone of the gospel he preached.
@honestfaithdiscussions unfortunately you follow Paul instead of Christ, but even Paul got it right when he said he worked constantly to help others (charity) while also preaching his gospel.
@ 1 Corinthians 11:1 ‘be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ’.
Neither Scripture nor the early church writers taught faith alone in the way that modern evangelicals do. I'm not even Catholic, but I know that modern protestantism practices a different Christianity.
@@junkybrewster8716 yes they added works and diverged from Paul’s gospel while he was still around. We love religion unfortunately.
@ They did not add anything in that way. They’re consistent with the gospels and Paul. 1 Cor 5 and 1 John 3 tell you that you’re interpretation of works is skewed. “Go and sin no more,” was our command, and proof we love Him (John 14:21). James 2 makes it awfully clear what God meant by “works.”
@@junkybrewster8716 Proof you love him? Do you remember the day you stopped sinning? What good works do you recommend for an unworthy sinner like me?
@@honestfaithdiscussions All I did was provide Scripture citations. Do with it as you will. I won't appeal to human reason.
The scriptures bare this to be the truth.
But you must first have a love for the truth.
You seem to start with a base assumption that Paul's teachings are more correct. You are implying that teachings by bishops who were more familiar with John's teachings are incorrect because you think they contradict Paul's. What indicates to you that something that Paul taught or emphasized is more correct than something that John taught or emphasized? Paul's focus was on teaching the gentiles. Due to their different background different things needed to be emphasized than what was emphasized for Jews. It does not make any of his messages more or less true or pertinent. Everything that John taught is just as relevant to me as anything that Paul taught, he just emphasized different aspects for his audience. All of it is equally true though.
I also don't think it is fair to consider some of these things contradictions. For example, you pointed to the appointment of Bishops and priesthood leaders in a hierarchy as necessarily contradictory of Paul's teaching that we are all equal in Christ. It seems that you have a very narrow interpretation of what it must mean to be "equal in christ". Your narrow interpretation doesn't really seem to hold up to scrutiny as well. God does not call people to teach us and be stewards over his church because they are "better" or of different moral value, or because he loves them more than he loves any of this other children. Nor does the church teach that. Are you denying the legitimacy of the very office of Bishop? Were the Apostles wrong to call Bishops, Elders, etc? When Christ called his Apostles and in Mark called 70s was that a contradiction of the principles that we are all equal in Christ? Such callings are given or references are made to them in nearly all books of the New Testament. Paul himself called people to these offices. Obviously the existence of Bishops is not some sort of mistake. So how is it a contradiction of Paul's teachings for Catholics and Orthodox to still have Bishop's today? That really doesn't make sense.
You opened the discussion with the need to contextualize each of the apostles and their message, and then preceded to give more weight to one apostles teachings vs. another and narrowly interpret verses that could reasonably interpreted far more broadly. It's like you are looking for ways that they could be interpreted as incorrect instead of trying to see how they could all fit together. I look for truth by finding how each of the separate teachings can make sense as pieces of a larger puzzle. I don't see contradictions, I see different pieces of the truth taught in specific contexts for specific audiences. My biggest complaint with protestants is this frequent tendency to emphasize certain verses that you like and forget about all of the numerous verses that might seem to contradict your narrow interpretation of that verse. Important truths are lost that way.
@sammarchant2703 Thanks for the comment. I don’t believe Paul’s teachings are more correct than John’s. Both were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and their messages are equally true. The difference lies in their audience and purpose. Paul’s mission was specifically to the Gentiles, which makes his writings uniquely applicable to the Gentile church in this dispensation of grace. John’s writings, while also valuable, focus more heavily on Israel and eschatology (end times). Rightly dividing the Word helps us understand the context of these teachings without contradiction.
When Paul speaks of equality in Christ (Galatians 3:28), he’s referring to our standing before God-salvation is available to all through faith, regardless of gender, race, or status. However, this doesn’t negate the existence of roles or offices in the church. Paul himself appointed elders and leaders (Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy 3), but these were meant to serve, not to lord authority over others (Matthew 20:25-28). My critique isn’t of church leadership itself, but of how some traditions have transformed these roles into hierarchical systems that can overshadow the priesthood of all believers.
I agree that all Scripture fits together like pieces of a larger puzzle. My concern arises when traditions or teachings appear to place emphasis on man-made hierarchy or practices that might obscure the simplicity of the gospel as presented by Paul (2 Corinthians 11:3). For example, Paul emphasizes that salvation is by grace through faith, while some traditions may unintentionally convey a works-based system, which could confuse believers.
I understand your frustration with Protestants who might emphasize certain verses while neglecting others. My goal is not to dismiss the broader truth but to rightly divide Scripture in its proper context so that all teachings align cohesively. For example, the role of bishops or elders is valid, but it must be understood in the framework of service rather than authority for salvation or grace distribution.
Ultimately, my focus is on maintaining the simplicity and purity of the gospel, ensuring that all teachings point back to Christ’s finished work on the cross. I value your perspective and hope we can continue to explore how Scripture harmonizes rather than contradicts.
@@honestfaithdiscussions Thanks for responding, I wanted to first quote your parts and then respond for the sake of clarity but my comment was too long for UA-cam, hopefully it will be obvious which parts I am responding to.
- My response- You are right, and I am sure we are on the same page, but with just my addition that there is only one church. There isn’t a church of the gentiles and a church for the Jews, which I am sure you agree with. But just for the sake of clarity, we are talking about the need to emphasize different aspects of the same gosple principles in the same church that is the extent of the differences. I just don’t really agree that the words of Paul are more pertinent, they are useful in as far as they clarify certain principles, but I wouldn’t say they are more useful than the writing of any of the other apostles.
On Bishops, authority, and hierarchy- My response- I don’t think you could find a single modern day catholic or orthodox leader who would disagree with you on the principle that the purpose of these positions is to serve. I think there are important reasons that Christ directed his apostles to ordain Bishops and elders etc. and much of the issue here depends on how you define hierarchy. Clearly Christ set up his church with Apostles who were the primary leaders with primary authority. These apostles ordained Bishops who were given local primary authority. Hierarchy can be bad in the sense of giving some people higher moral value for instance, but it is also a necessary aspect of organization in another sense. We need people of authority who can clarify doctrinal confusion and keep God’s church an organized body. Yes, in the past these hierarchical structures have been abused, but that is not an inherent critique of them. They are necessary structures in God’s church that should be used to serve and unify the body of Christ and as is the case for any other tool can be and sometimes are used for less than righteous purposes as well.
- I also think we could have a discussion regarding the Priesthood of all believers. This is another principles that is frequently misrepresented among protestants. I don’t know if you really want to go into it here though.
On scriptures as pieces of the puzzle and the issue of God's grace- Here is where I have some of my primary concerns. 1. It is abundantly obvious to me that the Bible is not clear enough on every issue to make sola scripture a possibility. We have so few writings from the Apostles many of which are meant to address specific principles and seem to assume that the readers already understand other vital principles. The numerous protestant denominations are evidence of this problem. Sincere believing protestants with the most righteous of intentions have very wide ranging views on so many fundamental doctrines because the Bible can simply be reasonably interpreted to mean so many different things. Protestants disagree on the necessity of baptism, the dynamics between faith, works, and grace, what day of the week is the sabbath day, how priesthood authority works, etc. We know we are supposed to have One lord, one church, one baptism. One unified body of Christ. That is clearly not the case. We are a divided group that can’t agree on even the most basic doctrines. I don’t think that we can rely on the Bible alone without looking to other sources like tradition, writings of early church fathers etc. Father Josiah Trenham has a great little talking point on this principle where he points out that Apostles would spend weeks, months, even years teaching in a certain area and the only record we would have for it is a tiny epistle or two that you could read in an hour.
Secondly, I am glad that you agree that all scripture fits together like a puzzle, unfortunately common interpretations of the what it means to be saved by grace are inaccurate and oversimplified. Let’s first remind ourselves that the Bible never says “grace alone” that was something Martin Luther threw in there. The most famous sermon by Paul immediately follows his instruction that it is through grace we are saved with the question
“1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”
We are saved by grace because not a single person is capable of making it through life without sinning, but the scriptures are abundantly clear that part of God’s grace is to save us from our sinful nature.. Yes, we are saved by grace, but to emphasize only the first half of this principle is misleading and dangerous. Those who claim that all we have to do is profess Jesus are misleading God’s children. Anyone who truly believes in Jesus who could truly and sincerely profess that he is our savior will give up their life of sin and follow him. What I see frequently from many protestant denominations is so much of a focus on “saved by grace” and not enough on what it really means to be saved by grace. We can share countless other verses where various apostles state that there is no place for sinners in the Kingdom of Heaven. Our works may not be currency that earn our way to heaven, but that doesn’t make it any less of a requirement from God to change our lives and dedicate them to him. Emphasizing the need for good works is not a contradiction of the gospel that we are saved by Grace, it is the other half of the principle. Both sides are equally important.
On the Gospel's simplicity and focus on the cross- Here I add my final note, I suppose the term “simple” is somewhat subjective. But what I see is not an issue with catholics and orthodox being overly complex in their teachings. I see an issue with some protestant sects being overly simplistic. They teach what people want to hear by leaving out the part where we need to take up our cross and follow him, where we have to let our old selves die and be born again in Christ. I see people with itching ears teaching and listening to the Gospel that seems nice to them. The God that requires nothing of them. The one where Faith means merely stating a fact rather than an attitude of trust in God and a desire to follow him. Forgetting that we may be saved by grace through faith, but “faith without works is dead”. It is incorrect to teach that our works buy our way to heaven. It is equally incorrect to teach that God does not require us to leave our life of sin and follow him. And that failing to do so means we don't actually have faith in him.
Now I know very little about you, so I am not saying that you necessarily are guilty of preaching this oversimplified gospel. I am just saying it is an extremely common problem in the protestant world.
@sammarchant2703 Thankyou for your comment and I will do my best to respond to this in the next couple of days but I wanted to say just one thing - there is no such thing as a Protestant church who will say that works are not required - even they take up tithes and offerings, practice water baptisms, do alter calls, encourage people to ‘ask Jesus into their hearts’ I have no idea where they get that from it’s certainly not from scripture but in any case they might argue that they don’t do it for salvation but instead as a ‘sign’ of their faith.. but never the less, I don’t agree with them and I don’t believe the scripture does either. I’ve just done a video on faith and works - hopefully that helps with how I understand things somewhat but I won’t leave your comment alone as I really appreciate it and I’d like to respond to each point properly. 🙏
There is no contradiction or confusion in the Word of God. All Scripture is inspired by God. All Scripture is infallible and inerrant. Scripture is the final authority for all faith and practice. Therefore there is no contradiction or confusion between Paul, Peter, James and John. The whole matter was worked out in the Council as narrated in the book of Acts. The Modernistic Higher Critical view is the subjective erroneous, fallible theory of wicked and corrupt men.
@@samuelvasquez589 parts of this comment are right and parts of it are wrong. I’m afraid you haven’t watched the full video.
@@honestfaithdiscussions I have listened to the whole video and everything that I wrote is correct. Again, there is no contradiction, paradox or confusion as to what Paul, Peter and John wrote concerning Justification by Faith Alone. All Scripture is inspired by God. All of the Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God, including everything Paul, Peter and John wrote concerning Justification, works, the Sacraments, Eschatology, the Law, the Gospel, Sanctification, the Jews, the Gentiles and especially Israel. It is all inspired by the Holy Spirit without any error or contradiction, for it is all the Word of God. That is basic Biblical Doctrine. If you believe that what Paul wrote on Salvation by Grace Alone thru Faith Alone in Christ Alone is in direct contradiction as to what Peter and John wrote i.e. Salvation by works or our obedience, then you sir, are a heretic. It was the same Holy Spirit that inspired Paul, Peter and John to write what they wrote inerrantly and infallibly. That is basic Biblical Doctrine that the Modernistic Higher Critics deny. Modernism denies the inspiration of Holy Scripture. Modernism denies the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. Modernism denies that there are no contradictions in Scripture. Peter and John never taught Salvation by works. That is a blatant lie.
@@honestfaithdiscussions While it is true that Paul was considered the Apostle, primarily to the Gentiles and Peter was considered the Apostle, primarily to the Jews, both were inspired writers by the same God. The same can be said regarding Paul and James on Justification. Paul explains the Sola Fide principle regarding Justification by Faith Alone while James compliments Paul by explaining that Faith without works is dead. This is not a contradiction. James explains his position by inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the context: Show me thy Faith without thy works and I will show thee my faith by my works. In other words, the evidence that a man is truly of the Christian Faith is his works. A man who says he is a Christian and has no works to demonstrate his statement to be true, is a liar. A man who truly is of the Christian Faith will live out his Faith by his works. Works are always the fruit of Faith. One who has been justified by Faith Alone will live a life of good works. One who says I have faith, void of works, that man's faith is vain. Both in Romans and Galatians Paul explains Justification in terms of a Sovereign Judicial (Legal) Act of God to declare the sinner, righteous before his Tribunal thru imputation. This is also referred to as the Doctrine of Double Imputation. All of the sins of his Elect are imputed to Christ and all of the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner. What James explains in his book is not in reference to the (Penal) Legal or Judicial but to the Demonstrative. Works are a demonstration of one who has already been Justified.
@ I fully agree that all Scripture is inspired by God, infallible, and without contradiction. I believe Paul, Peter, and John were all inspired by the same Holy Spirit, and none of them taught salvation by works or obedience to the Law as a means of justification.
What I was pointing out is the importance of rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Paul clearly explained that salvation is by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). However, Peter and John, when addressing their audiences, emphasized the necessity of good works as a result of genuine faith-not as a means of earning salvation.
For example: James 2:17: Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 1 John 3:18: My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
These passages do not teach salvation by works but rather demonstrate that true saving faith will produce good works as fruit. Paul himself affirmed this when he wrote: Ephesians 2:10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Regarding the Law: Paul taught that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (Romans 3:28). However, James 2:24 says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
This apparent “contradiction” is only resolved when we see James speaking of evidence of faith before men, while Paul speaks of justification before God based solely on faith. God sees the heart; people see the actions that flow from genuine faith.
Lastly, regarding Israel and the Church: Paul distinguishes between Israel and the Church in his letters (Romans 9-11). Peter wrote primarily to Jewish believers scattered abroad (1 Peter 1:1). John’s writings, especially in Revelation, heavily reference Israel’s prophetic future.
None of these teachings contradict; they serve distinct purposes for different audiences under God’s overarching plan.
The issue isn’t Scripture’s authority, it’s how we interpret it in context. Let’s focus on comparing Scripture with Scripture, recognising that all of it is true when rightly understood.
@@honestfaithdiscussions In your video you constantly and consistently contrast Paul's teaching with the teaching of Peter and John to point out that their opposing views were the source of contradiction and confusion in the Church Fathers. Apparently, you are not being honest here. Something is amiss.
you take the word grace as a synonym of the word faith, this is not the interpretation of the Orthodox Church
@@vandersignus according to the scripture - grace is the unmerited favour of God - and faith is the means by which a believer receives that grace. No faith? No grace. That’s what the bible teaches. I should also reiterate that our faith is actually in Christs faith - because we are not justified by our own faith - but actually by the faith OF Christ.
God is not a bigamist. He has one covenant (marriage). That is Israel (Jewish believers and gentile believers). You provide a section of one of Paul’s writings that says “so all Israel shall be saved.” However, clearly there are Jews who will not accept Jesus so they will not be saved. So clearly Paul is getting at something else when he says all Israel will be saved. One bride for the bridegroom.
@@jermur5338 you’ll notice that all Israel will be saved AFTER the fullness of the gentiles has come in and NOT BEFORE. Today there is no distinction from Jew and gentile. Israel was obliterated by 70AD - so for now, salvation is offered to all with no distinction. Don’t be confused by people trying to say they are Jews today because they are not - they have been misled - likewise with the establishment of modern Israel in 1948 - deception. Today this time we live in is called the dispensation of the grace of God. God will deal with Israel when this dispensation draws to a close - you can read about what will happen to Israel and how in Ezekiel 37.
@ interesting. So who is Israel today? What Israel will God deal with in the future if the people who call themselves Jews are not actually Jews? Honest question. I’m not trying to be combative. This is one of the reasons I have not accepted dispensationalism.
@@jermur5338 Great question, and I appreciate your honest curiosity. When the Bible talks about “all Israel being saved” in Romans 11:25-27, it refers to the restoration of Israel in a future prophetic sense, this is not the modern political state we see today, but the real descendants of Jacob (the 12 tribes). The first 10 tribes were wiped out by 722BC, the remaining 2 tribes either listened to the apostle Paul and believed the gospel of grace that he preached and became members of the body of Christ just like us, (the remnant according to the election of Grace) where there is no difference between Jew and gentile; OR, they didn’t believe at all, rejected Christ and as a result they literally all went to the graves by 70AD. If any of them survived they were dispersed out of the area and the bloodline eventually became no more.
Paul makes it clear that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the “fullness of the Gentiles” comes in. If we look around today, we are still in the time of the gentiles, we are still in the dispensation of grace where salvation is freely available as a gift, but this will not be the case forever.
When this dispensation ends, (fullness of the gentiles) the tribulation begins, this is Daniel’s 70th week. God will then turn His focus back to Israel as a nation, fulfilling His promises made in the Old Testament. Ezekiel 37 gives a vivid prophecy about the dry bones coming to life, symbolizing Israel’s national and spiritual restoration when God not only puts His Spirit back into them but gives them brand new bodies too.
As for who “Israel” is today: the short answer is - they aren’t here today.. all must be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ finished work on the cross. There is no exceptions to any group, there is no group of genuine Hebrew Jews who are Gods chosen people and exempt from belief in the gospel - there is just no such group.. salvation as a free gift is unique to this age of grace. However, when the church is removed (the rapture), God will resume His direct dealings with His Israel according to His covenant promises (Daniel’s 70th week).
You might say, but these people killed and rejected their messiah? Stuff them right? Yeah I get that but through their fall, salvation went to us for free.. and in any case, Paul explains that God will have mercy on whom He’ll have mercy. God doesn’t mess up His promises or break them so He will do what He needs to do.
The modern state of Israel in 1948 is not the fulfillment of biblical prophecy concerning the restoration of Israel, though many confuse the two. The Bible says God Himself will regather Israel, and this will occur after the tribulation, when Jesus returns to establish His kingdom (Matthew 24:30-31). The gathering of the elect is a different event to the snatching away of the church at the fullness of the gentiles.
The people calling themselves Jews today can’t verify that they are genuine descendants of the 12 tribes, as much as the odd article here and there might try to claim it, it’s impossible to truly verify anyone.. most modern day Jews are descendants of the Khazarian empire around the 6th century anyway, but God knows who His people are, even if humans don’t. Revelation 7 talks about the sealing of 144,000 from 12 tribes of Israel too, showing that God has preserved these people for His future purposes.
Protestants shouldn’t attempt to connect themselves to early church, you may expose your own heresies.
@@andyscheurer6336 agree. Thankfully I’m not a Protestant.
Are you unchurched?
@@andyscheurer6336 By ‘unchurched,’ if you mean not belonging to a modern institutional denomination, then yes. But if you mean disconnected from the body of Christ, then absolutely not. The true Church, according to Scripture, is made up of those who trust in Christ’s finished work on the cross, are sealed by the Holy Spirit, and are members of His body, not just members of a particular religious institution.
Paul never instructed Gentiles to join a specific religious organization, but instead preached the gospel of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9) and taught that we are baptized into one body by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). I trust in Jesus alone for salvation rather than religious systems.
I’m currently unchurched, not because I wanted to be. I was a fundamental baptist and realized I couldn’t be there anymore due to so many errors. I’m currently looking at orthodoxy which is basically my last stop before being being disconnected from religious groups (not God). I’ll always be a believer though.
@@andyscheurer6336 I grew up in a Pentecostal church myself, left when I was 17, started searching for truth when I was 28.. spent about 5 years going to all kinds of different churches, Baptist, non denominational, I studied theology backwards, I’m surrounded by ‘orthodox’ and ‘Catholic’ people in my family and friend groups, none of it has ever sat well with me - but once I threw all the opinions of men away and started reading Paul’s letters - the apostle to the gentiles, that’s when my world changed.. understanding what Paul taught helped me to understand exactly what Jesus did and why, all of the things Jesus said began to make sense and now I just follow what Paul says - I put my trust in Christ for salvation and now I rest in Him and share this truth with others. All of these religious organisations do nothing but diminish the simplicity of Christ - I can’t be a part of any of that but I wish you the best on your journey.
Its insufferable to listen to to this!
@@eduardobauche1211 how so? Where can I improve?
@@honestfaithdiscussions How can you improve? News Flash! You could start by proving to us that the doctrinal conclusions you arrive at through your Bible reading are correct. Prove to us that God has given you the "right interpretation" over all the other Sola Scriptura practitioners. It's a very simple issue which you never address.
@ Let me be clear, I don’t claim to have some unique special revelation or secret interpretation that no one else has. The issue isn’t about ‘my interpretation’ versus ‘yours’, it’s about what God’s Word actually says, not what religious traditions or institutions have added over time.
The Bible itself teaches that it is sufficient and understandable for anyone willing to study it diligently.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
The standard isn’t what ‘I think’ or what ‘any church says’ the standard is what God’s Word teaches plainly. This is why I always encourage everyone to ‘search the Scriptures’ like the Bereans did in Acts 17:11. They didn’t rely on Paul’s authority alone, they verified everything by the Scriptures and we would do well to do the same.
The Bible itself tells us how Scripture interprets Scripture so I ask you, is it really about me proving ‘my interpretation,’ or is it about each of us being willing to set aside tradition, emotion, and religious assumptions, and letting God’s Word speak for itself? If something I’ve shared seems wrong, I’d love to discuss it, but using Scripture as the final authority, not opinions or church traditions.
Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
@ the biggest problem we have is very few read their Bible for themselves - it’s easier to listen to others and get all of their opinions.. very few know what anything means so they go and ask someone else and it becomes a case of the blind leading the blind. I didn’t learn any of this from anyone else - i certainly didn’t make it up, I learnt it from searching the scriptures with a humble heart on my knees before God. I’m no different to anyone else I just know the Lord and He knows me because I study His Word and I know how to test everything. I wonder how many of us do that? Test everything! It’s no wonder everyone is confused.
@@honestfaithdiscussions OK, so woo woo woo....lets slow down there.... You say that of all the sincere Bible readers guided by God, that neither you nor any other Bible reader has a divine guarantee for the conclusions arrived at through their Bible reading. So.... how can we get the truth that Jesus Christ promised He would give???
Respectfully add "saints' where applicable. Thats how the historical chuch knew them
@Christusvinvi please forgive my omissions.
Believers are technically saints
@ 100% - Paul calls believers saints on many occasions.
@@JesusSavedMySoul11284 yes they are, because we are on the journey to our permanent place of holiness through our belief in Christ.
But that name"saint" for the sake of identification is reserved for those whom the Lord has demonstrated to have made it through and gained the crown.
@@honestfaithdiscussions yes they are, because we are on the journey to our permanent place of holiness through our belief in Christ.
But that name"saint" for the sake of identification is reserved for those whom the Lord has demonstrated to have made it through and gained the crown.