believing in justification by faith is not sufficient condition for being saved, although it is neccesary condition for the faith (which is sufficient for being justified). It would be absurd to assume that someone could put the complete trust on Jesus and His works and atonement, while simultaneously believing that faith is not enough and works of mine are obligatory to avoid damnation. For "assensus", there must be "notitia" first and for "fiducia", there must be "assensus". Question about Tolkien and Chesterton is not about whether affirming orthodox doctrine as factually true is enough to be saved (if so, quote in your comment would be relevant). It is about whether being exquisite wordsmith but affirming heresy and/or affiliation to heretical denomination, excludes from being saved. It does. Theology matters
@@radekszafran1896 It actually isn't that silly to believe. Doug alludes to the reason why in a video that follows up to this one. Whatever the actual rulings of the Council of Trent and their implications, many Catholic apologists and apologetic websites would readily acknowledge both that no sacrament or good work is holy without faith, and that faith is impossible without the work of the Holy Spirit. The issue then becomes a matter of the distinction between salvation and sanctification, which while important is _not_ a salvation issue. A proper understanding of eternal security - while an important issue - is no more necessary to salvation than a right interpretation of the book of Revelations, and 'correct' Catholic doctrine or not, that - not faith in Christ - is the primary difference for many Catholics. As a matter of interest, the reformer Zwingli took the implication of God's sovereignty in our salvation even farther than Calvin, proposing His ability to save men who had never heard of His truth, such as Aristotle. I'm not entirely sure he was wrong....
@@radekszafran1896 how good was the theology of the thief on the cross? If affirming error in theology or being part of a denomination with theological errors disqualifies for salvation then salvation is by "works" it's just the "work" of studying the right theologians rather than being a good person.
Whether he was saved or not we'll always have this Chesterton quote, “Ten thousand women marched through the streets shouting, 'We will not be dictated to,' and went off and became stenographers.”
Finally someone makes the true point about doctrinal adherence. Neither Protestants nor Catholics nor anyone else for that matter is saved by one's knowledge of their particular doctrine of justification. Crossing t's and dotting i's doesn't save. Believing in Christ with a living faith saves regardless of how one understands the myriad of details associated with these theological constructs.
There was a major split in my reformed church recently and there were people on both sides who said that the other side was hell-bound. That grieved me so because I have always believed what Doug is saying here, no one could get into heaven by passing a "perfect doctrine" test, so why are we so unforgiving to eachother when we slip up? So much extra stumbling and pain was caused because of the inability to actually behave as if Grace was real. Its not enough to only receive Grace from God, we must show some grace to others as well. (Matt. 18:23-35).
Become Catholic. Protestantism is confusion, error & heresy. My relationship with Jesus Christ is way deeper than it ever was in 15 yrs of Protestantism & you get true deliverance from chief vices & sins. No regrets. The Catholic Church has the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. All others were started by men. Denominations aren’t permissible. While a few passages may be both / and, there’s only one correct interpretation of Scripture. Not 30,000 + private interpretations & mini popes. No diversity of thought afforded to us. It’s truth or heresy. Error can’t stand before Christ. The Rapture, for instances corrupts that denomination & renders it invalid. Protestantism will fall, like every heresy before it. This post is proof enough that it’s beginning to collapse. It was founded on division & is divided against it’s self, not even united on the essentials of doctrine. When everything in Catholicism is understood in its proper context, it makes sense, and you will find it is the ONLY doctrine that makes sense. The Eucharist is the key to everything. You have to learn biblical typology too. All the Marian stuff will make sense. Nothing pagan or idolatrous. Idolatry, Marian Worship & Paganism are all condemned. & We don’t believe in a Works-Based Salvation. That’s a Prot lie. Don’t listen to Protestants about what Catholics believe. Lies and misrepresentation & twisted contexts. Godbless.
Thanks for imparting wisdom and grace. It's occurred to me that "being gracious to others" might be a disappearing from out lexicon. It used to be a much more common expression. It's well and good for Christians to understand we are to love one another. To all men, but esp. those of faith. It's another to narrow this further and the more we deeply understand and appreciate God's incredible grace to us, to want to impart that to others.
Everyone wants to be Pope. There is only one church and a brief view of history will show you that. All these churches today that are Christian in name only. There are many spreading the same postmodernist nonsense in the Catholic Church. The difference, there is one that Jesus left on earth and that is the church worth fighting for.
@@commercialrealestatephilos605 Only one church? I see. So all the blblically based Christian churches preaching a simple gospel, pointing to Jesus as Savior, seeing radically changed lives, they don't count. God plays favourites and only likes YOUR chosen church. Makes a ton of sense. Should have seen that sooner.
Ask yourself if a new "church" which sprung up after a 15th century "reformation" can save. Thank God your parents were Catholics; a Church which is historically deeply-rooted.
There is no salvation outside the church if you where raised Catholic please seek the sacraments if not please learn the truth of the church Jesus founded the Catholic Church
If this particular want is something that will strengthen ur belief, then u will have it. U will find pastors &/or priests happy to tell u exactly what u want to hear, need to hear in order to maintain faith. Thats the shell game called religion.
The catholic Jesus or the biblical Jesus? Is it the Jesus that hears the prayers of Mary and the saints then goes before the father and ask him to hear all those prayers or the biblical Jesus.
Greg B, 👏💯👏💯 The answer to that question is the only important one. It's either Christ, which results in salvation, or someone/thing else, which equals damnation.
@@Ricky_Evans1611 if you believe that then you better get saved! because no where in the bible does it teach about sacraments,any additions to the bible is one of the unforgivable sins ,read Revelation 20: 18-19 it will earn you free ride to the lake of fire.
@@Ricky_Evans1611 You have a misconception about Catholicism. Belief in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, his burial and resurrection are what saves a Catholic. The sacraments aid one along one's spiritual path and all stem from the Bible. So, it is not sacraments that save you but faith in Christ.
As a former Catholic, they will agree we are saved by grace, but in the Catholic church, grace is the help God gives you through the sacraments and prayer to do what you need to be saved. You have to cooperate with grace.
so why did you leave the Church then? even the most anti-catholic I've ever met still believes in baptism and marriage at the very least. they wouldn't call them sacraments, but they are still important somehow i guess. the thing is, the Bible never provides a rubric or instructions on how to perform those step by step. i genuinely do not understand the logic behind sola sriptura.
@@crobeastness Hello, sola scriptura means Scripture is the final court of appeal for doctrine and practice. I think if you said "Purgatory" or "Indulgences" to the apostles, they wouldn't know what you're talking about.
@@GustAdlph what you just defined is prima scriptura. The Catholic Church definitely teaches prima scriptura. They wouldn't call it purgatory and indulgences by those names, but if you explain the concept they will for sure. If you here any orthodox rabbi talk about hell, it's nearly identical to the Catholic understanding of purgatory except we do not confirm whether it is a place or not. In fact, the more you understand Jewish theology, the more likely you will understand the Catholic Church is an evolution of that than it is a pagan evolution which I'm sure is what protestants fed you to leave the Church.
@@GustAdlph True. Imputed righteousness not infused righteousness. “If Chesterton is not in Heaven then I’m in trouble?!” All the people who have been led to a false Gospel by his writing’s! But,we’re not the judge. All we can state is Chesterton had the wrong Gospel.
I’m an Orthodox Christian. Questions of salvation about certain people asked to other people always blow me away. Only God can know. I respect Doug’s opinions but I leave the possible condemnation of others to God. Maybe that’s the audiences fault for posing the question. It seems fruitless to discuss unless you are looking specifically for the shared experience of condemning others. An Orthodox perspective starts and stops with ‘ i who am first among sinners…’ God bless.
I think that outright denial of the gospel might exclude someone from salvation, based on Paul's teachings in Galatians. If anyone teaches another gospel they are anathema. Another gospel in the context of Galatians is saying that grace alone through faith alone does not save, we need to add human effort and certain actions which are meritorious. In Galatia at that moment the Judaizers were promoting circumcision as the extra work needed, but this principle applies to any work or merit done to attempt to earn salvation. This is in effect a denial of grace since the concepts of grace versus human effort to earn merit in God's eyes are mutually exclusive. Hence, those that insist in trying to establish their own righteousness by human effort are described as fallen from grace. Could a Catholic have a revelation from God through scripture that they were unworthy, and that no amount of good works could ever save them and in that moment by God's grace trust in Christ alone to save them. I certainly believe so. Could said Catholic remain in the RC church out of fear of leaving what they have been taught to believe is the one true church and never grow up doctrinally? Again, I think it is possible. The gospel is still the gospel though and we need to believe in the true gospel to be saved.
I love Douglas but I agree on this one. Douglas believing in Christ alone for salvation makes him far more likely to be a believer than someone who may not have (Chesterton and Tolkien). Both of these men may very well be in heaven but I don’t agree with him much on this take.
First off, Doug Wilson is one of my all time top tier favorites.. but on this, I only agree in part. The part I agree with- doctrinal fine print doesn’t save/isn’t essential to salvation. The question- is there any doctrine that is essential to salvation? This is where the disagreement comes in. The doctrines that are essential to salvation are having the biblical gospel and the biblical Christ/God head. If those things are contrary to the scriptures, then you have a different Christ and a different gospel. Now, does that mean you have to have a fullness/depth of understanding of those things to be saved? No. But there are core essentials that if they have been changed, it’s not the same thing. A different gospel and a different Christ cannot save anyone.
Yeah, I agree with you 100% - I certainly don't think all Catholics, Mainstream evangelicals, Episcopalians are automatically doomed to go to Hell, but I'd say some would be saved in spite of being taught a false gospel. I think it would be incredibly cool to see people like Chesterton and Tolkein in Heaven, but not knowing what exactly they believed, and since I don't know enough about their lives to say whether or not they showed the fruit of God's spirit...(not to be mistaken for Satan's twisted version) I'd err on the side of caution and say there's a 50/50 chance of either of them having been saved.
This argument makes sense if Christ is a theological construct. Christ is a real person though so any trust in Christ is surely trust in the real Christ incorrectly understood rather than faith in a different christ. We might talk about the Catholic Christ or thr Calvinist Christ or the Christ of liberation theology but in reality Christ is a real person who saves, it's not the theological construction that we create about him that saves regardless of whether our theological construction is close to the truth or very inaccurate. I guess you are right that it can be so inaccurate that it isn't faith in Christ at all - but the fact Christ is a real person makes me think it has to be a long way off.
Yes, we are saved by God's grace. But, if anyone, whether they are Catholic. Morman, or Protestant, puts their faith in their works to save them, and not the finished work of Christ, they are not saved. That is an essential doctrine. It is the foundation of our faith. It is not debatable. The way one understands the Trinity is debatable, Calvinism is debatable, speaking in tongues is debatable, whether you can lose your salvation is debatable. But, Christ died in vain if there is another way. As Christians, if we don't hold to that truth then there is no gospel, there is no good news. Catholicism is more complicated than what most people think. "Saving grace" is given through the sacraments, and through communion. If you go to mass and receive communion every day, you are accumulating more grace than someone who goes to mass twice a year. When you die, unless you have been selected a "saint" you go to purgatory to work off some of your sin because your "saving grace" is not sufficient. Mass cards are purchased for the deceased, the more mass cards purchased for the deceased the better the chance of getting out if purgatory faster, etc, etc....etc, etc.
Hey Patty, I absolutely agree that having faith in the finished work of Christ rather than in your (grace-endowed) works is important. There's a couple things in what you say that I'd like to reply to (I'm a Reformed evangelical, for what it's worth). 1) I don't think "the way one understands the Trinity" is a matter of debate. The nature of God is central to who we believe in, and was settled very, very early. We don't exhaustively understand God, sure, but that doesn't mean the church cannot confess a particular and fairly clear view of God. Our modern indifference to this - the "ah-well-it's-a-mystery" attitude - is very troubling. 2) To be clear about Catholicism, the difference between going to Heaven and Purgatory isn't simply based on what receipt of grace you have, or what indulgences you've received for venial sin; in fact, if you are received to the Church on your deathbed, confess your sins, receive absolution, are shriven, Catholic belief is that you go straight to heaven, pretty much. You can't go to either Heaven or Purgatory if you die in "mortal" sin; but you can eventually go to Heaven if you die in venial sin, that's what then needs to be purged in Purgatory and which can be reduced via offertory masses, etc. I reject all of these teachings, to be clear - but we ought to be fair and accurate about what our opponents believe.
Patty, Thank you! The Pope's one world religion is trying to convince people that there's really no difference between Protestants and Catholics and there really is a big difference and you said it well. March on!
Sandina 2cents Catholics and Protestants are the same though. And they're both equally unsaved (mostly, though i do believe some Presbyterians are saved, just not most).
Well said Patty! The "Christian Thing" is a black and white discussion. One is saved according to what scripture tells us or one is not. Pretty simple. Catholics will always say that they believe in God and Jesus Christ, but every Sunday, Mass or prayer the concentration is on Mary, Saints and their wafer god. Even Mormons believe in "a Jesus", as do Jehovah Witnesses. Neither align or pass the test of scripture and nor does the Roman Catholic pagan cult. So for Doug Wilson to even take a stance in defense of any of it is to accept all of it. I pray that he does not continue down this path of trying to ride the fence on basic Christian beliefs.
This comments here are so hateful towards catholics wow. Sad part it does not surprise me. First of all Catholics do not do not teach salvation is by works. They teach it's through grace and works they go hand in hand. You don't have to do works to get to heaven though. You will get rewarded more in heaven. I have many protestants friends that believe that if you do good things here on earth you will be rewarded more in heaven. We all need to get on the same page.
The Catholic church does teach faith + works = salvation. The Bible teaches faith = salvation + works. Catholics believe a different gospel, which is not a gospel that saves
I absolutely love Doug. I'm one of his biggest supporters. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people ridicule him and misrepresent him. That being said, I'm having a hard time going with him on this one. He said, "We're not saved by doctrinal works." I agree, but that doesn't mean there aren't essential doctrines that we must hold in order to be saved. Of course, it is only by God's grace that we are able to do so (2. Tim. 2:25). But Scripture is clear that there are a number of things that we *have* to believe in order to be saved. We have to believe that God exists (Heb. 11:6). We have to believe that Jesus is God (Jn. 8:24). We have to believe the gospel (Mk. 1:15), for it is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16) -- the *gospel* is the power of God unto salvation; it doesn't say a *false* gospel. Romans 11:6 says, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." And of course Galatians 5:4, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." (I realize how you understand Gal. 5:4 will sort of depend on how you understand the point of Galatians as a whole), but I'd argue that Paul is addressing two issues: 1) those who believe Christians are required to obey the ceremonial laws, and 2) those who believe works of the law are necessary for salvation. And there is a connection between those two. Because only those who believe works are necessary for salvation would miss the point about what the purpose of the ceremonial law was. That being said, if Catholics believe they are justified, at least partially, by works of the law, how does Gal. 5:4 not apply to them? I'm genuinely interested in hearing Doug's answer to this. He also said, "Because the protestants are right, catholics can be saved." I agree with that to an extent. If someone calls themself a catholic, but they are ignorant of catholic beliefs, and are truly trusting in Christ alone for their salvation, then I believe they can be saved. But if they know exactly what they believe, and are truly trusting in their own works to contribute to their salvation, then I don't believe they can be saved. Because we're only saved by Christ, and it's only our faith (as the instrument) that unites us to Christ. Doug is a thoughtful and complex person, and I think that's what people don't realize. He has thought through these things a great deal. Not everything is always so simple, and Doug recognizes that. So maybe he has already thought about everything I said above. But I'd love to hear his thoughts, because this is the only thing I've heard him say that I have not been able to defend.
I was going to comment something very similar to this. Glad you did before me, so I don't have to now. Doug Wilson is one of my favorite Pastors, but on this topic I agree with James White.
It's Doug's Federal vision heresy coming out. He is really a Roman Catholic. I think quite possibly a secret Jesuit, counter reformer who's design is to lead Christians back to Rome.
Notice how Doug dances around Christ alone... essentially saying those who place faith in Christ and... are saved. Reformers would be screaming in their graves.
Reformers generally acknowledged that Rome was a "true" church. They simply argued that it had obfuscated the Gospel under layers of opulence and idolatry.
@@j.athanasius9832 Reformers said the pope was Antichrist. They certainly would anathematize Rome today since the council of Trent anathemtized Justification by Faith in Christ alone. NO Reformer would say Rome is a true church.
"Is the grace of God present in their life?" How does the answer to that question resolve anything? How about instead, "Is the grace of God sufficient for salvation?" Wouldn't that be a more appropriate question?
What are "doctronal works", Doug? Oh, you mean, believing the gospel? That's right, you need to have the right gospel. None of the Reformers or post-Reformation saints would have answered the question this way. I feel like I'm listening to Tim Keller.
@@johndavidflorez8644 Exactly. I've been trying to find Church fathers that believed in justification by faith alone before the early 1500's....it's not there. You'll see references to Augustine and other selected quotes, but upon investigation, most of these end up referring to baptism. Alister McGrath called justification by faith alone a "theological novum".....a new belief. And yet ironically, that now becomes the ONLY essential belief for Christians??
Believing a false gospel is not a "work" Paul is excluding from justification when he says we are justified by faith apart from works. That's sophistry and opens the door to universalism. Basically, Wilson's criterion for whether someone is a Christian or not is: "is the Spirit of God evident in their life?" How can you tell? They're really nice and have insights. That's not biblical and that's certainly not confessional or faithful to the Reformed Confessions.
Yes. I could not agree more. It's most certainly not biblical or confessional. Doug needs to confront the doctrine that God does not just ordain the ends, but also the means. Inevitably he will have to ask, what is the means by which God justifies people? Answer: by Faith Alone! What a consistent Roman Catholic is doing is not having faith in the redeeming action of Christ, but is instead "carrying out" the sacraments to receive infused grace from God. To me, it doesn't sound like faith, but doing the works of the sacraments and then having faith that the sacraments that you do will save.
@@j-mallmand-smith6279 does Chesterton have faith in salvific work of God in Christ? If so, that's not a door to universalism. We are saved by Faith Alone, but Faith alone in what? Are we saved "By Faith Alone in the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone"? Of course not. Even though a Roman Catholic thinks he needs something else, if he have what it takes, which is Faith in Christ, he is saved. At least that's what Doug is saying. I'm not done with that yet.
The fruit of being saved by faith alone is believing the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. If the fruit involves holding the doctrine of savation by faith and works, it is likely that person is not saved by faith alone.
This is the same cursed logic that causes Eastern Orthodox to say, "sure, Richard Wurmbrand suffered greatly in the name of Christ for years and years, but he didn't belong to the true body of Christ, so I guess he's probably damned."
The problem with that is that something like sola fide probably works it way into the beliefs and actions of all sorts of people who aren't directly cognizant of sola fide. There are plenty of Catholic grandmothers out there who just don't really understand Reformation doctrine but trust in Jesus' atoning death and love him. I highly doubt they will be condemned because they might also believe that taking communion plays a role in their salvation. Then you do start making having correct doctrine a prerequisite for salvation.
“If they were not I’m in a lot of trouble.” To turn to the Roman Catholic Church,teaching a false Gospel, is worrying. How can a “mature” born again Christian turn to a false Gospel? It is a problem I have wrestled with. Being led by the Holy Spirit,this rejection of the true Gospel is baffling to me.
Protestants understand the Bible, hence the 30,000 Protestant denominations in the US. Each teaching their own interpretation. Jesus started one Church with one message, and not 30,000 different versions
You are an ignorant fool. Under no circumstances whatsoever are there 30,000 different interpretations of the Bible by 30,000 separate denominations. You've been brainwashed by listening to those dumb Roman apologists who can't stop spitting those words out every chance they get. Second, you obviously don't know that there are those in your camp who would tell you to kindly SHUT UP! Read it and weep....www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations
Jesse Mendoza Jesse Mendoza, according to the Same survey, there are multiple Roman Catholic and Orthodox denominations. Every single independent church is considered a denomination, and if two churches who taught the same doctrine, but one did the service in English and one did in Spanish, they would be two different denominations. Not to mention, salvation isn’t a denomination issue in scripture but by faith in the son of God So when you remove trinity deniers and works based salvation groups, it’s not as bad as it could be
Why is there a distinction being made between the Catholic and Protestant Doctrines of Justification when this matter was settled between the Catholic Church and a majority of the mainline Protestants over the course of the last 20 years? The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification essentially settled the question of works vs faith as a terminological miscommunication, while the manifest nature of both doctrines in human life and action is essentially identical. And the insistence that the Catholic Church teaches salvation by works is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of Catholic Doctrine without any basis in the Church's explicit teaching.
It's not justification by works but the facts that Protestants have problems with faith plus works. Also, why should protestants call Roman Catholics brothers when the Catechism makes clear that willfully not being Roman Catholic means a Protestant is unsaved. I agree with Rome on this of course, but instead in the reverse.
@@keymaker2112 Wounds to unity 817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin: Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276 www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm Now of course this can be interpreted as Roman Catholics "accepting" that protestants are true Christian's in some sense. However, this can only be said when one defines Protestants not in historical context but in modern ecumenical context. For example, would you consider me a brother in Christ if I said that your church was Antichrist and was led by an antichrist? Once this occurs it is very strange to try and claim that the person who calls your religion an antichrist as brother. This is the historic belief of protestants, however, modern ecumenical protestants no longer have such a loathing for the papacy. Thus, I think in that context alone the Catechism makes a coherent context.
Also double predestination is a heresy in the history of the Roman Catholic Church; I am uncertain whether Rome still maintains that belief. However, to consider those who hold double predestination as schismatics only should require contradicting much of church history, tradition, and some councils. Of course in the Roman system anything is possible, but it would be very strange to flat out contradict church history. At least in the Catechism there is an effort at non contradictions by not specifying the protestants, their views, etc.
I wont touch on the Council of Trent because much historical context and language origin it has makes its view of double predestination quite hard to understand (at least for me). So one cannot say with certainty unless he has studies in depth that Council (Trent) that it truly condemns double predestination. But instead it condemns a form of double predestination that seems to be different from what most double predestinationists have held. Thus, confusing.
I find this to be a bit confusing, if I had a friend who was a devout mormon and from my point of view was an actual Christian because of their demeanor, wisdom, or “works”(sharing Mormon beliefs) would I be justified in not evangelizing to them because I myself observe Christian-like behavior(which is exactly what the antichrist does to deceive, disguising himself as an angel of light) or wisdom? I think we can all agree that every religion has major doctrinal flaws and I just don’t feel comfortable submitting to the idea that Roman Catholics are not part of a Christian’s mission field the same way I would never submit to the idea that a Mormon is a Christian. I understand where Doug is coming from but it seems to me that he is convinced that somebody who practices true Roman Catholicism can be saved even though they are willingly rejecting the gospel of grace. I know that even Protestants do that but I think that is mostly due to ignorance rather than an informed rebellion, the electrician argument doesn’t seem that well thought out either as a five year old cannot discern whether or not what he believes is biblical while a grown man can and is required biblically to do so. I find it interesting that no scripture is used to support this unbiblical ecumenism that doug endorses either. Galatians 1 would disagree with your stance on this sir.
How can someone who has been blessed with the Holy Spirit to guide them continue in unrepentant Idolatry? A saved man influenced by the spirit continues to bow down to idols without any sign of repentance? Absolutely not.
"Chesteron and Tolkein can be saved because Protestants are right, we're not saved by works. We're not saved by our doctrinal works." That is the most absurd notion I have ever heard made by anyone claiming to be a pastor. Paul the apostle would have anathematized Wilson for this theo-babel nonsense.
May I nitpick please? A heretic is not someone with "bad doctrine" (though I admit it is the popular understanding). The word means something like "division, divide, schismatic, etc." The heretics are those who divide or separate themselves (and their followers) from the truth of the gospel. The heretic is the fool of Proverbs, who refuses to be corrected. A Christian may have less than perfect doctrine (in fact we all do); he may have less than adequate doctrine. But the regenerate man will repent of his errors, when confronted. The heretic won't. Most of the letters of Paul are dealing with doctrinal errors; but only a few individuals are actually heretics.
Isn’t it true that there are certain issues that would put one outside of the faith? For example, those who believe Jesus is an exalted creature rather than Divine? Or those who believe in Jesus but not that He came in the flesh? E.g another Jesus? So if we add to salvation through faith by grace, works, doesn’t this change the fundamental nature of the Gospel making it another gospel, which is no gospel at all? I agree with DW in that none of us will be 100% doctrinally but aren’t there certain positions that one must hold to be within the faith and fold? I guess the real question is where does the Scriptures draw the lines exactly.
When you are born again spiritually you are an infant spiritually, some Christians grow spiritually faster than others and hit Calvinism, Postmillennialism, Presuppositional Apologetics, quicker. But regardless at what maturity the spiritual infant is, they are still spiritually regenerated and saved.
I’m not very familiar with Doug Wilson but I am very familiar with Catholic theology. The question is quite simple: did Chesterton and Tolkien believe what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation? If they did, then they were not saved because the Catholic Church has a false gospel. Their false gospel was codified at the Council of Trent (I wonder if Doug Wilson is familiar with the Council of Trent). This discussion went in a pretty unhelpful direction. It would have been much more edifying if they would have plainly stated what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation.
I'm glad God made you the arbiter over people's salvation! Please tell everybody whether they are saved or not! Since you have this great ability to judge 1500 years of people's salvation, you must! Wait am I saved? I'm not a Calvinist, please tell me if am damned? TELL ME IF IM ELECT OR NOT!!!
@@huntsman528 I can only judge what people believe (here, the Catholic Church) will grant them salvation compared to what the word of God says. That makes God the arbiter, not me. I suggest you take the time to study what Catholicism teaches about how one is saved and compare it to Scripture. You will see that Catholicism contradicts the Biblical gospel. As for you (and this has nothing to do with Calvinism), if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in Him alone, for your salvation, then you will be saved, as the Bible clearly states.
“We’re not saved by our doctrinal works”. This statement seems incoherent to me since the Bible distinguishes between genuine saving faith and good works. You must believe the true gospel to be saved and Roman Catholicism distorts and perverts the gospel. They have a false gospel. That would include G.K. Chesterton who was a staunch Roman Catholic.
I’m concerned about the information/accusations about Lewis’ involvement with the “Hermetic order of the Golden Dawn” Can you please help clear this up? Thank you
A question I always wanted to ask Christian intellectuals like Doug and Ravi Zacharius et al is this: IF Christianity is so easily approachable and open to all, IF [as Jesus instructed] we are better off to think like children in our understanding of it/Him/ the Kingdom of Heaven, then why oh why, are there so many Christian intellectuals giving lectures at Universities and colleges, answering staggeringly tricky questions [and sometimes] with pretty poor answers too? In other words, the fact these chaps are in a JOB seems to undermine the simplicity of scripture and approachability of salvation through Jesus...
tony rooke - 1) There is a difference between childlike faith and childish faith. There is a difference between simple faith and simplistic faith. 2) God calls us into deeper and deeper communion with Himself. We are to respond to that call and “grow up”. God wants us to grow and mature. So with those things in mind, I think it should be clear that not all levels of knowledge is appropriate for all maturity levels of Christians. This is why we need elders to guide us.
Maybe to answer the question directly, because we ARE(edit) commanded by our Lord to do so. Read this quick verses, 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 1:3, and try to get the scope, the impact of the lordship and reign of Jesus that the bible proclaims.
We're to accept God's truth with childlike simplicity, and also continue to grow in understanding. A child can understand what he needs to in order to trust Jesus. (Jonathan Edwards describes the spiritual devotion of a 4-year-old child.) An older man who has been walking with God and studying Scripture diligently for his entire life, knows that he has barely even begun to scratch the surface of theology. Scriptures are alive to the spiritual man, and there is always more to learn. Milk benefits spiritual infants, as we grow in faith we need to eat meat. Hebrews 5: 12-14 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
And when God gives a man greater intellectual gifts, it's fitting for him to use them to learn and teach theology and related subjects in greater depth.
Doctrinal sin sounds pretty vague to me. I as a Calvinist can easily understand how one could claim that Arminians sin doctrinally in their soteriology. However, I am not sure if Doug Wilson attempts to call the belief in the doctrine of salvation by faith AND works a mere doctrinal sin. My question would be this: "Can a regenerate person indwelled by the Holy Spirit continue to believe that his salvation has just started and that he now by his own free will must attend the mass, pray, confess and so on to end the justification process?" If so, and if this is just a doctrinal sin, can we not conclude the same thing for Jehovah's Witnesses or even Muslims? It sounds like they just seem to have more doctrinal sins. I have no intention of attempting to defeat Pastor Doug in any way in this comment. I really want to hear from other Protestants, especially from Reformed ones :)
If you are saved by grace alone, then your 'belief' in that grace cannot save you either, because your belief is also an exchange, your emotional part or work, and all of it will burn at the judgement Seat. And if it is not burned, you are saved by your belief/merits/works.
@Nell Lyon If salvation is not of 'work', and faith is a gift, then 'all' people will get that 'measure of faith' and no judgement will be necessary, all souls in heaven. Read its contradiction James 2:14-20 Why 'work out' your salvation with trembling and fear?
Heresy: That special moment when you have great spiritual insight than the apostles, the Church and the Magisterium because you have scriptures that they wrote, compiled and gave to you. Protestantism: Not even once.
@@CanonPress “reading into history” ? I think you mean simply recognizing history ... I’m begging for a Calvinist to at least represent Catholic justification fairly. Past, present, future ... justification, salvation, and glorification.
Wilson articulates this right view. I think the key is belief in the God Jesus Son of God, his incarnation, death, resurrection. This, and the accompanying grace, is what saves us. Catholics can have this without knowing how it works, or wrongly ascribing it's mechanism to their 'works'.
So,being saved by the imputed righteousness of Christ,following the Gospel of Roman Catholics ( imputed righteousness is an anathema, purgatory,Alter Christus,the Pope on the same level as the Trinity)is the way to go? The very clever( in human terms ) G K Chesterton understood this,but was in rebellion against Biblical teaching by converting to the Roman Catholic Church. Doug Wilson can defend his ultra intelligent idol as much as he likes, at the end of the day he is following a false Gospel. What does God say about following a false Gospel?
Not all, only followers of Jesus are saved. Followers of Jesus are those who place their faith(not as a work of their own but as a response to the unmerited favor of God) entirely on Christs sacrifice/righteousness for their salvation and not their own, because we have no righteousness of our own. From there a follower of Christ will obey the Word of God which is Christ (John 1:1) and continue/persevere as a worker of Him in light of the salvation He provided/gifted them, not as a work to earn His favor.
Protestants and catholics are both carnal babes and still abide in the tombs of Babylon. When you hear the voice of the Son of God, you will come out of the graves and be resurrected to judgement which will lead to righteousness. Satan's ministers who peddle the word of God for profit are disguised as ministers of righteousness just like the scriptures say. They lie in wait at every corner waiting to deceive. There is a harlot house every place you look in America.
“Protestants and catholics are both carnal babes and still abide in the tombs of Babylon.” Would you care to explain this opinion. What camp do you fall into? The only other I can think of would be Eastern Orthodoxy, which is pretty much just an eastern version of Roman Catholicism. I wonder whether you’ve observed or partaken in a faithful reformed church, or read the writings of the reformers and puritans. I think you’d be shocked.
@@doctor1alex thanks for your response. I believe that I have been pleasantly surprised by some of the things the Eastern Orthodoxy and puritans have written in the past, along with some early quakers. I don't know the history of these sects like you probably do. I haven't partake in anything since late 2013 when I was called out in a very powerful way. I would love to have a group to meet with but there is really no fellowship with people that are in any of the mainstream denominations in the western world. Their understanding of God is based on cunningly devised fables. I long for more fellowship with people who would be like minded with the first century Christians who experienced the coming of the Messiah WITHIN. All I see now is Babylon, everywhere. Unfortunately, my family has had to live very isolated in terms of fellowship and communion because of the lack of spiritual understanding of the modern "church". What fellowship does light have with darkness? This system is under very strong delusion, believing lies. They don't understand judgement, grace, mercy, and especially FIRE. Of course, they can't help it, their minds are blinded and have yet to experience their eyes being enlightened. I eagerly await the fall of Babylon in these years ahead and am hopeful that as the captives are freed, there will be a pouring out of God's Spirit. Its humanity's only hope as the voice of the bridegroom and the bride are not heard in the harlot houses of Babylon. Thats why there is so much division and confusion, the voice of the Good Shepherd is not heard by these people, its a dry and parched land.
@@jm1733 You haven’t explained the reasoning for your belief that all churches today are in spiritual darkness. Is that right? You make it sound as if you are the only enlightened one. But there are multitudes who love Christ and have been born of God. They abide in the doctrines of Christ, and as John writes “whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” We know truth based upon the word of God (John 17:17), and this is the rule by which faithful churches use as a guide and authority (per 2 Timothy 3:16-17). The Holy Spirit guides the church of God by this truth (John 16:13). This is what the reformation was all about, thanks be to God.
I want to agree with Doug. I think I do. Then again it could be wishful thinking. One of my absolute favorite movies of all time is "A Man For All Seasons" despite the fact that More authorized and advocated persecution of Lutherans. I like to think that More is in Heaven. "He will not refuse one who is so blithe to go to him." as the play reads. Have you ever listened to a sermon or lecture by Bishop Fulton Sheen? There are a number of them on UA-cam. Being a Baptist some of the Catholic bits make me wince but the idea of him not being saved? That's very hard. There was a member of my little SBC church who had been a priest. He was on a fast track headed to high places. He'd been everywhere, studied everywhere, knew everybody, had two audiences with the Pope. He knew almost as much bad stuff about Catholicism as John McArthur does. He said he was not saved until he left the priesthood and found Jesus.
How can someone who has been blessed with the Holy Spirit to guide them continue in unrepentant Idolatry? A saved man influenced by the spirit continues to bow down to idols without any sign of repentance? Absolutely not, Doug is so wrong on this.
@intothekey Nobody will be fully sanctified in this life. Everyone is dealing with some sin, intentional or not, that will plague them for some time. We can't exclude Catholics or Orthodox solely based on their erroneous beliefs and practices, even ones that are really bad, like the idol kissing and bowing. That's the epitome of "Father forgiven them, for they know not what they do."
How hard is it to say that if a Roman Catholic believes that they are saved by faith PLUS anything else, they are not saved? If you’re adding works in with Jesus then you’ve got a Jesus that didn’t do enough. Which would be a false Jesus. Or you don’t believe what Jesus meant when he said “It is finished.” and you make him out to be a liar which he can’t be because he is God. Sounds like someone does t want to ruffle any feathers by speaking the truth. Can a Roman Catholic be saved? Yes Are they saved if they are adding to Jesus’ work to be saved? If they are believing on something they can do? No. That weak false Jesus isn’t the Jesus of the Bible. That’s a Jesus no different than the one the Mormons or the Jehovah’s witnesses have made up. Did we learn nothing from the Reformation?
One thing that amazes me is, how many fanboys in the comments here would cry by happiness on such a dangerous nonsense coming out of mouth of Douglas Wilson, just because it is their idolized Mr. Superman Wilson. He is dangerously wrong. Grace is help for Catholic that he/she may work their Salvation through the sacraments that is solely given by their church alongside of believing in Jesus. Salvation is not achieved solely by faith in finished work of Christ on the Cross. Chesterton and Tolkien knew and fully believed this. Doug Wilson should keep those messed up ideas for himself. And Christians, it is time to look things up for yourselves not just blindly follow your idolized preachers, they are sinners like you and me. Check everything with the Word of God. Former Roman Catholic.
Is teaching the Trinity through the analogy ice, water and steam bad or wrong? That's always been the way I understand for myself the Trinity, like God manifested in 3 different forms. Am I wrong?
Apparently it's modalism - but can't we say - if you took a bucket of water and split into three - you froze one part (ice), boiled one (steam) and left one as it was in the bucket (Water) that this could be an analogy of Gods trinity - co-existing together.
Many Roman Catholics would say works AND grace are necessary for salvation. I have watched Catholic Answers and Church Militant and sometimes other RC channels and I don't think I've ever heard a professing RC say works aren't necessary for salvation.
We are justified by faith…in the work of Christ alone. It is the denial of the latter part that truly disqualifies Tridentine Roman Catholics from glory.
You do not understand the Reformed when you answered the question as you did. You basically said, "it doesn't matter what you believe" in order to be saved. We are saved unto good works. Thinking Chesterton is saved because of his outward mannerisms, you contradict yourself and are a respecter of men, more than God.
I enjoy Mr Douglas Christian ethics, on this count his understanding of scripture is wrong. We are saved by grace first and then as Christians we evangelize trough example and works.
Come on Pastor Doug, its very easy. Why be a protestant then? And yes, I understand what you are saying. But doctrinal purity and immaturity in the faith are different things. Doctrinal purity in the essentials of the gospel is not a "work" but a work of faith in the true gospel of grace.
Yeah that last sentence makes no sense. "It's not a work, but a work of faith." That makes no sense for two reason. 1) if it's a work of faith, it I work however it comes about. 2) the question is to what purpose those works are for. Protestants do not ever say that the works are meant to save you or justify you for salvation. They are outpouring of the faith in Christ. Catholics do have a faith in Christ, but the works of doctrine concerning it is incorrect yes.
Does God save us in Christ through faith or not? If he does then thats it. If you add extras then you may be a Catholic or Baptist or Methodist. But what extras are bad and damnable? If any are then we are thus saved by grace but kept by works, which Paul convincingly says no.
Roman Catholic doctrine denies the heart of the Gospel. If a man understands and accepts those false teachings, I can't see how he is saved. On the other hand, R.C. Sproul I think rightly claimed that one can be inconsistent in his beliefs (misunderstandings), being Roman Catholic and yet truly saved. The problem is, how can men with the intelligence of Chesterton and Tolkien not understand basic biblical doctrine? How can the love of Christ not motivate believers to know Him more clearly through study of the Word, most especially scholarly men (who love and are very capable of in-depth study)? Both Calvin and Edwards said (something to the effect) that faith in one's own intellect is a great stumbling-block. I think of this when I think of men like Bonhoeffer and Lewis, men who though not Roman Catholic, were far from 'Evangelical' in their doctrine. In spiritual life, a powerful intellect (and also importantly, a 'good' education) can be potentially as much a curse as it can be a blessing. I don't think the question of exactly where the line is can be easily settled. One of the things I love about J.C. Ryle is his defense of other believers--both groups and individuals. For instance he, like Charles Spurgeon, defended the Puritans at a time when they were generally held in contempt. Something he wrote about John Wesley has been helpful to me in general, in looking at others who hold to unbiblical doctrines: "I should think my sketch of Wesley incomplete if I did not notice the objection continually made against him--that he was an Arminian in doctrine. I fully admit the seriousness of the objection. I do not pretend either to explain the charge away, or to defend his objectionable opinions. Personally, I feel unable to account for any well-instructed Christian holding such doctrines as perfection and the defectibility of grace, or denying such as election and the imputed righteousness of Christ. "But, after all, we must beware that we do not condemn men too strongly for not seeing all things in our point of view, or excommunicate and anathematise them because they do not pronounce our shibboleth. It is written in God's Word, "Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?" We must think and let think. We must learn to distinguish between things that are of the essence of the gospel and things which are of the perfection of gospel. We may think that a man preaches an imperfect gospel who denies election, considers justification to be nothing more than forgiveness, and tells believers in one sermon that they may attain perfection in this life, and in another sermon that they may entirely fall away from grace. But if the same man strongly and boldly exposes and denounces sin, clearly and fully lifts up Christ, distinctly and openly invites men to believe and repent, shall we dare to say that the man does not preach the gospel at all? Shall we dare to say that he will do no good? I, for one, cannot say so, at any rate. If I am asked whether I prefer Whitefield's gospel or Wesley's, I answer at once that I prefer Whitefield's. I am a Calvinist, and not an Arminian. But if I am asked to go further, and to say that Wesley preached no gospel at all, and did no real good, I answer at once that I cannot do so. That Wesley would have done better if he could have thrown off his Armininianisin, I have not the least doubt; but that he preached the gospel, honoured Christ, and did extensive good, I no more doubt than I doubt my own existence."
I might suggest you read more Chesterton, and watch some videos by Scott Hahn. It may be that Chesterton, Tolkien, and Lewis didn’t misunderstand. It might be you who needs to humbly admit they could see things more clearly than you. The Thing: Why I am a Catholic by Chesterton is what I would recommend.
@@jamessgian7691 As for me, no need for a refresher course on the RCC. Been there, done that, and wrote a 50,000 word essay against the obnoxious doctrine of Transubstantiation. You may request it at.. .eucharistangel [at] iCloud [dot] com
I am not catholic. I am an orthodox priest.That said, Catholics do not teach salvation by works. Nor do they believe it is grace plus works. We need to be honest in explaining the viewpoints of our opponents. At least Doug is trying to be honest. Now orthodox hold both truths on tension we are saved by grace, but Jesus said if you will enter into life keep the commandments. For as Jesus said in His last book, blessed are they that keep his commandmets that they may have right to the tree of life. Both are true. We do deny imputed righteousness because the bible does not teach it, rev.19.6 and 7.
By the way, the question is not if there are works in the Christian life, certainly there are. We walk in works prepared before the foundations of the world (Eph 2:8-10). The question is if those works are meritorious. Historic orthodox protestants emphatically deny that.
Loonytoones85 Orthodoxy and Catholicism do not pray to the icons or statues or to the Saints. We ask the saints to intercede in prayer to God for our sakes just as you do to your friends. We do not bow down to the image, but always to God. The image directs our attention to God just as a hymn or scripture passage may do for you.
First of all "Father", there is no such thing as a "priest" in a presiding position in the N.T., so your job, as well as every Catholic priest on Earth, is a fraud. Second, Catholicism does INDEED teach salvation by works as seen in their catechism, CCC 16, 1821 & 2068. You are refuted.
The one big problem with the Roman Catholics and the Reformers is their Jesus Christ is totally different. Wilson cannot believe that the RC's christ is the same Christ as the Reformers. Unless this is established, the conversation of Chesterton and Tokien matters not.
I don’t think their view of who Christ is, is incorrect rather the way they treat salvation. They seem to hand it out “one serving size at a time” so by completing the 7 sacraments you earn bits of grace which reduce your time in purgatory while sinning increases it etc. I also don’t agree with how they Separate sins into Venial and mortal or the necessity of confessing to a Catholic priest for forgiveness. It all just seems like a convenient way of keeping people dependent on the Church by treating salvation and sin like this
@@RedM4a Greetings. I think I could answere it like this. If christ established the church he would want us to live in it and under it, keeping in mind that he is the head.
Jose, I understand what you are saying, but even Luther and Calvin as far as I know would agree read their theological works. They believed that there were believers in the Roman Catholic church, there are some who believe in justification by faith alone, as did the Church fathers, but I would not want to be in a church that have false teaching, some Roman Catholics are inconsistent to their churches beliefs.
Faith alone is a man made tradition, as we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Jesus was approached by a man of the law (i.e. lawyer) and the lawyer asked Jesus what must he DO to attain eternal salvation. Jesus replied, "Love thy God with all thy heart, mind, and soul; and love thy neighbor as you would yourself." I'm not sure why so many Protestants miss this story in the Bible. Maybe it's because it doesn't fit their agenda. Nobody has more authority to speak on the subject of eternal salvation than Jesus Christ and Jesus himself tells us that "works" are one ingredient to salvation.
The problem is this: that Jesus said "unless you repent, you will likewise perish." He also said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son so that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." He didn't say you needed to work for your salvation, but rather to believe in Him who worked perfectly on your behalf. A faith-filled repentance must give up on your own works for salvation, turn to Christ, believe Him and follow Him.
Actually, that's a different subject. Doug is arguing that being baptized means they're members of the covenant. Doug gets beaten handily there, as James shows that the definition of the new covenant is NOT like Israel, where some were believers and some were not, but consists only of those who are truly in Christ, born again, etc.
@@makobean - So only people who are truly born again get baptized in "believer baptism" type churches? So none of the adults who get baptize apostatize? None of them are phonies? How do you tell if someone is a real, born-again Christian in order to baptize them?
@@makobean - Indeed the New Covenant is not like Old Covenant Israel ... It's even MORE inclusive, but it seems that you Baptists are very busy trying to keep the most vulnerable out of the Church, and therefore out of the Kingdom. The Church IS Israel, friend. She always has been. Everyone who is of the faith of Abraham is Israel.
White looked like a simpleton and demonstrated his ole basic anabaptist impulse in that debate. Not impressed at all. He thinks he understands the RCC but he doesn't. Trying to pin down RC to a Council is silly. The RC morphes all the time and is great at finding subterfuges so he needs to stop that line of argumentation.
I made a comment and/or raised a question on another youtube post asking this; Catholic people believe in and confess Jesus Christ as Lord. Does believing that they must also perform other Church ordained practices to truly be saved, nullify their belief and confession? The simple answer; no it does not.
Worshippers of saints, mothers, popes, statues, icons, relics, rites or traditions aren’t saved. People who put their faith in a non-Biblical version of “God” or a different gospel than Jesus and the disciples taught aren’t saved, they are accursed as Paul stated. All of these are forms of idolatry. “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, _nor idolaters_ , nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (I Cor. 6:9-10)
2.46 minutes- How do you know that the people in that congregation are " manifestinaly saved " What are they manifesting for you to know that they are saved ?
This video is too short and Wilson's explanation isn't exhaustive enough. I have no issue with admitting that there are saved Catholics, Orthodox, and even Mormons, but it is because they believe in Jesus while being ignorant of their church's doctrines or just ignoring and rejecting them. However, if a Catholic, Orthodox, and especially Mormon, believe that they are saved by their own merits and Jesus just helps them, they are like the Galatians who received a false gospel.
@@drendabaerwolf8579, yeah, I know, but I had a Mormon (I live in Arizona where there are a ton of them) tell me she believed in the Trinity and that faith in Jesus was all she needed to be saved (she completely rejected the idea of many gods, becoming god herself, all of that strange Mormon stuff). I asked her why she stayed in the Mormon "church" and she said all of her family and friends were Mormon. She didn't want to leave the Mormon church because they wouldn't talk to her anymore if she did. So I don't know. Maybe she doesn't have genuine faith because if she did, she would be willing to forsake family and friends for Jesus. But when it comes to doctrine, she is more Christian than many Christians I've known who sit in Protestant pews every Sunday. If she did leave the Mormon church and came to much church, based on her profession, I would approve of her being baptized and thus joining my church.
Peter Berian the definition of faith is belief. That's it. The thief of the cross believed. He did no works. Had he lived longer he surely would have done works as a loving response to God's love, but those works wouldn't have saved him- only God's grace through faith can do that.
@@NikkiSchumacherOfficial ... Dear Confused Pilgrim Nikki Schumacher ... If you show me where in Scripture Faith is simply Belief ... I will show you where in Scripture you are wrong ... Regarding the thief on the cross you don't know Scripture ... Jesus came to Jews only in the O.T. ... the Holy Spirit had not yet been given (i.e. the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost 33 AD - 50 days after Jesus' Resurrection) therefore the O.T. rules were still in effect when Jesus spoke to the thief on the Cross about seeing him in Paradise! While Jesus was three days in the ground after His death ... Scripture says Jesus went to Paradise and preached there and released all the O.T. saints to follow Him into Heaven. After the Holy Spirit was given all Scripture says believers no longer go to Paradise ... they go directly to be with Jesus in Heaven. You need help in understanding God's Word. I will pray for you. Respectfully submitted, a watchman of His Word ... Peter
@Rebuked Falsehood Dear Confused Pilgrim Rebuked Falsehood... You are wrong! No one in the Old Testament had the indwelling Holy Spirit! Now if you can be wrong on something as simple as that you should stop dictating to others what is Scriptural and what is not Scriptural! You do not have a clear understanding of God's Word! The truth is this ...In the O.T. certain select Holy people had the Holy Spirit "ON" THEM ....BUT NOT IN THEM! I thought everyone understood this! Don't you remember what Jesus said about John the Baptist ... (Matthew 11:11-15) Jesus says: "Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence,d and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15 He who has ears to hear,e let him hear." Pilgrim ... you have a lot to learn ...Jesus was the first sinless man ...Jesus sent back His sinless Spirit to indwell all those who would obey His first commandment to the church to submit to adult full immersion to receive His Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38-41) explains the only way to get the Holy Spirit: Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. " Pilgrim ... you don't know the Bible ...you should be asking questions instead of attempting to to teach Scripture. Respectfully submitted, a watchman of His Word
@Rebuked Falsehood Dear Pilgrim Rebuked Falsehood ... My boldness was to wake you up ... My boldness was to help you see the Truth ... If I were in your shoes I would be thankful someone led me into the Truth of His Spirit and Word. This isn't really about who is right and who is wrong ... this is about sharing the Truth ... You did not have the Truth ... I shared with you in boldness ... I don't profess or carry the name "Rebuked Falsehood" ... I don't profess to know everything ... but what I do know ... I share with others ... I share with you what His Spirit has shared with me ... you should be thankful ... You should be asking me more questions ... not making statements against the Truth! Respectfully submitted as my Scriptural understanding, I share with you what He has shared with me. a watchman of His Word
They dont really want u to understand the Bible or to pursue it deeply. They never have, it was even written to feel untouchable by the average person in its time. This leaves u in the hands of pastors & other church leaders. The more u understand independently, the more u will answer ur own questions by reading & understanding the text. Fact is, many believers who study religion become atheists or at least agnostic. The more u study these scriptures & understand the ideas laid out before u with no interpretation spinning the ideology, the less belief u can possibly have.
Catholics are saved by grace, through faith. They believe in that free gift from God. It's after that point that they go astray, in thinking for instance, that if you don't willingly attend Church one Sunday you will lose your salvation and go to hell, should you die before repenting to a priest. It is a horrifying and legalistic notion on a people who fervently believe in Christ and his redemptive work on the cross.
According to both Luke and Paul the sine non qua of a Christian or saved person is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Thats grace. Thats why only Pentecostals are saved ha ha ha.. just kidding. But Acts 8:16-19 is very clear.. how does one watching know if one is receiving the Holy Spirit. Ive never seen a catholic baptism or aconfirmation where the Spirit came that others could see. Such rites dont confer the Spirit.
@Solus Digur if you read the bible you 'll notice there is never any event when a person receives the Holy Spirit during their baptism. It happens in the event of believing, or praying for the Spirit to come...with or without laying upon of hands by those who have the Spirit. Off it can happen at other times
Are we crossing the deep uncharted waters of the sea of speculation, bolstered by a following wind of positional preconceptions with a few 17thc crosswinds to have to manage? We need first century answers, not post enlightenment answers - or perhaps its best to disembark?
I don’t want to overstate or understate or misrepresent Wilson’s position in any way, but it seems I heard him say, in effect, I believe they are saved because they’ve had such a profound impact on me. Am I wrong?
@Nell Lyon you don't understand I do not believe that God is three different persons BECAUSE God never say He was three but always say He is One , right? Who is the Jesus of the bible? Let see what the bible SAY = 1Tim3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto thexodus3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. And Jesus said: 58“Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I AM” 59At this, the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him. Jesus is the Father who came as the sacrificial Lamb for to saves is peoples.
@@none11flop9 Jesus say this :…SHOW US THE FATHER John14: 7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.” 8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” 9Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?… SOLA SCRIPTURA.
If you dont believe that only Christ can save you, youre not saved. Regardless of what sect you are in. This is the only Truth and the only Way that can save you. Take this out or replace it, you have a different gospel -which is no gospel at all. Can we know all that is to know about God? of course not. Can we know the only Way? Definitely! So if G.K. Chesterton and Tolkien placed their salvation in anyone else, aside from Christ then chances are, no matter how "good" and "smart" they were, they're not saved.
@@SamOwenI He just condoned the use of pagan practices by the RC, thereby saying that paganism is acceptable in the eyes of God; huge misstep on his part. Pretty sure that Paul tells us that anything different than what him (a disciple) and the Apostles have taught is to be considered anathema. Did I misread the bible then?
@@ThistlesJones I do agree that the Roman Catholic Church's official teaching comes under the anathema of the book of Galatians. However, that's not the same as saying Canon Press or the Wilsons are apostates. You can't just throw people out of the kingdom for having an incorrect view of the RCC or other heretical group.
@@SamOwenI ROMANS 1:6...pretty much sets the standard. Whether it was Doug saying or whether Canon Press releases it; both are in the wrong because of the position taken by both with the title, the video and the posting. If Canon Press disagrees with Doug, then they need to state as such; up to now I have not seen them take an opposite position of Doug...
@@ThistlesJones I assume you meant to type Romans 1:16? Listen to what I am saying. Doug Wilson professes to believe the gospel and has taught it for many years, so you must acknowledge that profession. He may be mistaken about the Catholic Church, but that is not reason to anathematise him. Read one of his many books. Listen to his talks. Listen to his debates. You cannot anathematise him. You must acknowledge his profession of faith. It is a very serious thing to hurl the anathema. You need clear biblical evidence for that. Otherwise, don't do it.
Chesterton's writings in Orthodoxy regarding "of Vice and Virtue" are rather poignant for the current day... I remembered Catholic essentially means UNIVERSAL... Faith is as customized as the individual and for that matter so are Deeds... #Hands&Feet
You may not be saved by "believing in justification by faith", but you are damned for preaching against it. Galatians 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. I.E. Galatians 2:16 .....yet we know that a person is not justified2 by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
"you're saved by justification by faith, you're not saved by believing in justification by faith" is the chewiest part of this
believing in justification by faith is not sufficient condition for being saved, although it is neccesary condition for the faith (which is sufficient for being justified). It would be absurd to assume that someone could put the complete trust on Jesus and His works and atonement, while simultaneously believing that faith is not enough and works of mine are obligatory to avoid damnation. For "assensus", there must be "notitia" first and for "fiducia", there must be "assensus". Question about Tolkien and Chesterton is not about whether affirming orthodox doctrine as factually true is enough to be saved (if so, quote in your comment would be relevant). It is about whether being exquisite wordsmith but affirming heresy and/or affiliation to heretical denomination, excludes from being saved. It does. Theology matters
@@radekszafran1896 It actually isn't that silly to believe. Doug alludes to the reason why in a video that follows up to this one. Whatever the actual rulings of the Council of Trent and their implications, many Catholic apologists and apologetic websites would readily acknowledge both that no sacrament or good work is holy without faith, and that faith is impossible without the work of the Holy Spirit. The issue then becomes a matter of the distinction between salvation and sanctification, which while important is _not_ a salvation issue. A proper understanding of eternal security - while an important issue - is no more necessary to salvation than a right interpretation of the book of Revelations, and 'correct' Catholic doctrine or not, that - not faith in Christ - is the primary difference for many Catholics.
As a matter of interest, the reformer Zwingli took the implication of God's sovereignty in our salvation even farther than Calvin, proposing His ability to save men who had never heard of His truth, such as Aristotle. I'm not entirely sure he was wrong....
Exactly. Everyone under the law is under a curse; that is why Christ became a curse for us. Doug might view it this way, but Paul called it anathema.
@@radekszafran1896 how good was the theology of the thief on the cross? If affirming error in theology or being part of a denomination with theological errors disqualifies for salvation then salvation is by "works" it's just the "work" of studying the right theologians rather than being a good person.
@@gareth2736 can you be saved by faith in Allah?
Whether he was saved or not we'll always have this Chesterton quote, “Ten thousand women marched through the streets shouting, 'We will not be dictated to,' and went off and became stenographers.”
LOL
Finally someone makes the true point about doctrinal adherence. Neither Protestants nor Catholics nor anyone else for that matter is saved by one's knowledge of their particular doctrine of justification. Crossing t's and dotting i's doesn't save. Believing in Christ with a living faith saves regardless of how one understands the myriad of details associated with these theological constructs.
Heresy!
I think I would express it like this: God is far more gracious than we give Him credit for.
Amen! And, salvific faith isn't a doctrinal trivia question.
@@CanonPress something that nerdy types like James White can't comprehend 😂
Roy Miller He is. But i promise you there won't be a single Catholic in Heaven.
Indeed. If we start excluding people who love Jesus and his gospel then we get on the treadmill of works
What do you mean?
There was a major split in my reformed church recently and there were people on both sides who said that the other side was hell-bound. That grieved me so because I have always believed what Doug is saying here, no one could get into heaven by passing a "perfect doctrine" test, so why are we so unforgiving to eachother when we slip up? So much extra stumbling and pain was caused because of the inability to actually behave as if Grace was real. Its not enough to only receive Grace from God, we must show some grace to others as well. (Matt. 18:23-35).
Man, that’s tragic. So sorry 😔
Become Catholic. Protestantism is confusion, error & heresy. My relationship with Jesus Christ is way deeper than it ever was in 15 yrs of Protestantism & you get true deliverance from chief vices & sins. No regrets. The Catholic Church has the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. All others were started by men. Denominations aren’t permissible. While a few passages may be both / and, there’s only one correct interpretation of Scripture. Not 30,000 + private interpretations & mini popes. No diversity of thought afforded to us. It’s truth or heresy. Error can’t stand before Christ. The Rapture, for instances corrupts that denomination & renders it invalid. Protestantism will fall, like every heresy before it. This post is proof enough that it’s beginning to collapse. It was founded on division & is divided against it’s self, not even united on the essentials of doctrine. When everything in Catholicism is understood in its proper context, it makes sense, and you will find it is the ONLY doctrine that makes sense. The Eucharist is the key to everything. You have to learn biblical typology too. All the Marian stuff will make sense. Nothing pagan or idolatrous. Idolatry, Marian Worship & Paganism are all condemned. & We don’t believe in a Works-Based Salvation. That’s a Prot lie. Don’t listen to Protestants about what Catholics believe. Lies and misrepresentation & twisted contexts. Godbless.
Thanks for imparting wisdom and grace. It's occurred to me that "being gracious to others" might be a disappearing from out lexicon. It used to be a much more common expression. It's well and good for Christians to understand we are to love one another. To all men, but esp. those of faith. It's another to narrow this further and the more we deeply understand and appreciate God's incredible grace to us, to want to impart that to others.
Everyone wants to be Pope. There is only one church and a brief view of history will show you that. All these churches today that are Christian in name only. There are many spreading the same postmodernist nonsense in the Catholic Church. The difference, there is one that Jesus left on earth and that is the church worth fighting for.
@@commercialrealestatephilos605 Only one church? I see. So all the blblically based Christian churches preaching a simple gospel, pointing to Jesus as Savior, seeing radically changed lives, they don't count. God plays favourites and only likes YOUR chosen church. Makes a ton of sense. Should have seen that sooner.
I hope to see my late Catholic mum and dad in heaven, by the grace of God.
Ask yourself if a new "church" which sprung up after a 15th century "reformation" can save. Thank God your parents were Catholics; a Church which is historically deeply-rooted.
@@tradcatholicloyaltorome727 Jesus saves.
There is no salvation outside the church if you where raised Catholic please seek the sacraments if not please learn the truth of the church Jesus founded the Catholic Church
@@adamgorski8725 you should read the Bible bro. What you said can't be justified biblically, and consequently has no authority, no truth. Jesus saves.
If this particular want is something that will strengthen ur belief, then u will have it. U will find pastors &/or priests happy to tell u exactly what u want to hear, need to hear in order to maintain faith. Thats the shell game called religion.
The question is, in whom or what were Chesterton and Tolkien trusting for salvation?
The catholic Jesus or the biblical Jesus? Is it the Jesus that hears the prayers of Mary and the saints then goes before the father and ask him to hear all those prayers or the biblical Jesus.
Greg B, 👏💯👏💯 The answer to that question is the only important one. It's either Christ, which results in salvation, or someone/thing else, which equals damnation.
Greg B The sacraments, which is (part of) the reason they most definitely were not saved.
@@Ricky_Evans1611 if you believe that then you better get saved! because no where in the bible does it teach about sacraments,any additions to the bible is one of the unforgivable sins ,read Revelation 20: 18-19 it will earn you free ride to the lake of fire.
@@Ricky_Evans1611 You have a misconception about Catholicism. Belief in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, his burial and resurrection are what saves a Catholic. The sacraments aid one along one's spiritual path and all stem from the Bible. So, it is not sacraments that save you but faith in Christ.
As a former Catholic, they will agree we are saved by grace, but in the Catholic church, grace is the help God gives you through the sacraments and prayer to do what you need to be saved. You have to cooperate with grace.
so why did you leave the Church then? even the most anti-catholic I've ever met still believes in baptism and marriage at the very least. they wouldn't call them sacraments, but they are still important somehow i guess. the thing is, the Bible never provides a rubric or instructions on how to perform those step by step. i genuinely do not understand the logic behind sola sriptura.
@@crobeastness Hello, sola scriptura means Scripture is the final court of appeal for doctrine and practice. I think if you said "Purgatory" or "Indulgences" to the apostles, they wouldn't know what you're talking about.
@@GustAdlph what you just defined is prima scriptura. The Catholic Church definitely teaches prima scriptura.
They wouldn't call it purgatory and indulgences by those names, but if you explain the concept they will for sure. If you here any orthodox rabbi talk about hell, it's nearly identical to the Catholic understanding of purgatory except we do not confirm whether it is a place or not.
In fact, the more you understand Jewish theology, the more likely you will understand the Catholic Church is an evolution of that than it is a pagan evolution which I'm sure is what protestants fed you to leave the Church.
@@GustAdlph True. Imputed righteousness not infused righteousness.
“If Chesterton is not in Heaven then I’m in trouble?!”
All the people who have been led to a false Gospel by his writing’s!
But,we’re not the judge.
All we can state is Chesterton had the wrong Gospel.
@@chrismachin2166 Yes, the RCC teaches a false gospel.
I’m an Orthodox Christian. Questions of salvation about certain people asked to other people always blow me away. Only God can know. I respect Doug’s opinions but I leave the possible condemnation of others to God.
Maybe that’s the audiences fault for posing the question. It seems fruitless to discuss unless you are looking specifically for the shared experience of condemning others.
An Orthodox perspective starts and stops with ‘ i who am first among sinners…’
God bless.
Doesnt the Orthodox Church have a history of officially condemning non-Orthodox Christians?
@@Wilkins325 that’s very loaded and taken largely out of context. Also impossible to hash out on UA-cam. God bless
@@Wilkins325it's a mystery
I think that outright denial of the gospel might exclude someone from salvation, based on Paul's teachings in Galatians. If anyone teaches another gospel they are anathema. Another gospel in the context of Galatians is saying that grace alone through faith alone does not save, we need to add human effort and certain actions which are meritorious. In Galatia at that moment the Judaizers were promoting circumcision as the extra work needed, but this principle applies to any work or merit done to attempt to earn salvation. This is in effect a denial of grace since the concepts of grace versus human effort to earn merit in God's eyes are mutually exclusive. Hence, those that insist in trying to establish their own righteousness by human effort are described as fallen from grace.
Could a Catholic have a revelation from God through scripture that they were unworthy, and that no amount of good works could ever save them and in that moment by God's grace trust in Christ alone to save them. I certainly believe so. Could said Catholic remain in the RC church out of fear of leaving what they have been taught to believe is the one true church and never grow up doctrinally? Again, I think it is possible. The gospel is still the gospel though and we need to believe in the true gospel to be saved.
I have no idea what he just said and it seems that the question shouldn't have elicited such a murky answer.
I love Douglas but I agree on this one. Douglas believing in Christ alone for salvation makes him far more likely to be a believer than someone who may not have (Chesterton and Tolkien). Both of these men may very well be in heaven but I don’t agree with him much on this take.
First off, Doug Wilson is one of my all time top tier favorites.. but on this, I only agree in part. The part I agree with- doctrinal fine print doesn’t save/isn’t essential to salvation. The question- is there any doctrine that is essential to salvation? This is where the disagreement comes in. The doctrines that are essential to salvation are having the biblical gospel and the biblical Christ/God head. If those things are contrary to the scriptures, then you have a different Christ and a different gospel. Now, does that mean you have to have a fullness/depth of understanding of those things to be saved? No. But there are core essentials that if they have been changed, it’s not the same thing. A different gospel and a different Christ cannot save anyone.
Yeah, I agree with you 100% - I certainly don't think all Catholics, Mainstream evangelicals, Episcopalians are automatically doomed to go to Hell, but I'd say some would be saved in spite of being taught a false gospel.
I think it would be incredibly cool to see people like Chesterton and Tolkein in Heaven, but not knowing what exactly they believed, and since I don't know enough about their lives to say whether or not they showed the fruit of God's spirit...(not to be mistaken for Satan's twisted version) I'd err on the side of caution and say there's a 50/50 chance of either of them having been saved.
This argument makes sense if Christ is a theological construct. Christ is a real person though so any trust in Christ is surely trust in the real Christ incorrectly understood rather than faith in a different christ. We might talk about the Catholic Christ or thr Calvinist Christ or the Christ of liberation theology but in reality Christ is a real person who saves, it's not the theological construction that we create about him that saves regardless of whether our theological construction is close to the truth or very inaccurate. I guess you are right that it can be so inaccurate that it isn't faith in Christ at all - but the fact Christ is a real person makes me think it has to be a long way off.
Yes, we are saved by God's grace. But, if anyone, whether they are Catholic. Morman, or Protestant, puts their faith in their works to save them, and not the finished work of Christ, they are not saved. That is an essential doctrine. It is the foundation of our faith. It is not debatable. The way one understands the Trinity is debatable, Calvinism is debatable, speaking in tongues is debatable, whether you can lose your salvation is debatable. But, Christ died in vain if there is another way. As Christians, if we don't hold to that truth then there is no gospel, there is no good news. Catholicism is more complicated than what most people think. "Saving grace" is given through the sacraments, and through communion. If you go to mass and receive communion every day, you are accumulating more grace than someone who goes to mass twice a year. When you die, unless you have been selected a "saint" you go to purgatory to work off some of your sin because your "saving grace" is not sufficient. Mass cards are purchased for the deceased, the more mass cards purchased for the deceased the better the chance of getting out if purgatory faster, etc, etc....etc, etc.
Hey Patty, I absolutely agree that having faith in the finished work of Christ rather than in your (grace-endowed) works is important. There's a couple things in what you say that I'd like to reply to (I'm a Reformed evangelical, for what it's worth).
1) I don't think "the way one understands the Trinity" is a matter of debate. The nature of God is central to who we believe in, and was settled very, very early. We don't exhaustively understand God, sure, but that doesn't mean the church cannot confess a particular and fairly clear view of God. Our modern indifference to this - the "ah-well-it's-a-mystery" attitude - is very troubling.
2) To be clear about Catholicism, the difference between going to Heaven and Purgatory isn't simply based on what receipt of grace you have, or what indulgences you've received for venial sin; in fact, if you are received to the Church on your deathbed, confess your sins, receive absolution, are shriven, Catholic belief is that you go straight to heaven, pretty much. You can't go to either Heaven or Purgatory if you die in "mortal" sin; but you can eventually go to Heaven if you die in venial sin, that's what then needs to be purged in Purgatory and which can be reduced via offertory masses, etc. I reject all of these teachings, to be clear - but we ought to be fair and accurate about what our opponents believe.
Patty, Thank you! The Pope's one world religion is trying to convince people that there's really no difference between Protestants and Catholics and there really is a big difference and you said it well. March on!
patty toscano Whether or not you can lose your salvation is *NOT* debatable. It's either once saved, always saved, or you're not saved.
Sandina 2cents Catholics and Protestants are the same though. And they're both equally unsaved (mostly, though i do believe some Presbyterians are saved, just not most).
Well said Patty! The "Christian Thing" is a black and white discussion. One is saved according to what scripture tells us or one is not. Pretty simple. Catholics will always say that they believe in God and Jesus Christ, but every Sunday, Mass or prayer the concentration is on Mary, Saints and their wafer god. Even Mormons believe in "a Jesus", as do Jehovah Witnesses. Neither align or pass the test of scripture and nor does the Roman Catholic pagan cult. So for Doug Wilson to even take a stance in defense of any of it is to accept all of it. I pray that he does not continue down this path of trying to ride the fence on basic Christian beliefs.
This comments here are so hateful towards catholics wow. Sad part it does not surprise me. First of all Catholics do not do not teach salvation is by works. They teach it's through grace and works they go hand in hand. You don't have to do works to get to heaven though. You will get rewarded more in heaven. I have many protestants friends that believe that if you do good things here on earth you will be rewarded more in heaven. We all need to get on the same page.
The main difference is intermediaries- RCs see the Pope & clergy as such, and Mary and the saints are intercessionaries.
The Catholic church does teach faith + works = salvation. The Bible teaches faith = salvation + works. Catholics believe a different gospel, which is not a gospel that saves
If you place your faith in Mary you won’t be saved.
Correct.
Why would you put your Faith in Mary, when you are professing faith in God our Father.
I absolutely love Doug. I'm one of his biggest supporters. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people ridicule him and misrepresent him. That being said, I'm having a hard time going with him on this one.
He said, "We're not saved by doctrinal works."
I agree, but that doesn't mean there aren't essential doctrines that we must hold in order to be saved. Of course, it is only by God's grace that we are able to do so (2. Tim. 2:25). But Scripture is clear that there are a number of things that we *have* to believe in order to be saved. We have to believe that God exists (Heb. 11:6). We have to believe that Jesus is God (Jn. 8:24). We have to believe the gospel (Mk. 1:15), for it is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16) -- the *gospel* is the power of God unto salvation; it doesn't say a *false* gospel. Romans 11:6 says, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." And of course Galatians 5:4, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." (I realize how you understand Gal. 5:4 will sort of depend on how you understand the point of Galatians as a whole), but I'd argue that Paul is addressing two issues: 1) those who believe Christians are required to obey the ceremonial laws, and 2) those who believe works of the law are necessary for salvation. And there is a connection between those two. Because only those who believe works are necessary for salvation would miss the point about what the purpose of the ceremonial law was. That being said, if Catholics believe they are justified, at least partially, by works of the law, how does Gal. 5:4 not apply to them? I'm genuinely interested in hearing Doug's answer to this.
He also said, "Because the protestants are right, catholics can be saved."
I agree with that to an extent. If someone calls themself a catholic, but they are ignorant of catholic beliefs, and are truly trusting in Christ alone for their salvation, then I believe they can be saved. But if they know exactly what they believe, and are truly trusting in their own works to contribute to their salvation, then I don't believe they can be saved. Because we're only saved by Christ, and it's only our faith (as the instrument) that unites us to Christ.
Doug is a thoughtful and complex person, and I think that's what people don't realize. He has thought through these things a great deal. Not everything is always so simple, and Doug recognizes that. So maybe he has already thought about everything I said above. But I'd love to hear his thoughts, because this is the only thing I've heard him say that I have not been able to defend.
This might help: ua-cam.com/video/jE1S4afpfts/v-deo.html&t=
@@CanonPress I saw it. Didn't you hear me, I'm one of Doug's biggest supporters :) But I guess I can always give it another watch/listen.
I was going to comment something very similar to this.
Glad you did before me, so I don't have to now.
Doug Wilson is one of my favorite Pastors, but on this topic I agree with James White.
@@ThePaulKM I still listen to Doug very regularly. Unfortunately I still haven't gotten an answer to this.
It's Doug's Federal vision heresy coming out. He is really a Roman Catholic. I think quite possibly a secret Jesuit, counter reformer who's design is to lead Christians back to Rome.
Notice how Doug dances around Christ alone... essentially saying those who place faith in Christ and... are saved. Reformers would be screaming in their graves.
Reformers generally acknowledged that Rome was a "true" church. They simply argued that it had obfuscated the Gospel under layers of opulence and idolatry.
@@j.athanasius9832 Reformers said the pope was Antichrist. They certainly would anathematize Rome today since the council of Trent anathemtized Justification by Faith in Christ alone. NO Reformer would say Rome is a true church.
The thing that is frightening with a works based doctrine is the letter to the Galatians,
"Is the grace of God present in their life?" How does the answer to that question resolve anything? How about instead, "Is the grace of God sufficient for salvation?" Wouldn't that be a more appropriate question?
Totally agree
What are "doctronal works", Doug? Oh, you mean, believing the gospel? That's right, you need to have the right gospel.
None of the Reformers or post-Reformation saints would have answered the question this way. I feel like I'm listening to Tim Keller.
@@johndavidflorez8644 Exactly. I've been trying to find Church fathers that believed in justification by faith alone before the early 1500's....it's not there. You'll see references to Augustine and other selected quotes, but upon investigation, most of these end up referring to baptism.
Alister McGrath called justification by faith alone a "theological novum".....a new belief. And yet ironically, that now becomes the ONLY essential belief for Christians??
Believing a false gospel is not a "work" Paul is excluding from justification when he says we are justified by faith apart from works. That's sophistry and opens the door to universalism. Basically, Wilson's criterion for whether someone is a Christian or not is: "is the Spirit of God evident in their life?" How can you tell? They're really nice and have insights. That's not biblical and that's certainly not confessional or faithful to the Reformed Confessions.
Yes. I could not agree more. It's most certainly not biblical or confessional. Doug needs to confront the doctrine that God does not just ordain the ends, but also the means. Inevitably he will have to ask, what is the means by which God justifies people? Answer: by Faith Alone!
What a consistent Roman Catholic is doing is not having faith in the redeeming action of Christ, but is instead "carrying out" the sacraments to receive infused grace from God. To me, it doesn't sound like faith, but doing the works of the sacraments and then having faith that the sacraments that you do will save.
@@j-mallmand-smith6279 does Chesterton have faith in salvific work of God in Christ? If so, that's not a door to universalism.
We are saved by Faith Alone, but Faith alone in what? Are we saved "By Faith Alone in the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone"? Of course not.
Even though a Roman Catholic thinks he needs something else, if he have what it takes, which is Faith in Christ, he is saved.
At least that's what Doug is saying. I'm not done with that yet.
"Any two year old can turn on the lights but I wouldn't let him wire the house."
Boom
The fruit of being saved by faith alone is believing the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. If the fruit involves holding the doctrine of savation by faith and works, it is likely that person is not saved by faith alone.
This is the same cursed logic that causes Eastern Orthodox to say, "sure, Richard Wurmbrand suffered greatly in the name of Christ for years and years, but he didn't belong to the true body of Christ, so I guess he's probably damned."
The problem with that is that something like sola fide probably works it way into the beliefs and actions of all sorts of people who aren't directly cognizant of sola fide. There are plenty of Catholic grandmothers out there who just don't really understand Reformation doctrine but trust in Jesus' atoning death and love him. I highly doubt they will be condemned because they might also believe that taking communion plays a role in their salvation. Then you do start making having correct doctrine a prerequisite for salvation.
“If they were not I’m in a lot of trouble.”
To turn to the Roman Catholic Church,teaching a false Gospel, is worrying.
How can a “mature” born again Christian turn to a false Gospel?
It is a problem I have wrestled with. Being led by the Holy Spirit,this rejection of the true Gospel is baffling to me.
It's bizarre seeing people trying to figure out if other people are "saved".
Protestants understand the Bible, hence the 30,000 Protestant denominations in the US. Each teaching their own interpretation. Jesus started one Church with one message, and not 30,000 different versions
You are an ignorant fool. Under no circumstances whatsoever are there 30,000 different interpretations of the Bible by 30,000 separate denominations. You've been brainwashed by listening to those dumb Roman apologists who can't stop spitting those words out every chance they get. Second, you obviously don't know that there are those in your camp who would tell you to kindly SHUT UP! Read it and weep....www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations
Jesse Mendoza
Jesse Mendoza, according to the Same survey, there are multiple Roman Catholic and Orthodox denominations.
Every single independent church is considered a denomination, and if two churches who taught the same doctrine, but one did the service in English and one did in Spanish, they would be two different denominations.
Not to mention, salvation isn’t a denomination issue in scripture but by faith in the son of God
So when you remove trinity deniers and works based salvation groups, it’s not as bad as it could be
Why is there a distinction being made between the Catholic and Protestant Doctrines of Justification when this matter was settled between the Catholic Church and a majority of the mainline Protestants over the course of the last 20 years? The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification essentially settled the question of works vs faith as a terminological miscommunication, while the manifest nature of both doctrines in human life and action is essentially identical.
And the insistence that the Catholic Church teaches salvation by works is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of Catholic Doctrine without any basis in the Church's explicit teaching.
It's not justification by works but the facts that Protestants have problems with faith plus works. Also, why should protestants call Roman Catholics brothers when the Catechism makes clear that willfully not being Roman Catholic means a Protestant is unsaved. I agree with Rome on this of course, but instead in the reverse.
@@dennistakashima2449
Could you cite where in the Catechism it says this?
@@keymaker2112 Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm
Now of course this can be interpreted as Roman Catholics "accepting" that protestants are true Christian's in some sense. However, this can only be said when one defines Protestants not in historical context but in modern ecumenical context.
For example, would you consider me a brother in Christ if I said that your church was Antichrist and was led by an antichrist? Once this occurs it is very strange to try and claim that the person who calls your religion an antichrist as brother. This is the historic belief of protestants, however, modern ecumenical protestants no longer have such a loathing for the papacy. Thus, I think in that context alone the Catechism makes a coherent context.
Also double predestination is a heresy in the history of the Roman Catholic Church; I am uncertain whether Rome still maintains that belief. However, to consider those who hold double predestination as schismatics only should require contradicting much of church history, tradition, and some councils. Of course in the Roman system anything is possible, but it would be very strange to flat out contradict church history. At least in the Catechism there is an effort at non contradictions by not specifying the protestants, their views, etc.
I wont touch on the Council of Trent because much historical context and language origin it has makes its view of double predestination quite hard to understand (at least for me). So one cannot say with certainty unless he has studies in depth that Council (Trent) that it truly condemns double predestination. But instead it condemns a form of double predestination that seems to be different from what most double predestinationists have held. Thus, confusing.
I’m shocked, but I have to say I gained some respect for Doug Wilson.
I find this to be a bit confusing, if I had a friend who was a devout mormon and from my point of view was an actual Christian because of their demeanor, wisdom, or “works”(sharing Mormon beliefs) would I be justified in not evangelizing to them because I myself observe Christian-like behavior(which is exactly what the antichrist does to deceive, disguising himself as an angel of light) or wisdom? I think we can all agree that every religion has major doctrinal flaws and I just don’t feel comfortable submitting to the idea that Roman Catholics are not part of a Christian’s mission field the same way I would never submit to the idea that a Mormon is a Christian. I understand where Doug is coming from but it seems to me that he is convinced that somebody who practices true Roman Catholicism can be saved even though they are willingly rejecting the gospel of grace. I know that even Protestants do that but I think that is mostly due to ignorance rather than an informed rebellion, the electrician argument doesn’t seem that well thought out either as a five year old cannot discern whether or not what he believes is biblical while a grown man can and is required biblically to do so. I find it interesting that no scripture is used to support this unbiblical ecumenism that doug endorses either. Galatians 1 would disagree with your stance on this sir.
How can someone who has been blessed with the Holy Spirit to guide them continue in unrepentant Idolatry? A saved man influenced by the spirit continues to bow down to idols without any sign of repentance? Absolutely not.
"Chesteron and Tolkein can be saved because Protestants are right, we're not saved by works. We're not saved by our doctrinal works." That is the most absurd notion I have ever heard made by anyone claiming to be a pastor. Paul the apostle would have anathematized Wilson for this theo-babel nonsense.
May I nitpick please? A heretic is not someone with "bad doctrine" (though I admit it is the popular understanding). The word means something like "division, divide, schismatic, etc." The heretics are those who divide or separate themselves (and their followers) from the truth of the gospel. The heretic is the fool of Proverbs, who refuses to be corrected. A Christian may have less than perfect doctrine (in fact we all do); he may have less than adequate doctrine. But the regenerate man will repent of his errors, when confronted. The heretic won't. Most of the letters of Paul are dealing with doctrinal errors; but only a few individuals are actually heretics.
Isn’t it true that there are certain issues that would put one outside of the faith? For example, those who believe Jesus is an exalted creature rather than Divine? Or those who believe in Jesus but not that He came in the flesh? E.g another Jesus? So if we add to salvation through faith by grace, works, doesn’t this change the fundamental nature of the Gospel making it another gospel, which is no gospel at all? I agree with DW in that none of us will be 100% doctrinally but aren’t there certain positions that one must hold to be within the faith and fold? I guess the real question is where does the Scriptures draw the lines exactly.
Apollos in the NT sounds like he was saved even though he didn't quite have a complete or correct understanding of The Way
But can you deny part of the gospel and still be justified? AKA can a person be saved with a false gospel?
can the be saved and deny the trinity?
When you are born again spiritually you are an infant spiritually, some Christians grow spiritually faster than others and hit Calvinism, Postmillennialism, Presuppositional Apologetics, quicker. But regardless at what maturity the spiritual infant is, they are still spiritually regenerated and saved.
Just a tad bit self-righteous ... ;-) Maybe you should have hit humble before reaching your ultimate form
I’m not very familiar with Doug Wilson but I am very familiar with Catholic theology. The question is quite simple: did Chesterton and Tolkien believe what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation? If they did, then they were not saved because the Catholic Church has a false gospel. Their false gospel was codified at the Council of Trent (I wonder if Doug Wilson is familiar with the Council of Trent). This discussion went in a pretty unhelpful direction. It would have been much more edifying if they would have plainly stated what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation.
I'm glad God made you the arbiter over people's salvation! Please tell everybody whether they are saved or not! Since you have this great ability to judge 1500 years of people's salvation, you must!
Wait am I saved? I'm not a Calvinist, please tell me if am damned? TELL ME IF IM ELECT OR NOT!!!
@@huntsman528 I can only judge what people believe (here, the Catholic Church) will grant them salvation compared to what the word of God says. That makes God the arbiter, not me. I suggest you take the time to study what Catholicism teaches about how one is saved and compare it to Scripture. You will see that Catholicism contradicts the Biblical gospel. As for you (and this has nothing to do with Calvinism), if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in Him alone, for your salvation, then you will be saved, as the Bible clearly states.
Protestants are the ones who decided to remove seven books from Canon
@@leaderofthebunch-deadbeat7716 The Jews never had the seven books that the Catholic Church added.
@@briansmith1885 The Jews were wrong. The Pharisees (Rabbis) removed texts that conflicted with their man-made and false Talmud
“We’re not saved by our doctrinal works”. This statement seems incoherent to me since the Bible distinguishes between genuine saving faith and good works. You must believe the true gospel to be saved and Roman Catholicism distorts and perverts the gospel. They have a false gospel. That would include G.K. Chesterton who was a staunch Roman Catholic.
Galatians... I wish he would have went to Galatians...
Bigtombowski
Chapter 3
would have "gone" not would have "went". Bad English. Please get educated somehow.
@@tatie7604 working on my second doctoral degree. Are you the comment box gestapo or just a jerk?
I’m concerned about the information/accusations about Lewis’ involvement with the “Hermetic order of the Golden Dawn”
Can you please help clear this up? Thank you
A question I always wanted to ask Christian intellectuals like Doug and Ravi Zacharius et al is this: IF Christianity is so easily approachable and open to all, IF [as Jesus instructed] we are better off to think like children in our understanding of it/Him/ the Kingdom of Heaven, then why oh why, are there so many Christian intellectuals giving lectures at Universities and colleges, answering staggeringly tricky questions [and sometimes] with pretty poor answers too? In other words, the fact these chaps are in a JOB seems to undermine the simplicity of scripture and approachability of salvation through Jesus...
tony rooke - 1) There is a difference between childlike faith and childish faith. There is a difference between simple faith and simplistic faith.
2) God calls us into deeper and deeper communion with Himself. We are to respond to that call and “grow up”. God wants us to grow and mature.
So with those things in mind, I think it should be clear that not all levels of knowledge is appropriate for all maturity levels of Christians. This is why we need elders to guide us.
Maybe to answer the question directly, because we ARE(edit) commanded by our Lord to do so. Read this quick verses, 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 1:3, and try to get the scope, the impact of the lordship and reign of Jesus that the bible proclaims.
@@andreyconsalter Hi Andrey. Thanks, that is genuinely helpful and a point well made. All the best.
We're to accept God's truth with childlike simplicity, and also continue to grow in understanding. A child can understand what he needs to in order to trust Jesus. (Jonathan Edwards describes the spiritual devotion of a 4-year-old child.) An older man who has been walking with God and studying Scripture diligently for his entire life, knows that he has barely even begun to scratch the surface of theology. Scriptures are alive to the spiritual man, and there is always more to learn. Milk benefits spiritual infants, as we grow in faith we need to eat meat.
Hebrews 5: 12-14
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
And when God gives a man greater intellectual gifts, it's fitting for him to use them to learn and teach theology and related subjects in greater depth.
Doctrinal sin sounds pretty vague to me. I as a Calvinist can easily understand how one could claim that Arminians sin doctrinally in their soteriology. However, I am not sure if Doug Wilson attempts to call the belief in the doctrine of salvation by faith AND works a mere doctrinal sin. My question would be this: "Can a regenerate person indwelled by the Holy Spirit continue to believe that his salvation has just started and that he now by his own free will must attend the mass, pray, confess and so on to end the justification process?" If so, and if this is just a doctrinal sin, can we not conclude the same thing for Jehovah's Witnesses or even Muslims? It sounds like they just seem to have more doctrinal sins. I have no intention of attempting to defeat Pastor Doug in any way in this comment. I really want to hear from other Protestants, especially from Reformed ones :)
If you are saved by grace alone, then your 'belief' in that grace cannot save you either, because your belief is also an exchange, your emotional part or work, and all of it will burn at the judgement Seat. And if it is not burned, you are saved by your belief/merits/works.
@Nell Lyon If salvation is not of 'work', and faith is a gift, then 'all' people will get that 'measure of faith' and no judgement will be necessary, all souls in heaven. Read its contradiction James 2:14-20 Why 'work out' your salvation with trembling and fear?
@Nell Lyon That's theological baloney. Humanity created all the god and devils in their image and likeness.
@Nell Lyon Don't get upset, just reinforce your theology so that it is not contradictory.
Wait a darn second. I saw Ben Merkle in the clip art, but I got Darren Doane.
What a treat!
Heresy: That special moment when you have great spiritual insight than the apostles, the Church and the Magisterium because you have scriptures that they wrote, compiled and gave to you.
Protestantism: Not even once.
Your reading of a magisterium into church history is anachronistic.
@@CanonPress “reading into history” ? I think you mean simply recognizing history ... I’m begging for a Calvinist to at least represent Catholic justification fairly. Past, present, future ... justification, salvation, and glorification.
Wilson articulates this right view. I think the key is belief in the God Jesus Son of God, his incarnation, death, resurrection. This, and the accompanying grace, is what saves us. Catholics can have this without knowing how it works, or wrongly ascribing it's mechanism to their 'works'.
So agree to disagree peacefully and agree with love and respect.
The problem is that this is so subjective. I don't feel qualified to give Tolkien and Chesterton a pass...
Yes, some of our wacky, peculiar catholic cousins are saved…..they have Jesus in their hearts and have faith in who he is and what he accomplished!
This interview really confused me.
The idea of being elected unto salvation is either 100% correct or utter madness. And I am not sure which.
Yep.
So,being saved by the imputed righteousness of Christ,following the Gospel of Roman Catholics ( imputed righteousness is an anathema, purgatory,Alter Christus,the Pope on the same level as the Trinity)is the way to go? The very clever( in human terms ) G K Chesterton understood this,but was in rebellion against Biblical teaching by converting to the Roman Catholic Church. Doug Wilson can defend his ultra intelligent idol as much as he likes, at the end of the day he is following a false Gospel. What does God say about following a false Gospel?
An equally important question to ask is : "are protestants saved???"
Not all, only followers of Jesus are saved. Followers of Jesus are those who place their faith(not as a work of their own but as a response to the unmerited favor of God) entirely on Christs sacrifice/righteousness for their salvation and not their own, because we have no righteousness of our own. From there a follower of Christ will obey the Word of God which is Christ (John 1:1) and continue/persevere as a worker of Him in light of the salvation He provided/gifted them, not as a work to earn His favor.
This made me laugh, because it’s exactly how Catholics explain why Protestants can be saved. “Well, doctrinally they’re basically toddlers...” 🙃
Protestants and catholics are both carnal babes and still abide in the tombs of Babylon. When you hear the voice of the Son of God, you will come out of the graves and be resurrected to judgement which will lead to righteousness. Satan's ministers who peddle the word of God for profit are disguised as ministers of righteousness just like the scriptures say. They lie in wait at every corner waiting to deceive. There is a harlot house every place you look in America.
“Protestants and catholics are both carnal babes and still abide in the tombs of Babylon.”
Would you care to explain this opinion. What camp do you fall into? The only other I can think of would be Eastern Orthodoxy, which is pretty much just an eastern version of Roman Catholicism.
I wonder whether you’ve observed or partaken in a faithful reformed church, or read the writings of the reformers and puritans. I think you’d be shocked.
@@doctor1alex thanks for your response. I believe that I have been pleasantly surprised by some of the things the Eastern Orthodoxy and puritans have written in the past, along with some early quakers. I don't know the history of these sects like you probably do. I haven't partake in anything since late 2013 when I was called out in a very powerful way. I would love to have a group to meet with but there is really no fellowship with people that are in any of the mainstream denominations in the western world. Their understanding of God is based on cunningly devised fables. I long for more fellowship with people who would be like minded with the first century Christians who experienced the coming of the Messiah WITHIN. All I see now is Babylon, everywhere. Unfortunately, my family has had to live very isolated in terms of fellowship and communion because of the lack of spiritual understanding of the modern "church". What fellowship does light have with darkness? This system is under very strong delusion, believing lies. They don't understand judgement, grace, mercy, and especially FIRE. Of course, they can't help it, their minds are blinded and have yet to experience their eyes being enlightened. I eagerly await the fall of Babylon in these years ahead and am hopeful that as the captives are freed, there will be a pouring out of God's Spirit. Its humanity's only hope as the voice of the bridegroom and the bride are not heard in the harlot houses of Babylon. Thats why there is so much division and confusion, the voice of the Good Shepherd is not heard by these people, its a dry and parched land.
@@jm1733 You haven’t explained the reasoning for your belief that all churches today are in spiritual darkness. Is that right? You make it sound as if you are the only enlightened one. But there are multitudes who love Christ and have been born of God. They abide in the doctrines of Christ, and as John writes “whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.”
We know truth based upon the word of God (John 17:17), and this is the rule by which faithful churches use as a guide and authority (per 2 Timothy 3:16-17). The Holy Spirit guides the church of God by this truth (John 16:13). This is what the reformation was all about, thanks be to God.
@@jm1733 so does that mean you are eastern orthodox or oriental orthodox?
I want to agree with Doug. I think I do. Then again it could be wishful thinking. One of my absolute favorite movies of all time is "A Man For All Seasons" despite the fact that More authorized and advocated persecution of Lutherans. I like to think that More is in Heaven. "He will not refuse one who is so blithe to go to him." as the play reads.
Have you ever listened to a sermon or lecture by Bishop Fulton Sheen? There are a number of them on UA-cam. Being a Baptist some of the Catholic bits make me wince but the idea of him not being saved? That's very hard.
There was a member of my little SBC church who had been a priest. He was on a fast track headed to high places. He'd been everywhere, studied everywhere, knew everybody, had two audiences with the Pope. He knew almost as much bad stuff about Catholicism as John McArthur does. He said he was not saved until he left the priesthood and found Jesus.
How can someone who has been blessed with the Holy Spirit to guide them continue in unrepentant Idolatry? A saved man influenced by the spirit continues to bow down to idols without any sign of repentance? Absolutely not, Doug is so wrong on this.
@intothekey Nobody will be fully sanctified in this life. Everyone is dealing with some sin, intentional or not, that will plague them for some time. We can't exclude Catholics or Orthodox solely based on their erroneous beliefs and practices, even ones that are really bad, like the idol kissing and bowing. That's the epitome of "Father forgiven them, for they know not what they do."
How hard is it to say that if a Roman Catholic believes that they are saved by faith PLUS anything else, they are not saved? If you’re adding works in with Jesus then you’ve got a Jesus that didn’t do enough. Which would be a false Jesus. Or you don’t believe what Jesus meant when he said “It is finished.” and you make him out to be a liar which he can’t be because he is God.
Sounds like someone does t want to ruffle any feathers by speaking the truth.
Can a Roman Catholic be saved? Yes
Are they saved if they are adding to Jesus’ work to be saved? If they are believing on something they can do? No. That weak false Jesus isn’t the Jesus of the Bible. That’s a Jesus no different than the one the Mormons or the Jehovah’s witnesses have made up.
Did we learn nothing from the Reformation?
One thing that amazes me is, how many fanboys in the comments here would cry by happiness on such a dangerous nonsense coming out of mouth of Douglas Wilson, just because it is their idolized Mr. Superman Wilson.
He is dangerously wrong. Grace is help for Catholic that he/she may work their Salvation through the sacraments that is solely given by their church alongside of believing in Jesus. Salvation is not achieved solely by faith in finished work of Christ on the Cross. Chesterton and Tolkien knew and fully believed this.
Doug Wilson should keep those messed up ideas for himself.
And Christians, it is time to look things up for yourselves not just blindly follow your idolized preachers, they are sinners like you and me. Check everything with the Word of God.
Former Roman Catholic.
No catholic believes in salvation by works and no catholic prays to pictures.
Is teaching the Trinity through the analogy ice, water and steam bad or wrong? That's always been the way I understand for myself the Trinity, like God manifested in 3 different forms. Am I wrong?
Apparently it's modalism - but can't we say - if you took a bucket of water and split into three - you froze one part (ice), boiled one (steam) and left one as it was in the bucket (Water) that this could be an analogy of Gods trinity - co-existing together.
The Catholic Church calls the notion that you can be saved by works a heresy known as Pelagianism
Read the Catechism and actually see what the Church teaches.
Many Roman Catholics would say works AND grace are necessary for salvation. I have watched Catholic Answers and Church Militant and sometimes other RC channels and I don't think I've ever heard a professing RC say works aren't necessary for salvation.
What do catholics teach about salvation?
Heresy
Catholics believe one is saved by faith. The difference between Catholics and Protestants is over the word alone.
@@intothekey Protestants lack the magisterium to declare what is and isn't heresy
Gosh I wish Hitchens was around.
Well educated Catholics don't pray to pictures.
We are justified by faith…in the work of Christ alone. It is the denial of the latter part that truly disqualifies Tridentine Roman Catholics from glory.
Are catholic priests saved?
You do not understand the Reformed when you answered the question as you did. You basically said, "it doesn't matter what you believe" in order to be saved. We are saved unto good works. Thinking Chesterton is saved because of his outward mannerisms, you contradict yourself and are a respecter of men, more than God.
Hemmie just chowing on candy and soda while interviewing the Pastor
Someone needs to give him a piece of fruit instead.
I enjoy Mr Douglas Christian ethics, on this count his understanding of scripture is wrong. We are saved by grace first and then as Christians we evangelize trough example and works.
Come on Pastor Doug, its very easy. Why be a protestant then? And yes, I understand what you are saying. But doctrinal purity and immaturity in the faith are different things. Doctrinal purity in the essentials of the gospel is not a "work" but a work of faith in the
true gospel of grace.
what are you saying?
Yeah that last sentence makes no sense.
"It's not a work, but a work of faith."
That makes no sense for two reason. 1) if it's a work of faith, it I work however it comes about.
2) the question is to what purpose those works are for. Protestants do not ever say that the works are meant to save you or justify you for salvation. They are outpouring of the faith in Christ.
Catholics do have a faith in Christ, but the works of doctrine concerning it is incorrect yes.
Does God save us in Christ through faith or not? If he does then thats it. If you add extras then you may be a Catholic or Baptist or Methodist. But what extras are bad and damnable? If any are then we are thus saved by grace but kept by works, which Paul convincingly says no.
Yes I agree but what if you believe that Jesus saved you and Mary removes your sin?
Roman Catholic doctrine denies the heart of the Gospel. If a man understands and accepts those false teachings, I can't see how he is saved. On the other hand, R.C. Sproul I think rightly claimed that one can be inconsistent in his beliefs (misunderstandings), being Roman Catholic and yet truly saved. The problem is, how can men with the intelligence of Chesterton and Tolkien not understand basic biblical doctrine? How can the love of Christ not motivate believers to know Him more clearly through study of the Word, most especially scholarly men (who love and are very capable of in-depth study)? Both Calvin and Edwards said (something to the effect) that faith in one's own intellect is a great stumbling-block. I think of this when I think of men like Bonhoeffer and Lewis, men who though not Roman Catholic, were far from 'Evangelical' in their doctrine. In spiritual life, a powerful intellect (and also importantly, a 'good' education) can be potentially as much a curse as it can be a blessing. I don't think the question of exactly where the line is can be easily settled. One of the things I love about J.C. Ryle is his defense of other believers--both groups and individuals. For instance he, like Charles Spurgeon, defended the Puritans at a time when they were generally held in contempt. Something he wrote about John Wesley has been helpful to me in general, in looking at others who hold to unbiblical doctrines:
"I should think my sketch of Wesley incomplete if I did not notice the objection continually made against him--that he was an Arminian in doctrine. I fully admit the seriousness of the objection. I do not pretend either to explain the charge away, or to defend his objectionable opinions. Personally, I feel unable to account for any well-instructed Christian holding such doctrines as perfection and the defectibility of grace, or denying such as election and the imputed righteousness of Christ.
"But, after all, we must beware that we do not condemn men too strongly for not seeing all things in our point of view, or excommunicate and anathematise them because they do not pronounce our shibboleth. It is written in God's Word, "Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?" We must think and let think. We must learn to distinguish between things that are of the essence of the gospel and things which are of the perfection of gospel. We may think that a man preaches an imperfect gospel who denies election, considers justification to be nothing more than forgiveness, and tells believers in one sermon that they may attain perfection in this life, and in another sermon that they may entirely fall away from grace. But if the same man strongly and boldly exposes and denounces sin, clearly and fully lifts up Christ, distinctly and openly invites men to believe and repent, shall we dare to say that the man does not preach the gospel at all? Shall we dare to say that he will do no good? I, for one, cannot say so, at any rate. If I am asked whether I prefer Whitefield's gospel or Wesley's, I answer at once that I prefer Whitefield's. I am a Calvinist, and not an Arminian. But if I am asked to go further, and to say that Wesley preached no gospel at all, and did no real good, I answer at once that I cannot do so. That Wesley would have done better if he could have thrown off his Armininianisin, I have not the least doubt; but that he preached the gospel, honoured Christ, and did extensive good, I no more doubt than I doubt my own existence."
I might suggest you read more Chesterton, and watch some videos by Scott Hahn. It may be that Chesterton, Tolkien, and Lewis didn’t misunderstand. It might be you who needs to humbly admit they could see things more clearly than you. The Thing: Why I am a Catholic by Chesterton is what I would recommend.
@@jamessgian7691 As for me, no need for a refresher course on the RCC. Been there, done that, and wrote a 50,000 word essay against the obnoxious doctrine of Transubstantiation. You may request it at..
.eucharistangel [at] iCloud [dot] com
I am not catholic. I am an orthodox priest.That said, Catholics do not teach salvation by works. Nor do they believe it is grace plus works. We need to be honest in explaining the viewpoints of our opponents. At least Doug is trying to be honest. Now orthodox hold both truths on tension we are saved by grace, but Jesus said if you will enter into life keep the commandments. For as Jesus said in His last book, blessed are they that keep his commandmets that they may have right to the tree of life. Both are true. We do deny imputed righteousness because the bible does not teach it, rev.19.6 and 7.
Yes they do read the decree on justification in the council of Trent
By the way, the question is not if there are works in the Christian life, certainly there are. We walk in works prepared before the foundations of the world (Eph 2:8-10). The question is if those works are meritorious. Historic orthodox protestants emphatically deny that.
Loonytoones85 Orthodoxy and Catholicism do not pray to the icons or statues or to the Saints. We ask the saints to intercede in prayer to God for our sakes just as you do to your friends. We do not bow down to the image, but always to God. The image directs our attention to God just as a hymn or scripture passage may do for you.
First of all "Father", there is no such thing as a "priest" in a presiding position in the N.T., so your job, as well as every Catholic priest on Earth, is a fraud. Second, Catholicism does INDEED teach salvation by works as seen in their catechism, CCC 16, 1821 & 2068.
You are refuted.
@@mojo7495 ohhhh, look at you!!! 😂 the armchair theologian. You haven't a damned clue, sweetheart.
The one big problem with the Roman Catholics and the Reformers is their Jesus Christ is totally different. Wilson cannot believe that the RC's christ is the same Christ as the Reformers. Unless this is established, the conversation of Chesterton and Tokien matters not.
In what ways do you believe the Christ of Catholicism is different from the Reformers?
I don’t think their view of who Christ is, is incorrect rather the way they treat salvation. They seem to hand it out “one serving size at a time” so by completing the 7 sacraments you earn bits of grace which reduce your time in purgatory while sinning increases it etc. I also don’t agree with how they Separate sins into Venial and mortal or the necessity of confessing to a Catholic priest for forgiveness. It all just seems like a convenient way of keeping people dependent on the Church by treating salvation and sin like this
@@RedM4a Greetings.
I think I could answere it like this. If christ established the church he would want us to live in it and under it, keeping in mind that he is the head.
4:46
“They’re the electricians...
And if they don’t do it right, they’ll burn the house down!”
Get it!? 🤣 cuz the house would be full of heretics 🔥
Another protestant brother that doesn't get 16 centuries of Church's history. We pray for him.
Amen
The Reformers would agree with Doug on this point . . .
@@CanonPress Well Luther wouldn't have by the end of his life. But I'm sure the rest did. And I personally agree with Doug.
Jose, I understand what you are saying, but even Luther and Calvin as far as I know would agree read their theological works. They believed that there were believers in the Roman Catholic church, there are some who believe in justification by faith alone, as did the Church fathers, but I would not want to be in a church that have false teaching, some Roman Catholics are inconsistent to their churches beliefs.
@@CanonPress The Reformers are heretics, so it's irrelevant.
Faith alone is a man made tradition, as we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Better yet, a Catholic who is saved is saved in spite of Catholicism.
Jesus was approached by a man of the law (i.e. lawyer) and the lawyer asked Jesus what must he DO to attain eternal salvation. Jesus replied, "Love thy God with all thy heart, mind, and soul; and love thy neighbor as you would yourself." I'm not sure why so many Protestants miss this story in the Bible. Maybe it's because it doesn't fit their agenda. Nobody has more authority to speak on the subject of eternal salvation than Jesus Christ and Jesus himself tells us that "works" are one ingredient to salvation.
The problem is this: that Jesus said "unless you repent, you will likewise perish." He also said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son so that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." He didn't say you needed to work for your salvation, but rather to believe in Him who worked perfectly on your behalf. A faith-filled repentance must give up on your own works for salvation, turn to Christ, believe Him and follow Him.
@@calebhoppe7597 There is no problem with what I wrote, it is direct quote from the Bible. Please point out the area in the Bible what you claim.
Check out his debate with James White "Debate: Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers and Sisters in Christ?" on UA-cam for more information.
Actually, that's a different subject. Doug is arguing that being baptized means they're members of the covenant. Doug gets beaten handily there, as James shows that the definition of the new covenant is NOT like Israel, where some were believers and some were not, but consists only of those who are truly in Christ, born again, etc.
@@makobean, I agree. However, I believe they are very closely related when considering the way Doug seems to think about these two matters.
@@makobean - So only people who are truly born again get baptized in "believer baptism" type churches? So none of the adults who get baptize apostatize? None of them are phonies? How do you tell if someone is a real, born-again Christian in order to baptize them?
@@makobean - Indeed the New Covenant is not like Old Covenant Israel ... It's even MORE inclusive, but it seems that you Baptists are very busy trying to keep the most vulnerable out of the Church, and therefore out of the Kingdom. The Church IS Israel, friend. She always has been. Everyone who is of the faith of Abraham is Israel.
White looked like a simpleton and demonstrated his ole basic anabaptist impulse in that debate. Not impressed at all. He thinks he understands the RCC but he doesn't. Trying to pin down RC to a Council is silly. The RC morphes all the time and is great at finding subterfuges so he needs to stop that line of argumentation.
I made a comment and/or raised a question on another youtube post asking this; Catholic people believe in and confess Jesus Christ as Lord. Does believing that they must also perform other Church ordained practices to truly be saved, nullify their belief and confession? The simple answer; no it does not.
Worshippers of saints, mothers, popes, statues, icons, relics, rites or traditions aren’t saved. People who put their faith in a non-Biblical version of “God” or a different gospel than Jesus and the disciples taught aren’t saved, they are accursed as Paul stated. All of these are forms of idolatry.
“Be not deceived: neither fornicators, _nor idolaters_ , nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (I Cor. 6:9-10)
2.46 minutes- How do you know that the people in that congregation are " manifestinaly saved " What are they manifesting for you to know that they are saved ?
Not all Catholics are lost, but the ones that are saved are saved IN SPITE OF BEING CATHOLIC, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE CATHOLIC
This video is too short and Wilson's explanation isn't exhaustive enough. I have no issue with admitting that there are saved Catholics, Orthodox, and even Mormons, but it is because they believe in Jesus while being ignorant of their church's doctrines or just ignoring and rejecting them. However, if a Catholic, Orthodox, and especially Mormon, believe that they are saved by their own merits and Jesus just helps them, they are like the Galatians who received a false gospel.
Not mormon or JW. They are the occult hidden
@@drendabaerwolf8579, yeah, I know, but I had a Mormon (I live in Arizona where there are a ton of them) tell me she believed in the Trinity and that faith in Jesus was all she needed to be saved (she completely rejected the idea of many gods, becoming god herself, all of that strange Mormon stuff). I asked her why she stayed in the Mormon "church" and she said all of her family and friends were Mormon. She didn't want to leave the Mormon church because they wouldn't talk to her anymore if she did.
So I don't know. Maybe she doesn't have genuine faith because if she did, she would be willing to forsake family and friends for Jesus. But when it comes to doctrine, she is more Christian than many Christians I've known who sit in Protestant pews every Sunday. If she did leave the Mormon church and came to much church, based on her profession, I would approve of her being baptized and thus joining my church.
Are Reformed Christians saved?
If Faith is selfless acts of love witnessed in one's thoughts, words and actions ... sounds like we have to something to prove our faith !!!
Peter Berian the definition of faith is belief. That's it. The thief of the cross believed. He did no works. Had he lived longer he surely would have done works as a loving response to God's love, but those works wouldn't have saved him- only God's grace through faith can do that.
@@NikkiSchumacherOfficial ... Dear Confused Pilgrim Nikki Schumacher ... If you show me where in Scripture Faith is simply Belief ... I will show you where in Scripture you are wrong ... Regarding the thief on the cross you don't know Scripture ... Jesus came to Jews only in the O.T. ... the Holy Spirit had not yet been given (i.e. the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost 33 AD - 50 days after Jesus' Resurrection) therefore the O.T. rules were still in effect when Jesus spoke to the thief on the Cross about seeing him in Paradise! While Jesus was three days in the ground after His death ... Scripture says Jesus went to Paradise and preached there and released all the O.T. saints to follow Him into Heaven. After the Holy Spirit was given all Scripture says believers no longer go to Paradise ... they go directly to be with Jesus in Heaven. You need help in understanding God's Word. I will pray for you. Respectfully submitted, a watchman of His Word ... Peter
@Rebuked Falsehood Dear Confused Pilgrim Rebuked Falsehood... You are wrong! No one in the Old Testament had the indwelling Holy Spirit! Now if you can be wrong on something as simple as that you should stop dictating to others what is Scriptural and what is not Scriptural! You do not have a clear understanding of God's Word! The truth is this ...In the O.T. certain select Holy people had the Holy Spirit "ON" THEM ....BUT NOT IN THEM! I thought everyone understood this! Don't you remember what Jesus said about John the Baptist ... (Matthew 11:11-15) Jesus says: "Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence,d and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15 He who has ears to hear,e let him hear." Pilgrim ... you have a lot to learn ...Jesus was the first sinless man ...Jesus sent back His sinless Spirit to indwell all those who would obey His first commandment to the church to submit to adult full immersion to receive His Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38-41) explains the only way to get the Holy Spirit: Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. " Pilgrim ... you don't know the Bible ...you should be asking questions instead of attempting to to teach Scripture. Respectfully submitted, a watchman of His Word
@Rebuked Falsehood Dear Pilgrim Rebuked Falsehood ... My boldness was to wake you up ... My boldness was to help you see the Truth ... If I were in your shoes I would be thankful someone led me into the Truth of His Spirit and Word. This isn't really about who is right and who is wrong ... this is about sharing the Truth ... You did not have the Truth ... I shared with you in boldness ... I don't profess or carry the name "Rebuked Falsehood" ... I don't profess to know everything ... but what I do know ... I share with others ... I share with you what His Spirit has shared with me ... you should be thankful ... You should be asking me more questions ... not making statements against the Truth! Respectfully submitted as my Scriptural understanding, I share with you what He has shared with me. a watchman of His Word
1 Corinthians 15 : 1-4 Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
They dont really want u to understand the Bible or to pursue it deeply. They never have, it was even written to feel untouchable by the average person in its time. This leaves u in the hands of pastors & other church leaders. The more u understand independently, the more u will answer ur own questions by reading & understanding the text. Fact is, many believers who study religion become atheists or at least agnostic. The more u study these scriptures & understand the ideas laid out before u with no interpretation spinning the ideology, the less belief u can possibly have.
Catholics are saved by grace, through faith. They believe in that free gift from God. It's after that point that they go astray, in thinking for instance, that if you don't willingly attend Church one Sunday you will lose your salvation and go to hell, should you die before repenting to a priest. It is a horrifying and legalistic notion on a people who fervently believe in Christ and his redemptive work on the cross.
According to both Luke and Paul the sine non qua of a Christian or saved person is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Thats grace. Thats why only Pentecostals are saved ha ha ha.. just kidding.
But Acts 8:16-19 is very clear.. how does one watching know if one is receiving the Holy Spirit.
Ive never seen a catholic baptism or aconfirmation where the Spirit came that others could see. Such rites dont confer the Spirit.
@Solus Digur if you read the bible you 'll notice there is never any event when a person receives the Holy Spirit during their baptism. It happens in the event of believing, or praying for the Spirit to come...with or without laying upon of hands by those who have the Spirit. Off it can happen at other times
That was clear as mud
Are we crossing the deep uncharted waters of the sea of speculation, bolstered by a following wind of positional preconceptions with a few 17thc crosswinds to have to manage?
We need first century answers, not post enlightenment answers - or perhaps its best to disembark?
It’s up to the Divine to Save not man no matter what he’s or her Church is
Thou shalt not Judge
I don’t want to overstate or understate or misrepresent Wilson’s position in any way, but it seems I heard him say, in effect, I believe they are saved because they’ve had such a profound impact on me. Am I wrong?
@Nell Lyon all trinitarians have a different Jesus than the biblical one
@Nell Lyon you don't understand I do not believe that God is three different persons BECAUSE God never say He was three but always say He is One , right? Who is the Jesus of the bible?
Let see what the bible SAY = 1Tim3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto thexodus3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. And Jesus said: 58“Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I AM” 59At this, the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him.
Jesus is the Father who came as the sacrificial Lamb for to saves is peoples.
@@michelhaineault6654 lmao at unitarians. no one takes you seriously
@@none11flop9 Jesus say this :…SHOW US THE FATHER John14: 7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.” 8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” 9Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?… SOLA SCRIPTURA.
@@michelhaineault6654 so who did jesus pray to?
Skittles. Coke.
If you dont believe that only Christ can save you, youre not saved. Regardless of what sect you are in. This is the only Truth and the only Way that can save you. Take this out or replace it, you have a different gospel -which is no gospel at all. Can we know all that is to know about God? of course not. Can we know the only Way? Definitely! So if G.K. Chesterton and Tolkien placed their salvation in anyone else, aside from Christ then chances are, no matter how "good" and "smart" they were, they're not saved.
The Canon Press should now be considered Apostate and Anathema after this video. Well done Mr. Wilson.
That's obviously an overreaction.
@@SamOwenI He just condoned the use of pagan practices by the RC, thereby saying that paganism is acceptable in the eyes of God; huge misstep on his part. Pretty sure that Paul tells us that anything different than what him (a disciple) and the Apostles have taught is to be considered anathema. Did I misread the bible then?
@@ThistlesJones I do agree that the Roman Catholic Church's official teaching comes under the anathema of the book of Galatians. However, that's not the same as saying Canon Press or the Wilsons are apostates. You can't just throw people out of the kingdom for having an incorrect view of the RCC or other heretical group.
@@SamOwenI ROMANS 1:6...pretty much sets the standard. Whether it was Doug saying or whether Canon Press releases it; both are in the wrong because of the position taken by both with the title, the video and the posting. If Canon Press disagrees with Doug, then they need to state as such; up to now I have not seen them take an opposite position of Doug...
@@ThistlesJones I assume you meant to type Romans 1:16? Listen to what I am saying. Doug Wilson professes to believe the gospel and has taught it for many years, so you must acknowledge that profession. He may be mistaken about the Catholic Church, but that is not reason to anathematise him. Read one of his many books. Listen to his talks. Listen to his debates. You cannot anathematise him. You must acknowledge his profession of faith.
It is a very serious thing to hurl the anathema. You need clear biblical evidence for that. Otherwise, don't do it.
Chesterton's writings in Orthodoxy regarding "of Vice and Virtue" are rather poignant for the current day... I remembered Catholic essentially means UNIVERSAL... Faith is as customized as the individual and for that matter so are Deeds... #Hands&Feet
You may not be saved by "believing in justification by faith", but you are damned for preaching against it. Galatians 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
I.E. Galatians 2:16 .....yet we know that a person is not justified2 by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
If they are saved it's despite Rome.