Romans starts and ends with the obedience of Faith....plus look up John Bergsma's video on the Dead Sea Scrolls and what Paul really meant by "works of the Law". basically dietary-kosher restrictions
@katiestover8954 Faith unto obedience doesn't make much sense, though. Granted, faith can help you become disciplined into obeying, but you can perfectly still have one without the other, for they're totally separate things, distinguishable from one another. In other words, one is not "the result" [so to speak] of the other. Hence Faith *and* obedience is the proper understanding.
@@GranMaese Man will fail in obedience if not for the grace of God. That is the overarching story of scripture, especially the Old Testament. It's Catholic doctrine that we need grace to have faith and we need grace to remain obedient.
I've met some ex-protestant friends that have told me they had the same problems as you before converting to Catholicism. And they would be the very first ones to agree that protestantism is a huge mess. [With all due respect to my beloved protestant brothers in Christ.]. The ones that still have some kind of order within are the ones that took it after Catholicism, go figure. :D
This is what Paul says: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast. “ Ephesians 2:8-9
@@blazel462 Love that verse, but we have to add verse 10 as well: "10 For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them."
Perhaps the best single video explanation of the Protestant vs Catholic views on this topic, finding common ground and promoting unity without avoiding the real differences, with special focus on harmonizing James vs Paul in a very systematic way. Very well done as usual!
@@po18guy Looks like Augustine saw a need: " I have written a book on this subject, entitled Of Faith and Works, in which, to the best of my ability, God assisting me, I have shown from Scripture, that the faith which saves us is that which the Apostle Paul clearly enough describes when he says: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love." But if it worketh evil, and not good, then without doubt, as the Apostle James says, "it is dead, being alone." The same apostle says again, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" And further, if a wicked man shall be saved by fire on account of his faith alone, and if this is what the blessed Apostle Paul means when he says, without works can save a man, and what his fellow-apostle James says must be false. And that must be false which Paul himself says in another place: "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." For if those who persevere in these wicked courses shall nevertheless be saved on account of their faith in Christ, how can it be true that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God" -Enchiridion ch 67 [354-430 AD] Perhaps if the successors of the Protestants leaders had thrown out James, the movement would not have grown or survived.
I recently listened to a 30 min video by the late RC Sproul on reconciling Paul and James and, again, after 30 minutes of explanation, Sproul was able to work it out from his view of justification, but he unknowingly decimated the idea of perspicuity… because no normal, barely literate human (I.e. 99 percent of people who ever lived) would get it without someone holding a PhD explaining it to them. So Sproul ended up making an excellent case for an authoritative teaching magisterium.
Sproul convinced me the Catholic Church was consistent in doctrine and the Protestants inconsistent in his book Are we Together. In Behold your Mother Tim Staples masterfully uses RC Sproul’s commentary on Uzzah to show the that Mary had to be without original sin, quite masterfully. Sproul also said Protestants shouldn’t have been so quick to ditch the confessional. It’s a shame he wouldn’t set aside his pride and become Catholic.
Sproul's commentaries remind me of shallow thinking or lack of understandings that we may have had as children. Once we would voice some of these dumb ideas, a nun would correct us and we would be nose back into the catechism. Thanks to those nuns and priests for teaching me the truth.
Have to stop this before my job interview. Pray for me everyone. Joe thank you so much for your help. You've taught me so much about the faith! I hope I can support in a few weeks
I was halfway through listening to Joe's interview on the Cordial Catholic about Calvinism and this popped up. I highly recommend that show on Cordial Catholic too. 😊 This is very thorough.God Bless!
I'll have to watch that. Been reading Against Herieses by St Irenaeus and he shows we're saved by faith and obedience to Christ and we have free will to except and reject God's grace. I highly recommend reading the book. It's incredible
I JUST finished listening to the CC episode! It looks like, with the last two SP episodes, that @shamelesspopery MAY be touching on the Reformation’s 5 (five!) Solas … please say yes! I’m coming in this Easter vigil for a reformed non-denom tradition. These episodes are so helpful to me.
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I mean, if you're praying for anything (not just forgiveness), does that mean you're performing a work for God? I'm not following the logic. The Baptists have such a view of "faith" but that is not the brand of faith we find in the bible. Baptists pretty much teach that if you BREATHE in the name of Jesus, you're working. That's not taught in the bible. Is that the brand of "faith" you're referring to?
Not only that, but the same Protestants say you have to ACCEPT Jesus. DECIDE... BELIEVE. All are acts of the will. If faith alone was real, you'd just have to be born. Silliness.
@@Michael-pw2td - Granted. I don't think that even Baptists teach that you must become a rock in order to be saved but it's pretty darn close. Faith righteousness is indeed taught in the New Testament. And, as it turns out, it is also taught in the Old Testament - as the Apostle Paul points out so eloquently in his epistles. But it's certainly not, "Thou must become a rock". Action is indeed required but the bible NEVER calls such action a "work". We eed to define our terms by "Thus saith the Lord" or we wind up with complete confusion (i.e. the denominational world).
@@GizmoFromPizmo Well, here's the thing. According to the Lord's Prayer, which IS in the Scripures, the standard by which God forgives our sin is dependent upon us forgiving our neighbor who may sin against us. That standard does kind of fly in the face of Faith Alone.
As a Catholic, I really appreciate your approach to this topic and focusing on how much we have in common with our Protestant brothers. This challenges me to think about how to interact charitably on these topics.
Excellent episode today! As a former Baptist, I would also like to add a common misconception about Catholics… And it’s actually a twist on the Catholic misconception regarding protestants. Many Protestants believe that Catholics can willfully sin as much as they desire so long as they get to confession. Sort of a “mafia Catholicism“ The comedian, Jim Gaffigan, has a bit where he says “can we get this confession wrapped up? I’ve got some sinning to do!“ This is very similar to the Catholic misconception, that protestants can sin as much as they want in light of their “once saved, always saved” mentality.
For Protestants reading this and not understanding how this twist doesn't work: Confession doesn't work if you don't want it. Put another way, the Sacrament of Reconciliation doesn't work if you don't want to reconcile. You did it, but you regret it and you don't want to do it again. If you stole a bike, you return it. If you hit someone, you apologize. If you slandered someone let the world know you did wrong and if you did any crime let the repercussions fall upon you because you deserve it. Does this make sense? If you're using Confession as a tool to do evil and get away with it, well you should know better than to assume God is a fool, because God knows your heart and knows you never meant it. None of your visits amounted to anything.
In fact, Baptist and Calvinist have gone so far as to draw a separate path for salvation and relationship with God. Path #1 is Salvation - once saved always saved and path #2 is your relationship with God - a completely separate path that has no effect on salvation. The theology is contrary to the bible, removing Hope and Love from the salvation equation. In their view, sin is only some rough indication of if one is saved or not, i.e. had faith or not. The need for obedience that Paul preaches is certainly ignored and refuted as being a "work" . The Catholic doctrines of the sacrament of reconciliation, and purgatory are theologically sound and certainly not sin as much as you want. Faith "alone" was in fact Martin Luther's solution to his own obsessive compulsive behavior.
Another bad representation of Protestants. I'm not sure who the many are, because Paul said where grace abounds, sin abounds much more. Shall we continue to sin because grace abounds certainly not. I do not agree with confession though because biblically we are told to confess our sins to God and He is faithful to forgive our sins! At the same time I think it is good to confess sins to other believers....We are told biblically we can't forgive sins but we can ensure others they are forgiven! Much love!
I converted from protestantism this summer and this was a big hurdle for me. I didn't realize I believed differently/wrongly until I spoke with the priest at our local parish about what confession and the Eucharist is for. You are spot on with your analysis of the spiritual abuse that can happen due to this false teaching.
Great analysis, Joe. To our Protestant brethren, also check out former Protestant and truly genius historian Dr. David Anders. He also does a terrific job explaining the disconnect between the Bible and Protestantism. As a former Protestant, Dr. Anders explains how the starting point makes all the difference. Dr Anders used to START with a Calvinist or Lutheran perspective and then read the Bible through that lens. Everyone should be doing the opposite: START with the teachings of Jesus and how they were understood by the Apostles and those whom they taught, then assess Calvin/Luther through that lens. Otherwise, you are really putting humans (Calvin/Luther) ahead of the word of God. Starting from diifferent points explains why Protestants and Catholics often talk past each other.
This was so helpful Joe. You have a genuine gift of communicating complex concepts in a straightforward and yet highly engaging way. As a recent convert from Protestantism, I just wanted to say that your work was a big part of the journey for me. Thank you. Christus vincit!
Thank you so much for this. I really think this will help me bring my Protestant friends to the Catholic Church. God bless you! Please pray for them and me.
Outstanding! As a priest, my experience is that after I bring them this far, the non-Catholic then says, "Faith but not Baptism." I then point out how the Ethiopian Eunich comes to faith and us Baptized, Paul comes to faith and is Baptized, the household of Cornelius, etc. Can you make a video on this? I'm sure as a full time apologist you have more insight into overcoming this obstacle than I seem to have. (Sigh)
Yes sir except saying baptism has anything to do with justification does not agree with the bible's teaching as a whole! But we are commanded to be baptized, although and do not believe we must be for salvation! I also do not believe an infant is justified by baptism...We must be baptized with the Holy Spirit! God bless!
"Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on His name!" ~ Ananias to Paul, Acts 22. This is after Paul had been praying and fasting for three days. "Those of you who have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." ~ Galatians 3:27
@@MrCB555 yes baptized in Christ! Context is everything..... We are saved by grace through faith! Honestly how can water baptism have anything to do with salvation??? It doesn't! It is only by God's grace and the blood of Jesus! On the cross He said IT IS FINISHED
@@Hokum48 Don't ask how something can be, ask what God has spoken. It's dangerous to reject God's Word based on our own flawed ideas of how He could really mean this or that. If it's what He means, it's true, even if it doesn't seem logical to us. Don't put your own ideas of what baptism should or shouldn't be above God's Word. Can you find that "baptism now saves you" in the bible? (Yes, you can.) Keep also in mind that in the Book of Acts it's written that entire households were baptized. Strong indication that included children. Where in the bible do you find that you need to be an adult or that you need to understand what it means for God to save you through baptism (that He commanded)? Can only people who understand baptism be saved, excluding children and severely mentally disabled people? Don't add restrictions on God's Word that come from men. Nowhere in scripture does it say that children aren't to be baptized or that there's a minimum age for baptism or that there's a minimum understanding for baptism to be proper. Jewish boys (including Jesus, Joseph, Paul, Peter, etc.) were circumsized 8 days after they were born, as God commanded. Don't be the kind of person who claims to know better than God. "But surely we can't circumsize babies! They don't understand what's going on!" The Lord, your God, commanded it. Do it. "We can't baptize small children, they don't understand it!" The Lord, your God, commanded you to baptize everyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Do it.
@@Hokum48Also, please don't bring up the thief on the cross. 1) We don't know if he was or wasn't baptized. The bible doesn't say either way. 2) The way he was saved wasn't the norm. Hadn't he been crucified, he'd have gotten baptized. God commanding us to get baptized doesn't mean _He_ can't save us without baptism, it means that if _we_ decide not to get baptised although we have the opportunity (that the thief didn't have as he died) and know what the Lord commanded us to do, we're rejecting His saving baptism. I don't mean to be harsh. It's just that people commonly bring up the thief on the cross as to argue why baptism is unnecessary, and that's not right. God showing mercy on a sinner who repented in his last moments without access to baptism (assuming he indeed wasn't baptized before) is a testament to God's mercy, it doesn't mean we can just ignore what He explicitly told us to do.
Excellent show! I don't know anyone in real life who is a Faith Aloner but I've come across plenty in youtube comment sections. I've tried to understand where they're coming from because the concept seems so counterintuitive. This was very helpful.
Having faith in Christ is trusting in him and doing what he asks of us. Baptism, confirmation, communion and all the sacraments are part of our faith in Christ.
Having once been Episcopalian, I can assure you the Episcopal Church approves of sin, and even promotes and celebrates certain sin like homosexuality, adultery via divorce and remarriage, and murder by supporting a 'woman's right to choose'.
Another great video that clarifies where the disagreement lies while also trying to keep it simply for us laymen. I think this may be the video I share to people who express the usual misunderstandings of the disagreement.
I appreciate this video for a few reasons. 1. It admits that this issue is complicated. Both sides have issues admitting this. 2. Joe was fair to the Protestant side, often times “faith alone” is mischaracterized as this kind of easy believe-ism whereby works don’t matter. 3. It admits the need for harmonization. We are both working with theological structures and the real debate is “which theological structure makes the best sense of the biblical data.” I have not been convinced to accept the Catholic views of justification but I do think we are closer than I originally thought. If I may frame why protestants have a problem with the idea of works being involved in justification… Catholic and Protestant apologists have both spent many years thinking through these nuances and how exactly to explain it with the right words. That’s good. But the lay person has not done such exhaustive thinking and learning. And the truth of the matter is that there are going to be pendulum swings on both sides. The Protestant side is gonna pendulum swing to this easy believe-ism, live however you want, God accepts you no matter what “Hyper-grace” movement. That’s wrong. Very unbiblical and I fear for those people who are deceived that they may hear “depart from me for I never knew you.” But, let’s acknowledge the pendulum swing for Catholics. This legalistic way of viewing salvation and our relationship with God. This is not a shot, just telling you my experience. It’s this idea of “well I was baptized as a baby so I’m good,” or “let me go to confession and do the penance once a year and I’ll be fine” it’s this cold-hearted , box-checking “just get it done” attitude. Please hear me, that’s not all catholics and that’s not what the official Catholic Church would teach. I fear for the people who are relying on their outward obedience to a religious system with no actual faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ that they too will one day hear “depart from me for I never knew you.” As a Protestant, it’s so important to us that we don’t make that error of “rules over relationship.” We ought not pendulum swing that doctrine to “relationship with no rules” though. Listening to this channel and other Catholic apologists has opened my eyes to a sincerity in the Catholic faith that I have not seen personally. I’m glad. I enjoy these debates and I’m holding back on a few things topics I’d provide friendly pushback too because I just don’t have the time. Can’t wait till we get to heaven one day and Jesus can straighten all this out for us.
Yes, you are right on the dangers, but that is a danger of people who haven't been taught correctly. A doctrine/teaching must be judged on its own merit if it is the truth or if it is false. Unfortunately, the biblical/historical evidence leans in favour of the Apostolic churches, the Catholic and Orthodox churches, not the Protestant teaching.
Protestantism's version of Christianity was not handed over by the apostles. Thats the problem for me. Want to see sincerity, just see the lives of the saints.
@@SF-my2ym Jesus also said "I am the door" not "I am like a door." He also said "I am the True Vine" not "The True vine is a representation of me." If you want to interpret "This is my blood and flesh" literally you will have to establish a case for taking Jesus literally in that case, not just claim it. Nevertheless, that's not the point of this video nor was it the point of my comment.
AGAIN, Praise God, brother Joe! My favorite channel! Your logical explanations of the teachings of the faith of Jesus Christ and His church is Holy Spirit inspired. Love ya brother!
Joe was on a round table with Dr Thomas before on reason and theology! I really like the way Dr Thomas charitably approaches Protestant denominations and their beliefs.
I cracked up when I read this, bc I only now realize that I've quite obviously met him (and spoken with him) before, and that it's all on video. Mea culpa!
I'm sorry for talking so much; it's just that your topics are so... moving.? Thank you so much for your clarity in explaining the Catholic Church's Christian faith and Her Biblical text, so that even a simple mind like mine can grasp the meaning. 🙏🕊❤✝️👑⛪❤👏👏👏👏👍
Ask a Protestant if they believe in justification by faith and works, and they will emphatically deny it. But ask them if they believe that anyone is justified apart from the cooperation of their will, and they will almost always deny that too. Yet, they essentially mean the same thing.
Ask them to interpret John 3:36: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him," and watch the gymnastics.
Well Lutherans and the Reformed will argue with you. For them any human action is not allowed, which is why they have to destroy your humanity and literally turn you into a zombie to get monergism, thus God rides your like puppet.
The Missing Evidence Against "Faith Alone" How about this? 1. On his own authority in his 1522 German translation of the New Testament, Martin Luther added the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28 to read, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE (Allein)" to justify his doctrine of Sola Fide, i.e., Justification by Faith Alone. [Michael Davies, Cranmer's Godly Order (Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1995), p.25.] 2. He wrote the following regarding his addition of the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28: "If your papist worries you about the word 'alone', just tell him plainly that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says: 'Papist and donkey are one and the same thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas.' ["I wish it, I command it. Let my will take the place of a reason." (Luther quoting the Latin from 1st-2nd AD author Juvenal's satirical poems Satyrai)] For we must not be the pupils or disciples of the papists, but on the contrary their masters and judges. We ought to swagger and hammer on their donkey-heads, and, as Paul challenged the sanctimonious fools of his day, so I will also challenge these donkeys of mine." [G.W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian (London, 1956), p.36.] 3. In addition to the above concerning Romans 3:28, Luther also wrote: "I am sorry now that I did not add the word 'all' so that it would read 'without all works of all laws', and thus ring out loudly and completely. However, it shall stand as it is in my New Testament, and though all the Papist-donkeys go mad about it, they shall not move me from this." [A. Hilliard Atteridge, Martin Luther (London, 1940), pp.19-20.] 4. Although subsequent translations removed the word ALONE (Allein) from Romans 3:28 to accurately transmit in German what St. Paul originally wrote in Greek, Luther steadfastly held on to the doctrine of Sola Fide derived from his additional word. Luther's doctrine subsequently was adopted by the major 16th century Protestant Reformers who initiated movements that continue on to the present day and which include: (A) John Calvin (Reformed) in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, (B) Thomas Cranmer (Church of England/Anglicanism) in No. 9 of 39 Articles of Religion in his Book of Common Prayer, and (C) Calvin's student John Knox (Presbyterianism) in his book On Justification By Faith Alone. 5. John Calvin even admitted in his Institutes that the word 'alone' never follows the word 'faith' in the Bible but still went and followed Luther in the new Protestant doctrine: "The reader now perceives with what fairness the Sophists of the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is justified by faith alone (Rom. 4:2). They dare not deny that he is justified by faith, seeing Scripture so often declares it; but as the word alone is nowhere expressly used they will not tolerate its being added." [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 11, No. 19; Beveridge translation, p. 459; nts library website, Institutes pdf 467 of 944]
Awesome video… My favorite one yet! Such a relevant topic and I have experienced this within my own family who have left the Catholic faith.. They use arguments that aren’t true OR they don’t fully understand the terms that are used. Thank you!
I wish Jimmy Akin would be more clear publicly about what role works actually do play in salvation. He really emphasizes the common ground, which may be prudent at times but still a little confusing. Only on 2 or 3 occasions have I ever heard him mention the role of works in keeping or maintaining the salvation one already has. Eventually I'll have to get his book on the topic to see what he says there.
@tonyl3762 Tony, ▪︎1 Peter 3:21 says, “Baptism now saves you.” ▪︎James 2:24 says, “A man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” No one reads such texts and tries to set up a doctrine of justification by baptism alone, or by works alone. Likewise, it is also false to read Ephesians 2 as though it were teaching faith alone. If you proof text in this way, if you read passages in isolation from the entire witness of Scripture, not to mention in isolation from their own context, you will go wrong quickly. Faith is not ethereal IT'S concrete because you must put it into action by DOING the will of God. ▪︎MATTHEW 7:21 21. 'It is not anyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person WHO DOES the will of my Father in heaven. ▪︎JAMES 2:14-17 14. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15. If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16. and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17. Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. We Catholics believe it is only “by divine grace through Jesus Christ” that we are enabled to do good works at all. And the Council of Trent also says that justification begins only from “the predisposing grace of God,” who calls us “without any merits” of our own (Chap. 5). Thus when St. Paul writes to the Ephesians that “by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God,” that is entirely consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church at Trent. God bless.
Excellent video! Iron clad logic, I think that’s why you don’t see anyone in the comments attempting to refute it. Another angle I like to use is Matthew 25, (I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was in prison and you did not visit me.) The one being condemned here knows who they’re supposed to go to for salvation. Their knowledge of him wasn’t enough to save them, they lacked the good works they were commanded to do. I don’t know how Protestants miss this in scripture over and over again. I bring up the section in Romans 2 about good works. Either they ignore Paul entirely or think he’s talking about unbelievers. Somehow Gentiles becomes (non believers). I’m like “so christians can get into heaven by faith alone but non believers have to do good works to get into heaven?” He said it was only hypothetical, unbelievers can’t get in no matter what.” My response was “then why does Paul start by saying whoever you are? He finishes by saying to the Jew first and then the gentile. It doesn’t sound like he’s saying this only affects unbelievers, Jews, or gentiles. It’s everybody!” He hasn’t responded since. Pray for him, I hope something I said struck him. He seemed like he was brimming with confidence about sola fide but you could tell he had never really thought about Romans 2.
As a fierce critic, i congratulate you on your work in this video. What you seem to be doing is giving catholics and protestants something solid to work with. What happened after this? the tone of later videos becomes more adversarial. Not completely but more 'protestants are like mormons'. Though catholicism emphasizes faith and works, a lot of protestants would not disagree with what you say about working out your salvation/sanctification.I would say that such love as we have, the love that we need to have, comes from God. The Holy Spirit teaches me to love from His word, i believe it, it becomes mine and because of that, i can love. Best wishes
I think that what is mission from the conversation is the topic of “sanctification.”. That’s what Protestants feel like is happening when you engage in the good works you perform. I would really be interested to hear a Catholic apologist address it. I might reach out to Catholic Answers… that said I should’ve started this comment by saying THANK YOU for this video!!! I feel like it’s the calmest most logical and most thought provoking commentary on this topic I have found. The gentleman speaking is sensitive and caring in his approach to the topic. I have been struggling with depression too so I feel really thankful for his gentle spirit and approach. I’m seriously considering becoming Catholic so again THANk YOU
Thanks for this very good and useful video! Protestants often pretends that scriptures speaking of obedience and perseverance concerns only future rewards but not salvation. Could you make a response to this?
Good to learn more about these things that have dogged our steps along the path of the past 500 years, competition, wars, sectarianism when the very opposite should apply - Good News, Good Will! It would have been so convenient to walk to the nearest church but it's Protestant!
Hey Joe, it would be really cool if you did an episode explaining "Grace Alone" I feel like this theory is often intertwined with "Faith Alone" and can be kind of confusing.
"If you wish to enter into life, then keep the commandments ", ( Matthew 19:17), for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS. ( Corinthians 13:2). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@Wgaither1 My little children, these things write I unto you, *that ye sin not* And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, *Jesus Christ* the righteous: (not a man who wants people to call him father). For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, *in this present world* Have you remembered to keep holy the seventh day sabbath?
The commandments, which is part of the Law, refers to actions or works. It is not about faith. Jesus said that he had come to complete it. So the Law is as importat as the faith in Jesus. But the Protestants reject works as essential for salvation. That is tantamount to rejecting the Law. If so why they insisit the Catholics to observe it ( with particular reference to the second commandment), when they themselves reject the essentiality of works? By asking us, are they not rejecting their own 'faith only'.?
@@larrybedouin29212:28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. * 2:16 So let no one make rules about what you eat or drink or about holy days or the New Moon Festival or the SABBATH. 17 ALL SUCH THINGS ARE ONLY A SHADOW OF THINGS IN THE FUTURE, THE REALITY IS CHRIST
@@tasiaflynn3549 Now of the things which we have spoken this is *the sum* We have such an high priest, (of the order of Melchizedek; chapter 7) who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty *in the heavens* A minister of *the sanctuary* and of the true tabernacle, *which the Lord pitched and not man* For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. (His life; "no greater love"...) For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests [Levitical] that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and *shadow* of *heavenly things* as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make *the tabernacle* for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to *the pattern* shewed to thee in the mount. *But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry* by how much also *he* is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. *For if that first covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second* For *finding fault with them* he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make *a new covenant* with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; *I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts* and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: {Hebrews 8:1-10} (Jer 31:31-33) ☝️ No new law
I can’t help but remember our Lord’s words concerning being as a child to enter Heaven. These arguments can get so convoluted that I wonder if we are being childlike in our approach to living the life that God gave us.
The lack of the word alone except in James 2.24 would seem to be a problem. Especially since the word faith is used about 300 times in the new testament and protestants think they have to correct the scriptures when James says we are NOT justified by "faith alone" .
If Christ doesn't actually transform us and He only covers up our sin, would that imply that heaven is full of sin? At what point would anyone become righteous before entering heaven?
The response that I've run into is that, the moment after death, we are made perfect. An arbitrary way to separate sanctification out and preserve forensic justification, but that's a common response that I've heard.
It's misleading to say SFers dont believe in transformation, traditionally they hold sanctification is necessary to salvation. They merely hold that the believers internal righteousness is imperfect and tainted with damnable sin and so can never withstand judgment, thus the need for imputed alien righteousnes as the grounds for justification. However, to your point, I've never gotten a good answer from them why God could not just continue looking at them through imputed righteousness in heaven. Given their theology, there's no logical reason. Why must the non-SF view of transformation only instantly occur after death and could not begin in earthly life as in the RC/EO view (and even be condemned as a false gospel by anti-catholics no less)?
I think you have omitted a couple important issues key to the argument. 1) Protestants typically believe God's standard of judgement is perfect and sinless obedience. This frames their entire understanding. 2) Whether or not given this a persons Grace-Spirit inspired works can be said to be part of the basis or ground of God's judgement.
The formulation I came to even as a protestant who studied the Bible, before becoming Catholic, was this. Salvation is rooted solely in faith in Jesus. But it's by this faith that we receive grace which makes us alive in Christ and able to bear fruit. If we don't bear fruit, we have defeated the purpose of grace. Christ warns that branches that don't bear fruit will be cut off and thrown into the fire. We are saved by remaining in Christ, because he is the only one with the power to overcome sin and do what pleases God; so it's Christ working in us that produces the works which please God. If we cooperate with his grace (which entails concrete acts of obedience) and allow it to bear fruit in our lives, then we will be saved. Being saved is being alive in Christ. Being alive, by definition, entails growth and producing fruit (good works animated by the love of God). If we turn back to sin, not allowing God's grace to change our thoughts and actions, then we can die and go to hell.
I've come to believe that Catholics and Protestants will never come to agree on these issues. As compelling as this this video is, there are many protestants who'll watch it and laugh it off. To them RC Sproul, Voddie Baucham, and John MacArthur, makes the most sense and everything against their clearly senseless theology is dead wrong. It's a pity!
It's because Protestants decide what they want to have be true at the outset and then interpret Scripture accordingly. Luther openly admitted this when he complained that his trouble with the Catholic faith stemmed from his doubts about whether he was truly saved. He decided at the outset that he must have this feeling or else what the Church taught was false. So he reinterpreted the Bible and cast out certain parts of it in order to try to convince himself that he was saved once and for all time. Such is the Protestant way.
Steve I tend to agree with you on this one, I think you are pretty spot on. Catholics watch that video and think “wow, how does anyone see it any other way it seems so clear. Though scripture is hard to understand, this makes the most sense and it’s what has been believed essentially for 2,000+ years. I can’t imagine thinking any other way, I feel bad for Protestants that can’t/wont/don’t want to see it. They hang onto their misconceptions or just don’t care to dig any deeper. They are comfortable where they are… 🤷🏻♂️”. This comment will probably piss off some, but oh well. I really do pray and hope they find their way to the fullness of faith in our Lords church and the Eucharist 🙏🏻
That's where you have to show where people like John MacArthur explicitly contradict themselves, which is something Joe shows in a video just recently on early Christian controversies. MacArthur explicit rejects a Catholic idea that St Augustine taught, but also claims that St Augustine was basically defending Calvinism against those trying to push Catholicism in his day. I think, if you show that their heroes fail, even on pretty important but obvious things, they start being more skeptical of what that person says and start considering other views.
Excellent! The more believers can agree the better! It doesn’t look good or convincing for nonbelievers when there is division and dissension among Christians. Jesus’ dying words: John 17: 17-23 17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. 20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me…”
"every branch IN ME that does NOT BEAR FRUIT, THEY SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY ", ( John 15:2) Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
This topic, it seems, to me, can not be addressed without discussing what it means to be justified. Therefore one should discuss being in a state of sanctifying grace. Only in that state can we perform good works. That state, apart from sacramental confession can only be attained by a perfect act of Contrition.
The forensic theory of justification is the "whited sepulcher" theory which Christ condemned. He told the Pharisees that they appeared beautiful on the OUTSIDE but INSIDE were full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. (Matt 23:27). He told them to first clean the INSIDE of the cup that the outside may be clean. (Matt 23:26). So, then it IS possible for the inside to be clean. God cannot lie. He cannot "declare" you to be righteous unless you are righteous. God declares nothing other than what it is. Oh, it is true that we cannot make ourselves righteous, only God can do that. But once God does it, He can then turn around and declare us to be really righteous.
Christ be with you The issue in terms starts with what is faith in Jesus Christ. Most protestants I have spoken to suggest this means believing the death burial and resurrection. (1 cor 15:1-4) They will say you need to declare with your mouth and believe with your heart. (rom 10:8-10) But this is a dead faith The second problem is that the term faith alone suggests that faith is alone. saying latter somewhere else that it is not devoid of Charity does not stop people being lead astray nor does it change that Charity or Love require works (John 14:20-24) God bless you
Darkness means blindness, not separation. It’s our eyes that need healing, not our ‘being’. Jesus gives us eyes to see. To see what? To see the Father. Divine immanence shows us Divine transcendence. The Son shows us the Father. The Son and the Father are One. Creation is already included in the Life of God. That is what we must see.
If we are saved by faith apart from works, then all that remains is faith; faith alone. “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8.
The difference I see is that Catholics believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that if you commit any "mortal sin," you are not in a "state of grace," meaning if you die before you can confess to a priest, you'll go to hell. And you have to do certain acts like penance to make up for it. Mortal sin being defined as grave matter, but even includes things like missing a Sunday Mass...So in that sense, I see it as works as opposed to faith alone.
The symptomatic view of good works was a question of mine on how best to understand the Catholic view and respond to Protestants. When they view it as the tree of faith automatically producing fruit, it seems to me that it’s not so automatic, trees actively work to produce fruit, in fact it’s probably the most energy intensive part of the plant’s life (you often prune flowers before they seed to encourage them to bloom again). This symptomatic view also seems to be the antithesis of the parable of the vine, if a branch is grafted onto the vine, it is connected, which should mean that it produces fruit, but as Jesus says if it doesn’t produce fruit it will be removed and burned. This means a branch can be on the vine but not produce fruit, which is damnable. Perhaps a less rigorous objection is observing the good works of those who we might not consider to have faith. Are these good works evidence of faith in this sense?
So in this view of justification when does a person get the verdict of no condemnation? Are there certain good works that need to be performed (baptism for example) before this verdict is declared?
Unfortunately I think many Protestants approach it from a false sense of piety. Don’t get me wrong, they’re trying to be pious by saying faith alone but that’s not what being pious means. CS Lewis has a great quote, “it is as if, on a far higher plane, we argued that because no man by merit has a right to the Grace of God, I, having no merit, am entitled to it”. That’s essentially the sense i get, especially from the one saved always saved crowd.
Faith and works are integral to each other: two sides of the same coin. Works are Faith in action in a life dedicated to loving God in the way He has asked us to. Faith isn't a one off action, as at a revival meeting, but a lifetime activity which involves an ongoing allegiance to God and our neighbour. It is 'loving the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and our neighbour as ourself'. This involves belief, will and charity.
If someone believes in faith alone, the purpose of discussing morality seems unclear. It's contradictory to believe salvation comes solely through faith, yet question the relevance of practices like the beatitudes and baptism. In my view, this mindset leads down a slippery slope. Teaching faith alone risks neglecting other essential teachings, reducing faith to a transaction. For instance, one might think, "I've sinned, but it's okay. I'll accept Christ, be saved, and then I'll be good." Sadly, this is increasingly common today. People live contrary to teachings, then undergo baptism, memorize bumper sticker quotes, and mistake it for faith. Considering the trajectory, what would this type of faith resemble in 100 years?
@@razoredge6130 going to mass doesn't forgive sin, confession does. In confession, any sin you hide from the priest is not forgiven and if the priest has reason to believe you have not repented of your sin he can choose to not give you absolution.
@@razoredge6130 Thank you for commenting. Praise God for people who seek his kingdom. God Bless you! Let's chat. I would start with my *personal* experience with people saying "I am born again" Where did you form this conclusion of Catholic doctrine? Have you studied the catechism? I am curious where this is written in the catechism or is it your personal experience, which can certainly be understandable. As a Catholic, I see that too in our tradition. I call it "Tradition alone" I can elaborate, but what are your thoughts?
@@SaintlySaavy The concept of indulgences seems to me that transactional approach to salvation. You doing something in turn you spend less time in purgatory. Also the idea of losing salvation is very worrisome to me because it undermines the message of peace in the Bible.
Joe or anyone also smart: Could we say as Catholics that we are saved by grace alone? In that even the works we carry out are kind of fueled by God's grace, and as you said nothing we attempt on our own and in our own strength justifies us?
Certainly. Council of Trent, the Joint Declaration on Justification and its clarifying Annex, the catechism, earlier councils on grace like Carthage, Orange, Valence, etc., church doctors like Augustine and Aquinas, all affirm grace alone. RCism is not Pelagian or semiPelagian.
If we understand "grace" as somewhat synonymous with "gift," then aren't our good works even given to us that we should walk in them? So yeah, I'd say it's grace in everything
The misunderstanding comes from not differentiating between being born again of the spirit to new life in Jesus Christ, which can only be by faith, and what happens as you mature your Christian walk and conversation. I agree that "Sola Fide" is misleading to untrained ears, and I do not use the phrase my self. I invented what I consider to be a much better formulation, "Prima Fide." "First, Faith." As it says, there are faith, hope, and charity, and the greatest of these is charity. Charity, being in my interpretation a "work" of sorts, it's a good thing James wrote his epistle to make sure we knew that faith without works is dead.
This sort of content is great, however, the first of all debates still must be "Sola Scriptura". Every protestant-bible-christian is going to argue that Catholic interpretation is wrong(regardless of any evidence you give them, even if you base your arguments on Scripture or/and Church history), and that protestant interpretation is the correct one. Therefore, if you are Catholic, you should study the Catholic arguments against Sola Scriptura more than anytihng else before engaging in debates with protestants.
It’s there , you can’t miss it, in the letter of Paul to the Romans, the whole argument of Paul, having being justified by faith we have peace with God.
What’s incredibly ironic, is scientifically speaking, both heat and light are caused by the same energy but at a different frequency. It’s all electromagnetic waves.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the Epistle of James, but his line concerning faith without works has made me think in very recent times that he was writing before the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49. There is evidence in Paul's letter to the Galatians that St. James may have originally sided with those Jewish Christians who wanted to keep the Mosaic Law. Is it possible that James is referring to the Mosaic Law in his epistle when he is talking about faith without works being dead?
No James did not teach you have to keep the law of Moses. He wrote about true morality/justification. Faith isn’t enough and works arent enough. You need both.
There are multiple misfires on the Protestant side of this. The word “works” has multiple meanings as do many words. Paul uses it as shorthand for Mosaic ceremonial laws like circumcision, Jewish feasts etcetera. James uses the same word as acts of obedience to God motivated by love. Here’s the another misfire. Catholics see salvation as a continuous process that begins with a specific moment in time but continues with growth in knowledge and grace and holiness. Protestants see initial justification as one event and sanctification as also an ongoing event yet separate from justification. Where we agree is this. Initial justification is God’s initiative reaching out to us. It is pure benevolence. Responding to Him in faith before any merit or virtue is faith. Now the soul is infused with God’s Life within us making us new creations. Protestants say that singular moment or event is the entire salvation issue whereas Catholics say it’s a Life transformation yes but it’s just a new birth but like all life it can be lost. Catholics don’t work FOR salvation they PARTICIPATE FROM His grace and Life within us. Those are the things I had to learn before I could become Catholic from being an Evangelical Baptist. What I saw was this. If Catholics were correct in their understanding there are zero contradictions between Paul and James. If the Protestants’ understanding is correct then there are MANY contradictions in Scripture but not only with James but Jesus Himself. There isn’t one way of salvation in the Old Covenant and another in the New Testament. The Old is the promise and the preparation. The New is the partial fulfillment of the promises with the total fulfillment at the end of the age.
Thank you for this interesting explanation! However, I have to admit that I’m still not convinced that the eyewitness weren’t hallucinating. Why exactly do you think that this could not actually be a plausible reason for their conviction of and their belief about the resurrection? I’m honestly sorry, but I still don’t quite understand why this point shouldn’t be a good argument for the idea that the term “resurrection” actually refers to someone sort of spiritual phenomenon. Could you possibly explain in more detail why this hypothesis cannot be taken seriously? Thank you.
If people see you eat meat, it doesn’t matter how much and how often you tell them you are a vegetarian, they will never believe you. Or like some people say. “ tell me you are a Christian without telling me you are a Christian”.
I would say I am a sinner. You should not look at my failures as a person and a Christian to see the truth of the claims of Christianity. If Jesus Christ is who he said he is then you should measure those truths. If the Biblical claims are true then that should be measured on its own claims not on my shortcomings as a person.
@@halleylujah247 I totally agree we shouldn’t judge a group because of one bad apple. We can all agree regardless of our view on faith alone. John 4: 7-12 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. John 13:35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. Definition of love : 1 Corinthians 13: 4-8 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.8 Love never fails This is truly a way, not the only way to show you are a Christian. I know it’s hard especially sometimes during rush hour traffic. Love you.
Joe apparently you have not been on UA-cam anytime soon Protestants do believe they can do whatever they want and still go to heaven as long as they believe and put their trust in Jesus
I seriously get excited for any new drop from this channel
me too
For real
Same!
Thursday is one of my favorite days!
We ARE saved by faity ALONE. However, Jesus tells us that He requires us to bare fruit (works) if we really have allied ourselves to Him.
What helped me get over the "hump" of faith and works was realizing that it really is Faith and obedience
Faith unto obedience
Romans starts and ends with the obedience of Faith....plus look up John Bergsma's video on the Dead Sea Scrolls and what Paul really meant by "works of the Law". basically dietary-kosher restrictions
@katiestover8954 Faith unto obedience doesn't make much sense, though. Granted, faith can help you become disciplined into obeying, but you can perfectly still have one without the other, for they're totally separate things, distinguishable from one another.
In other words, one is not "the result" [so to speak] of the other. Hence Faith *and* obedience is the proper understanding.
@@GranMaese paul speaks of the "obedience of Faith" (beginning and end of Romans). you can't separate what Paul and SS joined. This is Isogesis
@@GranMaese Man will fail in obedience if not for the grace of God. That is the overarching story of scripture, especially the Old Testament. It's Catholic doctrine that we need grace to have faith and we need grace to remain obedient.
I grew up with “if you just believe in Jesus you’re fine” Protestantism. Thats why we never went to church, it was entirely optional.
The Eucharist is essential for salvation Jn 6/18-19
I've met some ex-protestant friends that have told me they had the same problems as you before converting to Catholicism. And they would be the very first ones to agree that protestantism is a huge mess. [With all due respect to my beloved protestant brothers in Christ.]. The ones that still have some kind of order within are the ones that took it after Catholicism, go figure. :D
This is what Paul says:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast. “
Ephesians 2:8-9
@@blazel462 Love that verse, but we have to add verse 10 as well: "10 For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them."
Salvation leads us to a life of good works, but good works are not what saves.
Perhaps the best single video explanation of the Protestant vs Catholic views on this topic, finding common ground and promoting unity without avoiding the real differences, with special focus on harmonizing James vs Paul in a very systematic way. Very well done as usual!
@@po18guy Looks like Augustine saw a need:
" I have written a book on this subject, entitled Of Faith and Works, in which, to the best of my ability, God assisting me, I have shown from Scripture, that the faith which saves us is that which the Apostle Paul clearly enough describes when he says: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love." But if it worketh evil, and not good, then without doubt, as the Apostle James says, "it is dead, being alone." The same apostle says again, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" And further, if a wicked man shall be saved by fire on account of his faith alone, and if this is what the blessed Apostle Paul means when he says, without works can save a man, and what his fellow-apostle James says must be false. And that must be false which Paul himself says in another place: "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." For if those who persevere in these wicked courses shall nevertheless be saved on account of their faith in Christ, how can it be true that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God"
-Enchiridion ch 67 [354-430 AD]
Perhaps if the successors of the Protestants leaders had thrown out James, the movement would not have grown or survived.
I recently listened to a 30 min video by the late RC Sproul on reconciling Paul and James and, again, after 30 minutes of explanation, Sproul was able to work it out from his view of justification, but he unknowingly decimated the idea of perspicuity… because no normal, barely literate human (I.e. 99 percent of people who ever lived) would get it without someone holding a PhD explaining it to them. So Sproul ended up making an excellent case for an authoritative teaching magisterium.
Sproul convinced me the Catholic Church was consistent in doctrine and the Protestants inconsistent in his book Are we Together. In Behold your Mother Tim Staples masterfully uses RC Sproul’s commentary on Uzzah to show the that Mary had to be without original sin, quite masterfully. Sproul also said Protestants shouldn’t have been so quick to ditch the confessional. It’s a shame he wouldn’t set aside his pride and become Catholic.
@@Wildwest89 I remember his comments on confession.
ouch
Sproul's commentaries remind me of shallow thinking or lack of understandings that we may have had as children. Once we would voice some of these dumb ideas, a nun would correct us and we would be nose back into the catechism. Thanks to those nuns and priests for teaching me the truth.
@@Wildwest89Well, he is calked RC Sproul after all.
Have to stop this before my job interview. Pray for me everyone. Joe thank you so much for your help. You've taught me so much about the faith! I hope I can support in a few weeks
Did it go well?
Typical Catholic, trying to work his way into Heaven! 🤭🤭🤭
Just kidding, I'm a dirty Papist myself, lol
Typical Catholic, trying to work his way into Heaven! 🤭🤭🤭
Just kidding, I'm a dirty Papist myself.
Wonderful quote from C S Lewis about which blade of a scissores is the most important.
I was halfway through listening to Joe's interview on the Cordial Catholic about Calvinism and this popped up. I highly recommend that show on Cordial Catholic too. 😊 This is very thorough.God Bless!
I'll have to watch that. Been reading Against Herieses by St Irenaeus and he shows we're saved by faith and obedience to Christ and we have free will to except and reject God's grace. I highly recommend reading the book. It's incredible
I enjoy the Cordial Catholic also!
He has some great interviews. 😊
If you liked that interview, I think you'll like next week's episode on the same topic...!
I JUST finished listening to the CC episode! It looks like, with the last two SP episodes, that @shamelesspopery MAY be touching on the Reformation’s 5 (five!) Solas … please say yes! I’m coming in this Easter vigil for a reformed non-denom tradition. These episodes are so helpful to me.
Anyone who prays “Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us” literally asks God NOT to save them by faith alone.
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I mean, if you're praying for anything (not just forgiveness), does that mean you're performing a work for God? I'm not following the logic.
The Baptists have such a view of "faith" but that is not the brand of faith we find in the bible. Baptists pretty much teach that if you BREATHE in the name of Jesus, you're working. That's not taught in the bible.
Is that the brand of "faith" you're referring to?
Not only that, but the same Protestants say you have to ACCEPT Jesus. DECIDE... BELIEVE.
All are acts of the will. If faith alone was real, you'd just have to be born. Silliness.
@@Michael-pw2td - Granted. I don't think that even Baptists teach that you must become a rock in order to be saved but it's pretty darn close.
Faith righteousness is indeed taught in the New Testament. And, as it turns out, it is also taught in the Old Testament - as the Apostle Paul points out so eloquently in his epistles.
But it's certainly not, "Thou must become a rock". Action is indeed required but the bible NEVER calls such action a "work". We eed to define our terms by "Thus saith the Lord" or we wind up with complete confusion (i.e. the denominational world).
@@GizmoFromPizmo
Well, here's the thing. According to the Lord's Prayer, which IS in the Scripures, the standard by which God forgives our sin is dependent upon us forgiving our neighbor who may sin against us.
That standard does kind of fly in the face of Faith Alone.
I don’t find this to be a good argument. You’re going to have to elaborate on that.
As a Catholic, I really appreciate your approach to this topic and focusing on how much we have in common with our Protestant brothers. This challenges me to think about how to interact charitably on these topics.
Excellent episode today! As a former Baptist, I would also like to add a common misconception about Catholics… And it’s actually a twist on the Catholic misconception regarding protestants.
Many Protestants believe that Catholics can willfully sin as much as they desire so long as they get to confession. Sort of a “mafia Catholicism“
The comedian, Jim Gaffigan, has a bit where he says “can we get this confession wrapped up? I’ve got some sinning to do!“
This is very similar to the Catholic misconception, that protestants can sin as much as they want in light of their “once saved, always saved” mentality.
For Protestants reading this and not understanding how this twist doesn't work:
Confession doesn't work if you don't want it.
Put another way, the Sacrament of Reconciliation doesn't work if you don't want to reconcile.
You did it, but you regret it and you don't want to do it again. If you stole a bike, you return it. If you hit someone, you apologize. If you slandered someone let the world know you did wrong and if you did any crime let the repercussions fall upon you because you deserve it.
Does this make sense?
If you're using Confession as a tool to do evil and get away with it, well you should know better than to assume God is a fool, because God knows your heart and knows you never meant it. None of your visits amounted to anything.
In fact, Baptist and Calvinist have gone so far as to draw a separate path for salvation and relationship with God. Path #1 is Salvation - once saved always saved and path #2 is your relationship with God - a completely separate path that has no effect on salvation. The theology is contrary to the bible, removing Hope and Love from the salvation equation. In their view, sin is only some rough indication of if one is saved or not, i.e. had faith or not. The need for obedience that Paul preaches is certainly ignored and refuted as being a "work" . The Catholic doctrines of the sacrament of reconciliation, and purgatory are theologically sound and certainly not sin as much as you want. Faith "alone" was in fact Martin Luther's solution to his own obsessive compulsive behavior.
Another bad representation of Protestants. I'm not sure who the many are, because Paul said where grace abounds, sin abounds much more. Shall we continue to sin because grace abounds certainly not. I do not agree with confession though because biblically we are told to confess our sins to God and He is faithful to forgive our sins! At the same time I think it is good to confess sins to other believers....We are told biblically we can't forgive sins but we can ensure others they are forgiven! Much love!
@@billpletikapich5640 Excellent point/summary!
The Bible doesn’t say we can ensure others they are forgiven. Jesus gave the apostles authority to forgive sins.
I converted from protestantism this summer and this was a big hurdle for me. I didn't realize I believed differently/wrongly until I spoke with the priest at our local parish about what confession and the Eucharist is for. You are spot on with your analysis of the spiritual abuse that can happen due to this false teaching.
Perfect timing for my drive to work! I always appreciate the depth of research you put into every one of these episodes, thank you!
Great analysis, Joe. To our Protestant brethren, also check out former Protestant and truly genius historian Dr. David Anders. He also does a terrific job explaining the disconnect between the Bible and Protestantism. As a former Protestant, Dr. Anders explains how the starting point makes all the difference. Dr Anders used to START with a Calvinist or Lutheran perspective and then read the Bible through that lens. Everyone should be doing the opposite: START with the teachings of Jesus and how they were understood by the Apostles and those whom they taught, then assess Calvin/Luther through that lens. Otherwise, you are really putting humans (Calvin/Luther) ahead of the word of God.
Starting from diifferent points explains why Protestants and Catholics often talk past each other.
Thanks Joe for this, the more videos that also argue against Lutheranism (rather than just Calvinism) is always appreciated!
I’m starting to absolutely love thursdays!
Definitely a highlight of my week!
Loving these videos on the protestant Solas. Thanks Joe!!
This was so helpful Joe. You have a genuine gift of communicating complex concepts in a straightforward and yet highly engaging way.
As a recent convert from Protestantism, I just wanted to say that your work was a big part of the journey for me. Thank you.
Christus vincit!
You do outstanding work, Joe. Two thumbs up to your podcast!
Thank you so much for this. I really think this will help me bring my Protestant friends to the Catholic Church. God bless you! Please pray for them and me.
Outstanding! As a priest, my experience is that after I bring them this far, the non-Catholic then says, "Faith but not Baptism." I then point out how the Ethiopian Eunich comes to faith and us Baptized, Paul comes to faith and is Baptized, the household of Cornelius, etc. Can you make a video on this? I'm sure as a full time apologist you have more insight into overcoming this obstacle than I seem to have. (Sigh)
Yes sir except saying baptism has anything to do with justification does not agree with the bible's teaching as a whole! But we are commanded to be baptized, although and do not believe we must be for salvation! I also do not believe an infant is justified by baptism...We must be baptized with the Holy Spirit! God bless!
"Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on His name!" ~ Ananias to Paul, Acts 22. This is after Paul had been praying and fasting for three days.
"Those of you who have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." ~ Galatians 3:27
@@MrCB555 yes baptized in Christ! Context is everything..... We are saved by grace through faith! Honestly how can water baptism have anything to do with salvation??? It doesn't! It is only by God's grace and the blood of Jesus! On the cross He said IT IS FINISHED
@@Hokum48 Don't ask how something can be, ask what God has spoken. It's dangerous to reject God's Word based on our own flawed ideas of how He could really mean this or that. If it's what He means, it's true, even if it doesn't seem logical to us. Don't put your own ideas of what baptism should or shouldn't be above God's Word.
Can you find that "baptism now saves you" in the bible? (Yes, you can.) Keep also in mind that in the Book of Acts it's written that entire households were baptized. Strong indication that included children. Where in the bible do you find that you need to be an adult or that you need to understand what it means for God to save you through baptism (that He commanded)? Can only people who understand baptism be saved, excluding children and severely mentally disabled people?
Don't add restrictions on God's Word that come from men. Nowhere in scripture does it say that children aren't to be baptized or that there's a minimum age for baptism or that there's a minimum understanding for baptism to be proper. Jewish boys (including Jesus, Joseph, Paul, Peter, etc.) were circumsized 8 days after they were born, as God commanded. Don't be the kind of person who claims to know better than God. "But surely we can't circumsize babies! They don't understand what's going on!" The Lord, your God, commanded it. Do it.
"We can't baptize small children, they don't understand it!" The Lord, your God, commanded you to baptize everyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Do it.
@@Hokum48Also, please don't bring up the thief on the cross.
1) We don't know if he was or wasn't baptized. The bible doesn't say either way.
2) The way he was saved wasn't the norm. Hadn't he been crucified, he'd have gotten baptized. God commanding us to get baptized doesn't mean _He_ can't save us without baptism, it means that if _we_ decide not to get baptised although we have the opportunity (that the thief didn't have as he died) and know what the Lord commanded us to do, we're rejecting His saving baptism.
I don't mean to be harsh. It's just that people commonly bring up the thief on the cross as to argue why baptism is unnecessary, and that's not right. God showing mercy on a sinner who repented in his last moments without access to baptism (assuming he indeed wasn't baptized before) is a testament to God's mercy, it doesn't mean we can just ignore what He explicitly told us to do.
Excellent show! I don't know anyone in real life who is a Faith Aloner but I've come across plenty in youtube comment sections. I've tried to understand where they're coming from because the concept seems so counterintuitive. This was very helpful.
Having faith in Christ is trusting in him and doing what he asks of us. Baptism, confirmation, communion and all the sacraments are part of our faith in Christ.
Having once been Episcopalian, I can assure you the Episcopal Church approves of sin, and even promotes and celebrates certain sin like homosexuality, adultery via divorce and remarriage, and murder by supporting a 'woman's right to choose'.
Masterfully done, Joe. God bless you for all you do.
Your 4 simple questions are so profound! They put a whole new focus on justification and salvation.
This is such an excellent video. Thanks be to God for your work Joe!
Another great video that clarifies where the disagreement lies while also trying to keep it simply for us laymen. I think this may be the video I share to people who express the usual misunderstandings of the disagreement.
Thought we wouldn’t notice the “Who’s that Pokémon” background in the thumbnail, but we did! 😂 Love the subtle reference!
I appreciate this video for a few reasons.
1. It admits that this issue is complicated. Both sides have issues admitting this.
2. Joe was fair to the Protestant side, often times “faith alone” is mischaracterized as this kind of easy believe-ism whereby works don’t matter.
3. It admits the need for harmonization. We are both working with theological structures and the real debate is “which theological structure makes the best sense of the biblical data.”
I have not been convinced to accept the Catholic views of justification but I do think we are closer than I originally thought. If I may frame why protestants have a problem with the idea of works being involved in justification…
Catholic and Protestant apologists have both spent many years thinking through these nuances and how exactly to explain it with the right words. That’s good. But the lay person has not done such exhaustive thinking and learning. And the truth of the matter is that there are going to be pendulum swings on both sides. The Protestant side is gonna pendulum swing to this easy believe-ism, live however you want, God accepts you no matter what “Hyper-grace” movement. That’s wrong. Very unbiblical and I fear for those people who are deceived that they may hear “depart from me for I never knew you.”
But, let’s acknowledge the pendulum swing for Catholics. This legalistic way of viewing salvation and our relationship with God. This is not a shot, just telling you my experience. It’s this idea of “well I was baptized as a baby so I’m good,” or “let me go to confession and do the penance once a year and I’ll be fine” it’s this cold-hearted , box-checking “just get it done” attitude. Please hear me, that’s not all catholics and that’s not what the official Catholic Church would teach. I fear for the people who are relying on their outward obedience to a religious system with no actual faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ that they too will one day hear “depart from me for I never knew you.”
As a Protestant, it’s so important to us that we don’t make that error of “rules over relationship.” We ought not pendulum swing that doctrine to “relationship with no rules” though.
Listening to this channel and other Catholic apologists has opened my eyes to a sincerity in the Catholic faith that I have not seen personally. I’m glad. I enjoy these debates and I’m holding back on a few things topics I’d provide friendly pushback too because I just don’t have the time. Can’t wait till we get to heaven one day and Jesus can straighten all this out for us.
Yes, you are right on the dangers, but that is a danger of people who haven't been taught correctly. A doctrine/teaching must be judged on its own merit if it is the truth or if it is false. Unfortunately, the biblical/historical evidence leans in favour of the Apostolic churches, the Catholic and Orthodox churches, not the Protestant teaching.
Just remember Jesus says, “This is my blood and my flesh”! He doesn’t say, “This is a representation of my blood and my flesh”! 😉🙏🏾
Protestantism's version of Christianity was not handed over by the apostles. Thats the problem for me. Want to see sincerity, just see the lives of the saints.
@@SF-my2ym Jesus also said "I am the door" not "I am like a door." He also said "I am the True Vine" not "The True vine is a representation of me." If you want to interpret "This is my blood and flesh" literally you will have to establish a case for taking Jesus literally in that case, not just claim it. Nevertheless, that's not the point of this video nor was it the point of my comment.
@@JamesClark-le7huYeah but Jesus didn’t say be a door in remembrance of me. See that’s a command. God Bless!
Blowing my mind with the parable of the talents tie in
Thank you so much Joe.
God bless you.
AGAIN, Praise God, brother Joe! My favorite channel! Your logical explanations of the teachings of the faith of Jesus Christ and His church is Holy Spirit inspired. Love ya brother!
Joe, another informative and clarifying conversation about things that matter! Thanks!
I think this is the best video on justification I’ve bet seen, thanks for making this
Joe was on a round table with Dr Thomas before on reason and theology! I really like the way Dr Thomas charitably approaches Protestant denominations and their beliefs.
Can you link the episode?
I cracked up when I read this, bc I only now realize that I've quite obviously met him (and spoken with him) before, and that it's all on video. Mea culpa!
@@ACReji ua-cam.com/users/liveVv6_g6qBVlI?si=dikmK_Yvmoo-zwCw
I'm sorry for talking so much; it's just that your topics are so... moving.?
Thank you so much for your clarity in explaining the Catholic Church's Christian faith and Her Biblical text, so that even a simple mind like mine can grasp the meaning.
🙏🕊❤✝️👑⛪❤👏👏👏👏👍
This is great insight. Excellent job Joe!!
Ask a Protestant if they believe in justification by faith and works, and they will emphatically deny it. But ask them if they believe that anyone is justified apart from the cooperation of their will, and they will almost always deny that too. Yet, they essentially mean the same thing.
Ask them to interpret John 3:36: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him," and watch the gymnastics.
Well Lutherans and the Reformed will argue with you. For them any human action is not allowed, which is why they have to destroy your humanity and literally turn you into a zombie to get monergism, thus God rides your like puppet.
The Missing Evidence Against "Faith Alone"
How about this?
1. On his own authority in his 1522 German translation of the New Testament, Martin Luther added the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28 to read, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE (Allein)" to justify his doctrine of Sola Fide, i.e., Justification by Faith Alone. [Michael Davies, Cranmer's Godly Order (Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1995), p.25.]
2. He wrote the following regarding his addition of the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28: "If your papist worries you about the word 'alone', just tell him plainly that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says: 'Papist and donkey are one and the same thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas.' ["I wish it, I command it. Let my will take the place of a reason." (Luther quoting the Latin from 1st-2nd AD author Juvenal's satirical poems Satyrai)] For we must not be the pupils or disciples of the papists, but on the contrary their masters and judges. We ought to swagger and hammer on their donkey-heads, and, as Paul challenged the sanctimonious fools of his day, so I will also challenge these donkeys of mine." [G.W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian (London, 1956), p.36.]
3. In addition to the above concerning Romans 3:28, Luther also wrote: "I am sorry now that I did not add the word 'all' so that it would read 'without all works of all laws', and thus ring out loudly and completely. However, it shall stand as it is in my New Testament, and though all the Papist-donkeys go mad about it, they shall not move me from this." [A. Hilliard Atteridge, Martin Luther (London, 1940), pp.19-20.]
4. Although subsequent translations removed the word ALONE (Allein) from Romans 3:28 to accurately transmit in German what St. Paul originally wrote in Greek, Luther steadfastly held on to the doctrine of Sola Fide derived from his additional word. Luther's doctrine subsequently was adopted by the major 16th century Protestant Reformers who initiated movements that continue on to the present day and which include: (A) John Calvin (Reformed) in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, (B) Thomas Cranmer (Church of England/Anglicanism) in No. 9 of 39 Articles of Religion in his Book of Common Prayer, and (C) Calvin's student John Knox (Presbyterianism) in his book On Justification By Faith Alone.
5. John Calvin even admitted in his Institutes that the word 'alone' never follows the word 'faith' in the Bible but still went and followed Luther in the new Protestant doctrine:
"The reader now perceives with what fairness the Sophists of the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is justified by faith alone (Rom. 4:2). They dare not deny that he is justified by faith, seeing Scripture so often declares it; but as the word alone is nowhere expressly used they will not tolerate its being added."
[John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 11, No. 19; Beveridge translation, p. 459; nts library website, Institutes pdf 467 of 944]
"Faith alone" does appear once in the Bible - in James, where it is denied.
Awesome video… My favorite one yet! Such a relevant topic and I have experienced this within my own family who have left the Catholic faith.. They use arguments that aren’t true OR they don’t fully understand the terms that are used. Thank you!
Great timing for this topic! I needed that just in time for a dialogue I'm soon to have.
Really love this channel.
Extremely helpful
I wish Jimmy Akin would be more clear publicly about what role works actually do play in salvation. He really emphasizes the common ground, which may be prudent at times but still a little confusing. Only on 2 or 3 occasions have I ever heard him mention the role of works in keeping or maintaining the salvation one already has. Eventually I'll have to get his book on the topic to see what he says there.
Jesus said it in John 15:10. Good works are required to REMAIN in him.
@tonyl3762
Tony,
▪︎1 Peter 3:21 says, “Baptism now saves you.”
▪︎James 2:24 says, “A man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
No one reads such texts and tries to set up a doctrine of justification by baptism alone, or by works alone. Likewise, it is also false to read Ephesians 2 as though it were teaching faith alone. If you proof text in this way, if you read passages in isolation from the entire
witness of Scripture, not to mention in isolation from their own context, you will go wrong quickly.
Faith is not ethereal IT'S concrete because you must put it into action by DOING the will of God.
▪︎MATTHEW 7:21
21. 'It is not anyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person WHO DOES the will of my Father in heaven.
▪︎JAMES 2:14-17
14. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
15. If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16. and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
17. Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
We Catholics believe it is only “by divine grace through Jesus Christ” that we are enabled to do good works at all. And the Council of Trent also says that justification begins only from “the predisposing grace of God,” who calls us “without any merits” of our own (Chap. 5). Thus when St. Paul writes to the Ephesians that “by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God,” that is entirely
consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church at Trent.
God bless.
Maybe he emphasizes the common ground because there really aren’t much differences.
@@follower8815There are differences; he just apparently doesn't want to talk about them.
@@tonyl3762 can you explain the differences to me? It genuinely feels like there are little to no differences
Excellent video! Iron clad logic, I think that’s why you don’t see anyone in the comments attempting to refute it. Another angle I like to use is Matthew 25, (I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was in prison and you did not visit me.) The one being condemned here knows who they’re supposed to go to for salvation. Their knowledge of him wasn’t enough to save them, they lacked the good works they were commanded to do. I don’t know how Protestants miss this in scripture over and over again.
I bring up the section in Romans 2 about good works. Either they ignore Paul entirely or think he’s talking about unbelievers. Somehow Gentiles becomes (non believers). I’m like “so christians can get into heaven by faith alone but non believers have to do good works to get into heaven?” He said it was only hypothetical, unbelievers can’t get in no matter what.”
My response was “then why does Paul start by saying whoever you are? He finishes by saying to the Jew first and then the gentile. It doesn’t sound like he’s saying this only affects unbelievers, Jews, or gentiles. It’s everybody!”
He hasn’t responded since. Pray for him, I hope something I said struck him. He seemed like he was brimming with confidence about sola fide but you could tell he had never really thought about Romans 2.
As a fierce critic, i congratulate you on your work in this video. What you seem to be doing is giving catholics and protestants something solid to work with.
What happened after this? the tone of later videos becomes more adversarial. Not completely but more 'protestants are like mormons'.
Though catholicism emphasizes faith and works, a lot of protestants would not disagree with what you say about working out your salvation/sanctification.I would say that such love as we have, the love that we need to have, comes from God. The Holy Spirit teaches me to love from His word, i believe it, it becomes mine and because of that, i can love.
Best wishes
I think that what is mission from the conversation is the topic of “sanctification.”. That’s what Protestants feel like is happening when you engage in the good works you perform. I would really be interested to hear a Catholic apologist address it. I might reach out to Catholic Answers… that said I should’ve started this comment by saying THANK YOU for this video!!! I feel like it’s the calmest most logical and most thought provoking commentary on this topic I have found. The gentleman speaking is sensitive and caring in his approach to the topic. I have been struggling with depression too so I feel really thankful for his gentle spirit and approach. I’m seriously considering becoming Catholic so again THANk YOU
*missing
This is amazing. Love never fails.
Those are GOOD questions
Please do all five Solas!
Thanks for this very good and useful video! Protestants often pretends that scriptures speaking of obedience and perseverance concerns only future rewards but not salvation. Could you make a response to this?
Great video 🙏
Another amazing video Joe. You’re on your way to sainthood
Good to learn more about these things that have dogged our steps along the path of the past 500 years, competition, wars, sectarianism when the very opposite should apply - Good News, Good Will! It would have been so convenient to walk to the nearest church but it's Protestant!
Hey Joe, it would be really cool if you did an episode explaining "Grace Alone" I feel like this theory is often intertwined with "Faith Alone" and can be kind of confusing.
"If you wish to enter into life, then keep the commandments ", ( Matthew 19:17), for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS. ( Corinthians 13:2). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Does one have to keep the commandments perfectly for eternal life?
@@Wgaither1
My little children, these things write I unto you, *that ye sin not* And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, *Jesus Christ* the righteous: (not a man who wants people to call him father).
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, *in this present world*
Have you remembered to keep holy the seventh day sabbath?
The commandments, which is part of the Law, refers to actions or works. It is not about faith. Jesus said that he had come to complete it. So the Law is as importat as the faith in Jesus. But the Protestants reject works as essential for salvation. That is tantamount to rejecting the Law. If so why they insisit the Catholics to observe it ( with particular reference to the second commandment), when they themselves reject the essentiality of works? By asking us, are they not rejecting their own 'faith only'.?
@@larrybedouin29212:28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. * 2:16 So let no one make rules about what you eat or drink or about holy days or the New Moon Festival or the SABBATH. 17 ALL SUCH THINGS ARE ONLY A SHADOW OF THINGS IN THE FUTURE, THE REALITY IS CHRIST
@@tasiaflynn3549
Now of the things which we have spoken this is *the sum* We have such an high priest, (of the order of Melchizedek; chapter 7) who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty *in the heavens*
A minister of *the sanctuary* and of the true tabernacle, *which the Lord pitched and not man*
For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
(His life; "no greater love"...)
For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests [Levitical] that offer gifts according to the law:
Who serve unto the example and *shadow* of *heavenly things* as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make *the tabernacle* for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to *the pattern* shewed to thee in the mount.
*But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry* by how much also *he* is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
*For if that first covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second*
For *finding fault with them* he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make *a new covenant* with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; *I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts* and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
{Hebrews 8:1-10} (Jer 31:31-33)
☝️
No new law
I can’t help but remember our Lord’s words concerning being as a child to enter Heaven.
These arguments can get so convoluted that I wonder if we are being childlike in our approach to living the life that God gave us.
The lack of the word alone except in James 2.24 would seem to be a problem. Especially since the word faith is used about 300 times in the new testament and protestants think they have to correct the scriptures when James says we are NOT justified by "faith alone"
.
Thanks 👍.... good topic!
God Bless
If Christ doesn't actually transform us and He only covers up our sin, would that imply that heaven is full of sin? At what point would anyone become righteous before entering heaven?
The response that I've run into is that, the moment after death, we are made perfect. An arbitrary way to separate sanctification out and preserve forensic justification, but that's a common response that I've heard.
It's misleading to say SFers dont believe in transformation, traditionally they hold sanctification is necessary to salvation. They merely hold that the believers internal righteousness is imperfect and tainted with damnable sin and so can never withstand judgment, thus the need for imputed alien righteousnes as the grounds for justification.
However, to your point, I've never gotten a good answer from them why God could not just continue looking at them through imputed righteousness in heaven. Given their theology, there's no logical reason. Why must the non-SF view of transformation only instantly occur after death and could not begin in earthly life as in the RC/EO view (and even be condemned as a false gospel by anti-catholics no less)?
Imputed righteousness is just a fancy way of saying either that God lies on our behalf or that God is able to fool himself somehow.
I think you have omitted a couple important issues key to the argument. 1) Protestants typically believe God's standard of judgement is perfect and sinless obedience. This frames their entire understanding. 2) Whether or not given this a persons Grace-Spirit inspired works can be said to be part of the basis or ground of God's judgement.
Can you do a video on 'dispensationalism?'
The formulation I came to even as a protestant who studied the Bible, before becoming Catholic, was this.
Salvation is rooted solely in faith in Jesus. But it's by this faith that we receive grace which makes us alive in Christ and able to bear fruit. If we don't bear fruit, we have defeated the purpose of grace. Christ warns that branches that don't bear fruit will be cut off and thrown into the fire. We are saved by remaining in Christ, because he is the only one with the power to overcome sin and do what pleases God; so it's Christ working in us that produces the works which please God. If we cooperate with his grace (which entails concrete acts of obedience) and allow it to bear fruit in our lives, then we will be saved.
Being saved is being alive in Christ. Being alive, by definition, entails growth and producing fruit (good works animated by the love of God). If we turn back to sin, not allowing God's grace to change our thoughts and actions, then we can die and go to hell.
I've come to believe that Catholics and Protestants will never come to agree on these issues. As compelling as this this video is, there are many protestants who'll watch it and laugh it off. To them RC Sproul, Voddie Baucham, and John MacArthur, makes the most sense and everything against their clearly senseless theology is dead wrong. It's a pity!
It's because Protestants decide what they want to have be true at the outset and then interpret Scripture accordingly. Luther openly admitted this when he complained that his trouble with the Catholic faith stemmed from his doubts about whether he was truly saved. He decided at the outset that he must have this feeling or else what the Church taught was false. So he reinterpreted the Bible and cast out certain parts of it in order to try to convince himself that he was saved once and for all time. Such is the Protestant way.
Steve I tend to agree with you on this one, I think you are pretty spot on. Catholics watch that video and think “wow, how does anyone see it any other way it seems so clear. Though scripture is hard to understand, this makes the most sense and it’s what has been believed essentially for 2,000+ years. I can’t imagine thinking any other way, I feel bad for Protestants that can’t/wont/don’t want to see it. They hang onto their misconceptions or just don’t care to dig any deeper. They are comfortable where they are… 🤷🏻♂️”. This comment will probably piss off some, but oh well. I really do pray and hope they find their way to the fullness of faith in our Lords church and the Eucharist 🙏🏻
That's where you have to show where people like John MacArthur explicitly contradict themselves, which is something Joe shows in a video just recently on early Christian controversies. MacArthur explicit rejects a Catholic idea that St Augustine taught, but also claims that St Augustine was basically defending Calvinism against those trying to push Catholicism in his day. I think, if you show that their heroes fail, even on pretty important but obvious things, they start being more skeptical of what that person says and start considering other views.
Excellent! The more believers can agree the better! It doesn’t look good or convincing for nonbelievers when there is division and dissension among Christians.
Jesus’ dying words:
John 17: 17-23
17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me…”
Something about the Protestant view of being "declared righteous" reminds me of Michael Scott saying "I... declare... bankruptcy"
"every branch IN ME that does NOT BEAR FRUIT, THEY SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY ", ( John 15:2) Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Don’t worry Protestant Christians do bear fruit
This topic, it seems, to me, can not be addressed without discussing what it means to be justified. Therefore one should discuss being in a state of sanctifying grace. Only in that state can we perform good works. That state, apart from sacramental confession can only be attained by a perfect act of Contrition.
The forensic theory of justification is the "whited sepulcher" theory which Christ condemned. He told the Pharisees that they appeared beautiful on the OUTSIDE but INSIDE were full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. (Matt 23:27). He told them to first clean the INSIDE of the cup that the outside may be clean. (Matt 23:26). So, then it IS possible for the inside to be clean. God cannot lie. He cannot "declare" you to be righteous unless you are righteous. God declares nothing other than what it is. Oh, it is true that we cannot make ourselves righteous, only God can do that. But once God does it, He can then turn around and declare us to be really righteous.
helpful video, thanks
There is no "missing evidence" against faith alone. James 2:26 openly says: “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead.”
I think it may be helpful to explain why Paul seems to refer to these things in the past tense.
Christ be with you
The issue in terms starts with what is faith in Jesus Christ.
Most protestants I have spoken to suggest this means believing the death burial and resurrection. (1 cor 15:1-4)
They will say you need to declare with your mouth and believe with your heart. (rom 10:8-10)
But this is a dead faith
The second problem is that the term faith alone suggests that faith is alone.
saying latter somewhere else that it is not devoid of Charity does not stop people being lead astray
nor does it change that Charity or Love require works (John 14:20-24)
God bless you
@@po18guy
Christ be with you
faith alone won't work out for any one
God bless you
Took me all day to realize the thumbnail is WHO'S THAT POKEMON? 😂😂😂 Clearly Joe is a man of refined taste.
“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it”. Darkness does not mean absence of light.
Darkness means blindness, not separation. It’s our eyes that need healing, not our ‘being’. Jesus gives us eyes to see. To see what? To see the Father. Divine immanence shows us Divine transcendence. The Son shows us the Father. The Son and the Father are One. Creation is already included in the Life of God. That is what we must see.
A person who believes faith without repentance, is lost
If we are saved by faith apart from works, then all that remains is faith; faith alone. “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8.
The difference I see is that Catholics believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that if you commit any "mortal sin," you are not in a "state of grace," meaning if you die before you can confess to a priest, you'll go to hell. And you have to do certain acts like penance to make up for it. Mortal sin being defined as grave matter, but even includes things like missing a Sunday Mass...So in that sense, I see it as works as opposed to faith alone.
The symptomatic view of good works was a question of mine on how best to understand the Catholic view and respond to Protestants. When they view it as the tree of faith automatically producing fruit, it seems to me that it’s not so automatic, trees actively work to produce fruit, in fact it’s probably the most energy intensive part of the plant’s life (you often prune flowers before they seed to encourage them to bloom again). This symptomatic view also seems to be the antithesis of the parable of the vine, if a branch is grafted onto the vine, it is connected, which should mean that it produces fruit, but as Jesus says if it doesn’t produce fruit it will be removed and burned. This means a branch can be on the vine but not produce fruit, which is damnable.
Perhaps a less rigorous objection is observing the good works of those who we might not consider to have faith. Are these good works evidence of faith in this sense?
So in this view of justification when does a person get the verdict of no condemnation? Are there certain good works that need to be performed (baptism for example) before this verdict is declared?
Unfortunately I think many Protestants approach it from a false sense of piety. Don’t get me wrong, they’re trying to be pious by saying faith alone but that’s not what being pious means.
CS Lewis has a great quote, “it is as if, on a far higher plane, we argued that because no man by merit has a right to the Grace of God, I, having no merit, am entitled to it”.
That’s essentially the sense i get, especially from the one saved always saved crowd.
Faith and works are integral to each other: two sides of the same coin. Works are Faith in action in a life dedicated to loving God in the way He has asked us to. Faith isn't a one off action, as at a revival meeting, but a lifetime activity which involves an ongoing allegiance to God and our neighbour. It is 'loving the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and our neighbour as ourself'. This involves belief, will and charity.
If someone believes in faith alone, the purpose of discussing morality seems unclear. It's contradictory to believe salvation comes solely through faith, yet question the relevance of practices like the beatitudes and baptism.
In my view, this mindset leads down a slippery slope. Teaching faith alone risks neglecting other essential teachings, reducing faith to a transaction. For instance, one might think, "I've sinned, but it's okay. I'll accept Christ, be saved, and then I'll be good." Sadly, this is increasingly common today. People live contrary to teachings, then undergo baptism, memorize bumper sticker quotes, and mistake it for faith.
Considering the trajectory, what would this type of faith resemble in 100 years?
Nah. I never did that.
This applies to Catholic doctrine to.
"I sinned but I'll go to mass to make up for it."
That's transactional.
@@razoredge6130 going to mass doesn't forgive sin, confession does. In confession, any sin you hide from the priest is not forgiven and if the priest has reason to believe you have not repented of your sin he can choose to not give you absolution.
@@razoredge6130 Thank you for commenting. Praise God for people who seek his kingdom. God Bless you!
Let's chat.
I would start with my *personal* experience with people saying "I am born again"
Where did you form this conclusion of Catholic doctrine? Have you studied the catechism? I am curious where this is written in the catechism or is it your personal experience, which can certainly be understandable. As a Catholic, I see that too in our tradition. I call it "Tradition alone" I can elaborate, but what are your thoughts?
@@SaintlySaavy The concept of indulgences seems to me that transactional approach to salvation.
You doing something in turn you spend less time in purgatory.
Also the idea of losing salvation is very worrisome to me because it undermines the message of peace in the Bible.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Still the same concept, if you really look at it.
"I'll just confess to the priest."
Joe or anyone also smart: Could we say as Catholics that we are saved by grace alone? In that even the works we carry out are kind of fueled by God's grace, and as you said nothing we attempt on our own and in our own strength justifies us?
Certainly. Council of Trent, the Joint Declaration on Justification and its clarifying Annex, the catechism, earlier councils on grace like Carthage, Orange, Valence, etc., church doctors like Augustine and Aquinas, all affirm grace alone. RCism is not Pelagian or semiPelagian.
If we understand "grace" as somewhat synonymous with "gift," then aren't our good works even given to us that we should walk in them? So yeah, I'd say it's grace in everything
A baby who dies after baptism is saved without works.
I've found the Catholic understanding of Protestantism is accurate, but only for Low-Church Prots.
The misunderstanding comes from not differentiating between being born again of the spirit to new life in Jesus Christ, which can only be by faith, and what happens as you mature your Christian walk and conversation. I agree that "Sola Fide" is misleading to untrained ears, and I do not use the phrase my self. I invented what I consider to be a much better formulation, "Prima Fide." "First, Faith." As it says, there are faith, hope, and charity, and the greatest of these is charity. Charity, being in my interpretation a "work" of sorts, it's a good thing James wrote his epistle to make sure we knew that faith without works is dead.
Find your video very interesting. I did think it was weird that you brought up justification without also bringing up sanctification.
This sort of content is great, however, the first of all debates still must be "Sola Scriptura". Every protestant-bible-christian is going to argue that Catholic interpretation is wrong(regardless of any evidence you give them, even if you base your arguments on Scripture or/and Church history), and that protestant interpretation is the correct one.
Therefore, if you are Catholic, you should study the Catholic arguments against Sola Scriptura more than anytihng else before engaging in debates with protestants.
It’s there , you can’t miss it, in the letter of Paul to the Romans, the whole argument of Paul, having being justified by faith we have peace with God.
All of HEBREWS 11 refutes the protestant notion that all we need for assurance of salvation is Faith alone apart from works.
What’s incredibly ironic, is scientifically speaking, both heat and light are caused by the same energy but at a different frequency. It’s all electromagnetic waves.
Imputed righteousness = “I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!” - Michael Scott
Am I getting that right? Lol
Maybe I'm reading too much into the Epistle of James, but his line concerning faith without works has made me think in very recent times that he was writing before the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49. There is evidence in Paul's letter to the Galatians that St. James may have originally sided with those Jewish Christians who wanted to keep the Mosaic Law. Is it possible that James is referring to the Mosaic Law in his epistle when he is talking about faith without works being dead?
No James did not teach you have to keep the law of Moses. He wrote about true morality/justification. Faith isn’t enough and works arent enough. You need both.
he mentions almsgiving, not circumcision and animal sacrifice
There are multiple misfires on the Protestant side of this. The word “works” has multiple meanings as do many words.
Paul uses it as shorthand for Mosaic ceremonial laws like circumcision, Jewish feasts etcetera.
James uses the same word as acts of obedience to God motivated by love.
Here’s the another misfire. Catholics see salvation as a continuous process that begins with a specific moment in time but continues with growth in knowledge and grace and holiness.
Protestants see initial justification as one event and sanctification as also an ongoing event yet separate from justification.
Where we agree is this. Initial justification is God’s initiative reaching out to us. It is pure benevolence. Responding to Him in faith before any merit or virtue is faith. Now the soul is infused with God’s Life within us making us new creations.
Protestants say that singular moment or event is the entire salvation issue whereas Catholics say it’s a Life transformation yes but it’s just a new birth but like all life it can be lost.
Catholics don’t work FOR salvation they PARTICIPATE FROM His grace and Life within us.
Those are the things I had to learn before I could become Catholic from being an Evangelical Baptist.
What I saw was this. If Catholics were correct in their understanding there are zero contradictions between Paul and James. If the Protestants’ understanding is correct then there are MANY contradictions in Scripture but not only with James but Jesus Himself.
There isn’t one way of salvation in the Old Covenant and another in the New Testament. The Old is the promise and the preparation. The New is the partial fulfillment of the promises with the total fulfillment at the end of the age.
Bart Ehrman is rotting your brain.
Miss opportunity 3:53, he could have "super easy, bearly an inconvenience"- Ryan Gorge (in pitch meetings)
Pitch meeting references are _tight!_
@eddardgreybeard "you know it sir 😁" screen writer guy
Thank you for this interesting explanation! However, I have to admit that I’m still not convinced that the eyewitness weren’t hallucinating. Why exactly do you think that this could not actually be a plausible reason for their conviction of and their belief about the resurrection?
I’m honestly sorry, but I still don’t quite understand why this point shouldn’t be a good argument for the idea that the term “resurrection” actually refers to someone sort of spiritual phenomenon.
Could you possibly explain in more detail why this hypothesis cannot be taken seriously?
Thank you.
If people see you eat meat, it doesn’t matter how much and how often you tell them you are a vegetarian, they will never believe you.
Or like some people say.
“ tell me you are a Christian without telling me you are a Christian”.
I would say I am a sinner. You should not look at my failures as a person and a Christian to see the truth of the claims of Christianity. If Jesus Christ is who he said he is then you should measure those truths. If the Biblical claims are true then that should be measured on its own claims not on my shortcomings as a person.
@@halleylujah247 I totally agree we shouldn’t judge a group because of one bad apple. We can all agree regardless of our view on faith alone.
John 4: 7-12
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
John 13:35
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
Definition of love :
1 Corinthians 13: 4-8
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.8 Love never fails
This is truly a way, not the only way to show you are a Christian. I know it’s hard especially sometimes during rush hour traffic.
Love you.
It is necessary to declare that you are a Christian, but not sufficient.
Joe apparently you have not been on UA-cam anytime soon Protestants do believe they can do whatever they want and still go to heaven as long as they believe and put their trust in Jesus