I did a double and triple take. This is exactly what got my Catholic youth group talking about justification and gave me, as the resident Lutheran, the opportunity to share sola Fide and my assurance of salvation. Somehow every one of your videos recently have coincided exactly with what I have been discussing with my friends, and they have proven an invaluable resource in our conversations. Thank you, and God bless you and your work Dr. Cooper!
Idk man, sola fide doesn’t seem right, how would penance and indulgence work if sola fide is true? Isn’t the council of Trent against the Lutheran idea of sola fide?
@@thelonelysponge5029 that's the problem with Rome. Because works are tied to salvation, they are needed. Paul condemns this in Galatians 2 : 15-21. You do works because you are saved NOT because they save you. Faith = works + salvation. Secondly, Indulgences have to do with (as i understand them) relief from purgatory. Problem is purgatory doesn't exist in scripture and it also points a borderline blasphemous question: If I spend time in purgatory for the penalty of sin, is Christ good enough? He didn't truely save me from sin if I'm still being punished by it after death despite me putting my faith in him.
Faith itself is a work. Our salvation comes from the crucifixion which we did nothing for. Whether we have faith or not Jesus died for the salvation of man.
@@alexdunholse6529 You’re getting it all wrong dude, salvation isn’t some math equation. Works can’t save you, nor does the Catholic Church say salvation is by faith + works, that’s ridiculous, and we will never stoop so low to make salvation into a silly slogan. To make it easier for you, from my understanding, we will be judged based off if we love God and love our neighbor enough. If you love your neighbor, you will do good works for them.
@@thelonelysponge5029 Enough? Unless you love God with all of your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind it’s not going to be enough. And unless you love your neighbor as yourself it won’t be enough. Unfortunately you don’t do either one of those. You may love God, and your neighbor, but you don’t to the commanded standard. You’re going to need a righteousness outside of yourself.
The Bishop is very popular with many Roman apologists, but he gets quite a bit wrong regarding Lutheranism and Protestantism in general. I find him generally pleasant, but nothing he says provides a good argument for Roman theology being the superior alternative to Lutheran theology.
The fact that you think it's a genuine contest between something called "Roman theology" versus something called "Lutheran theology" says it all. There is no competition, there is ONLY Catholic theology. Any kind of protestant theology is heretical nonsense.
@@STG-88 Jordan Peterson is not a qualified theologian. He is very intelligent but intelligence does not bring good biblical discussion, but a heart filled with love for God does.
Reformed brothers teach " You’re going to need a righteousness outside of yourself" . That is the Protestant heresy. The biblical truth is you need a righteousness inside of yourself. Luther (and the rest of Protestants) ignored that the perfect love of God ( charity, Rom. 5:5) and the perfect works of God (Eph. 2:10) avail for justification before God because they are not deficient in righteousness. They come from Christ's perfect righteousness. Abraham's works are not only evidence of salvation, as Protestants believe, the works of Abraham perfect our faith ( James 2:22) . Protestants will stay in error as long as they keep conflatinfg Luther's heretical faith and Abraham's obedient justifying faith.
@@Alfredo8059 Romans 3:10-12, 21-23 NASB1995 [10] as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one; [11] There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; [12] All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” [21] But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, [22] even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Mic drop
Just to clarify, you don't think he fully places his trust in Jesus? I'm not sure how a doctrinal dispute between two Christian traditions implies either doesn't fully trust Jesus.
@@Shevock Catholic theology implies Jesus sacrifice wasn't enough. There is even a Catholic doctorine, perhaps you know, called sin of presumption that keeps people from fully trusting and knowing they are saved by placing full trust in Jesus.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 I agree in a practical sense. But we recognize that as a shortcoming and we trust in Him to be sufficient to overcome that. Dictionary one recognizes Jesus as sufficient and trusts completely in Him in that way.
Erick Ybarra has written a very good book on this subject: "The Just Shall Live By Faith: Resolving the Catholic-Protestant Debate on Justification from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans".
Erick Ybarra is a revert to the Catholic faith from Protestantism and has spent over a decade studying the doctrinal nature of the divisions that exist within Christendom, particularly between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, as well as Protestantism..
@@truthisbeautiful7492 , Romans chapter 7 does not say that concupiscence is sin .Some one's private fallible interpretation of Romans chapter 7 says concupicence is sin. Most Christians historically have understood that while it is highly likely to cause sin, concupiscence is not sin itself. Rather, it is the tinder for sin which "cannot harm those who do not consent. The inclination toward sin and evil is called "concupiscence" . This is why St. James said once the desire is conceived it will give birth to sin." Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure"Phil 12:12-13. It seems Protestants believe the power of our inclination to sin is greater than God's power for sanctification of our will.
Im always a little mind blown at how Catholics think we Lutherans are less likely to obtain salvation, despite confessing the ecumenical creeds, being baptized in the name of the Triune God, and having faith in the atonement and resurrection of Christ, than apparently a “good” Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. If they can be saved by being good, then why should we be worried if we are doing the good works anyway, and also have faith in the correct God?
The danger is with the Lutheran and protestant concept of imputed righteousness, where you think Christ’s righteousness will save you no matter what you do. Doing evil works that go against the 10 Commandments are what Christ and Paul clearly say is damnable. Imputed righteousness puts people in danger of thinking they can do whatever they want and still be saved.
@@billmartin3561Yeah I agree it’s dangerous which is why in Hebrews and in other places are plenty of warnings. It’s nearly unanimously agreed by all Protestant churches (conservative ones that believe in scripture) that if you are defiantly living in unrepentant sin you are in severe danger of damnation.
@@AmillennialMillenial maybe because a Buddhist, Hindus, etc. are invincibly ignorant of the Christ's true gospel and church. "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation"
@@joekey8464 I don’t think so…. ”Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12 NKJV ”How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?“ Romans 10:14 NKJV Scripture says that only Christ can one be saved, and that it must be actually in Him, not “invisibly”. The CCC is a total change from previous RC teaching on salvation outside the church. Further, I think faith alone justifies, but I think there are saved Roman Catholics if they believe Christ died and paid for sins, they just have an erroneous understanding. So if I believe I am justified by faith alone, but strive for good works so as to not damage my faith and do what I am commanded since I am regenerate and now able to begin to fulfill commands, how am I further from truth than a so-called invincibly ignorant non Christian?
“Now Adam was created righteous and upright and without sin by God so that he had no need of being justified and made upright through his tilling and keeping the garden; but, that he might not be idle, the Lord gave him a task to do, to cultivate and protect the garden. This task would truly have been the freest of works, done only to please God and not to obtain righteousness, which Adam already had in full measure and which would have been the birthright of us all.” - Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty
Precisely. We do good works because we righteous, by the grace of Christ, not in order to righteousness. This is what Lutherans call the third use of the Law - a guide to what "love for God" and "Love for neighbor" mean in one's path through life.
@@domingomelchor4902ok… How about James, the Roman church loves to quote James 2:17 “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” You see though Lutherans actually finished reading the Bible and know that James 2:17 is followed by James 2:18 “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” So works are the fruit of faith and keep that saving faith alive. Also Luther’s writings cite the Bible about twice a sentence except where he cites the early saints and even early popes which agree with Luther because Luther agrees with the Bible. I mean come on! The Roman church was selling certificates of salvation in order to build a cathedral! No where in the Bible does it say you can buy salvation, it says the price was paid already by Jesus Christ that whoever believes in him will not die but have eternal life.
He preached a whole false gospel to Ben. In his words, "...so if you are following your conscience sincerely, or in your case you're following the commandments of the law sincerely, yeah you can be saved."
What a wonderful response and very clear. Any chance that your previous discussions can also be uploaded on youtube? Some of them are but would like to listen to the rest…
@patriceagulu8315 You clearly missed the entire discussion. The question isn't how many times you see the words "good works" vs "faith" (faith appears much more by the way, do a search yourself). The question is, knowing that scripture talks about faith and good works as relevant to salvation, what role does each one play and which is the one that actually justifies.
@patriceagulu8315 no he wasn't. Good works cant save you. Only the work of Christ Jesus can. That's His promise through Faith. All throughout scripture it says this. It's important because it keeps the believer from thinking they're meriting when they do good. It's the only way you free to love. You've already been saved, now the Spirit is changing your heart and your impulses. We begin to desire His will. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. We are made for Good works but they are only possible through Faith.
@patriceagulu8315 love is the fulfillment of the law. God commands us to love our God with all our heart soul mind and strength. Not one of us has lived up to that.
@@bigniftydudeyour interpreting the great commandment via the lutheran law/gospel hermeneutic which is not self-evident. It isn't a command of maximal permanent exertion/intensity or demanding an impossibility. Believers can satisfactorily keep the commandments and fulfill the law through charity and infused righteousness of Christ who works through them, they are not constantly damnably sinning in every good work.
When does faith mean just belief, and when does it mean faithfulness? I understand that the Greek word can mean either depending on the context ...or have I been misinformed?
Im a reformed baptist but I appreciate the Lutherans devotion to Sola Fide. I have a question for you Lutherans. From my understanding the Heidelberg catechism from the reformed confessions was the fruit of trying to find unity and fellowship with the Lutherans. I know that ended up not happening but I'm curious if Lutherans use the Heidelberg at all or how they feel about it.
@@IG88AAA yes I am lutheran. The Book of Concord is authoritative in confessional church bodies. It is not equal to the Bible but it is thought of as an accurate expression of the doctrine of the Bible.
@@alephnaught8343 What kind of authority does it have? If a Lutheran disagrees with one of its teachings based on his own reading of scripture, is he expected to submit to the book of concord?
@@IG88AAA to be a lutheran yes, the authority of the book of concord comes from believing it is entirely accurate in expressing the doctrine discussed from the Scriptures. If someone wants to be a lutheran but disagrees with the book of concord they cannot be clergy but, unless it is something major, they should be able to be a member of a lutheran church. If not I guess they can become anglican or catholic or protestant?
Regarding Matthew 25: I've found Jeffrey Gibbs' Concordia Commentary very helpful. He argues that Matthew is reaching back to something he already covered in his Gospel, namely Matthew 10, specifically vs. 40-42, in which Jesus calls the Apostles "these little ones." In that light, Matthew 25 becomes about how we responded to those who brought us the message about Jesus, and is very much in line with justification by faith alone. Interested to hear your thoughts there.
"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." Did Luther received what the Apostles taught? Paul taught (Abraham's obedient) faith alone justifies. Paul never ever taught Luther's faith alone justifies. The crux of the difference between the Protestant and Catholic view of justification is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification : is the imputation of Christ's righteousness EXTRA.nos (Luther's justification) or the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer ( Catholic Church's justification) . Abraham received the love of God in his heart before his faith could be accounted as righteousness ( Catholic justification). Luther did not appeal to one Church Father as having believed the viewpoint that he held. Luther realized none of them taught his "sola fide" ( as he mis-understood justifying faith). According to Luther Augustine erred, all the fathers erred. His SOLA (fallible interpretation of ) SCRIPTURE was THE authority. Luther conflated his own word and the Word of God. Did Luther received the Apostles' teaching or did Luther received his own misinterpretation alone?
Thank you, Dr. Cooper, This Sola (Fida) is a tough one to convey to people who believe that the fruit (good works) of our true salvific faith is not filthy rags but our second payment along with faith to eternal life. We have but one hand (faith) to grasp salvation with, and with that hand we have done good works.
Agree my friend. It just mind blowing to me how so many non-sola fide believers seems to think that just because we believe in sola fide it means we don't need works. Accepting Christ is not only about accepting the cleansing of our sins and doing whatever we want. But it also meant that now we have to carry our cross wherever we go. Yes accepting Christ in our life means freedom, yes we are now justified before God. But it's freedom from sin not to sin. We are no longer slaves to our sins but slave to righteousness, we are now a member of a royal priesthood, and one ofthe children of our Father in Heaven. Accepting Christ not only justify us, but also gave us new identity in Him. That's the complete Faith, thats the saving faith. Works that comes because we are already redeemed, works that we do out of love for our Lord, to show gratitude for His complete Work at the cross for us, works that we give for the people around us, not to score salvational points, but truly, sincerely, from the depth of our heart. The word love here is agape, which mean selfless, unconditional love. This unconditional also meant not expecting anything in return, including Salvational points.
@@N1IA-4 james is about doing what you believe. Not doing something to add to your believe. He was referencing an intellectual side of Faith, which is oral declaration, acknowledgement of Jesus's status, which demons can also say. But they can never be saved because it just intellectual assent. They Will never serve Him, Will never bow to Him, and Will never commits to Him. We protestants, do not believe this. To us Grace is the reason we are saved, we received it by Faith. But this Grace comes in two forms, the redemption from sin and a brand new identity. Free from sins to be our Father's Children. Free from sin, but live carrying our Cross. Not only we intellectually agree that Jesus Is the Savior, but also comit ourselves to Him. This free Grace, do whatever movement, is the lies perpetuated by the younger generations, as seen right now on so many free Grace ministries and progrresive churches, that use our Lord and Savior perfect work as an excuse for their hedonistic and sinful lifestyle. They only want the forgiveness part of the Grace but fails to see the cross they have to bear, the new identity they have believe proudly everyday. They fail to see that their old self already dead. Pay attention to Matthew 22:37 Matthew 22:37-40 NKJV [37] Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ [40] On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” The word love here is Agape. Which means Selfless, unconditional love, expecting nothing in return, From Father and from others. How can you achieve this type of love? By Grace, by Mercy of our Lord. Luke 7:41-42, 47 NKJV [41] “There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. [42] And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?” [47] Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.” At the cross, is The real forgiveness of sins, redemption of our status of slavery to sins. I might done works to serve Him, to serve my Father. But to me my love for Father, is nothing compared to His love for me. Because of that there's no reason for me to said anything about my works. But there's every reason to declare His love for me. Because that love is the one that gave me strength in the first place to Serve Him.
@@N1IA-4 Yes, if that Faith is a saving one. Which means, accepting and committing. Accepting forgiveness, redemption, and new Identity in Him, but also Committing one self to it. You're not Christian for a day, your Christian for a lifetime. If you believe that you are now freed from your sins, why would you still living in your sins? That is serving two masters. James is about works that kept our Faith alive, works that is aligned with our beliefs. It's about doing what we believe. The same way Abraham not afraid to sacrifice his son. Because of his Faith. Because he believe in our Fathers promises. Hebrews 11:17-19 NKJV [17] By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, [18] of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” [19] concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense. As a matter of fact, that is the whole point of Hebrew 11. Works that comes from Faith. You do what you believe. Look, to make it simple: If Faith as small as mustard seed can move the mountain, that Faith for sure can also move your mind, move your body and move your spirits. ♥️
The fruit of our faith is not "filthy rags" but precious to God... No, they do not justify, but our good works come from the new man, not the old man. They do please God. Saying they are smelly to God is going backward to the old man. New men walk in faith by the Spirit and our works are pleasing to God, but do not justify us from sin. Only faith justifies.
Jordan, you may have rushed a response out too quickly. This would be a better topic to explore more in depth with Bishop Barron as he is not attempting a broad refutation of the sola in this short excerpt, merely one aspect that shows its weakness. As a result your missing the focus
Dr. Cooper, nice job as always. One small, none-important suggestion for the refinement of your program: you should move your phone away from your mic as it went off (buzzed) at least a dozen times during this episode and was mildly distracting. Thank you for your efforts.
I know you address it in another video, but it’d be awesome to have a part 2 where you go through the rest of his sermon and especially tackle his comment on James. Where he says there’s no statement of faith alone except where James says “Not by faith alone”.
Is there any chance you would be willing to address the “dare we hope” view that he espouses in his interview with Ben Shapiro? In other videos he has noted that he believes the ancient philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) are saved and that we can have a reasonable hope that hell is empty. I don’t wish to mischaracterize his opinions as he claims a number of nuances, but it seemed to me very much similar to the semi-pelagian views that Chemnitz argues Andrada left without a negative verdict at Trent in Exam 1. He uses the phrase “an Atheist of goodwill can be saved” and cites the Lumen Gencium, so while I sincerely hope this does not become mainstream Roman Doctrine, I feel like the church is moving closer and closer to it.
He believes that about the pagan philosophers because the Church has adopted so much from them especially regarding the soul and the afterlife. ECT, and the immortal soul. Purgatory is lifted directly from Plato. Veneration of icons was brought into the church by pagan converts as well.
How somebody can hold to the RC view of justification/salvation and hold out hope for Plato and nice atheists while simultaneously condemning Protestants is crazy.
@@1920sI’m studying Plato right now at uni. So my question to you is the soul immortal? And is there an afterlife? Because what Socrates and Plato believed are very different to what the early Church fathers believed.
Why do you assume that being expected to behave a certain way equals "earning" salvation? I hear this a lot but I don't understand why that connection is assumed.
I'm sorry, but can you explain what you mean by, "faith does not find it's completion in love." especially in light of James 2:22 "You see that faith was active along with his works [of love], and faith was completed by his works [of love]." Thanks.
Luther relegated the book of James to an appendix in his translation of the Bible because of this discrepancy between Paul and James on justification. James argued that good works justify in combination with faith whereas Paul denies this (Romans 4:1-8). I agree with Luther that Paul teaches justification through faith alone (i.e. that we’re counted righteous in God's sight only by Christ’s righteousness being credited to us through faith alone). I know that James has been interpreted to mean that he was referring to being justified or vindicated before men by works and not before God but I’m not convinced by that. I think that James is simply wrong and that the book was mistakenly included in the canon of Scripture and that it should be excluded. Of course I’m not denying that faith without love and good works is dead. Unless one's faith leads one to love others and do them good then one's faith isn't true Christian faith, because when one has true faith one also has the Holy Spirit who leads one to love others and do them good.
@@Edward-ng8oo , Luther relegated the book of James because he did not understand Paul: Faith alone , before or apart receiving charity (supernatural love), is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2): "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Luther made up his own faith, Luther disagreed the Early Church Fathers: " God justifies the impious man not only by remitting the evil deeds which that man does, but also by GRANTING LOVE, so that the man may turn away fromevil and may do good through the Holy Spirit" (Augustine, Against Julian 2:165). Paul refers to justification before receiving love from God and faith; James refers to on-going justification AFTER receiving the love of God and faith. Scripture alone is okay, Why to reject some parts of the Bible beBible? If our theology does not like some parts of Scripture it is because there "are some things hard to be understood" as 2 Peter 3:16 teaches.
Thank you so much for these thoughts. I am particularly grateful for the works of the law, moral, love nuance and the tree metaphor (scripturally popular from Psalms to Proverbs to Job to Jesus to James to Paul). A tree produces the type of fruit it does because of what type of tree it is, not the other way around (though in the winter without leaf, bud, blossom, or fruit, it might prove difficult to tell). Well employed!
Let's remember what "Justification" means - being declared "righteous" ("not guilty") at the Last Judgement, when Christ comes in glory, raises the dead, and judges the nations. In order to pass this Judgement, we must be pure and holy ("Sanctified) through the work of the Holy Spirit (which will not be completed until the Resurrection); our sins and evil deeds must be blotted out by Christ's blood; and we must have the penalty for rebellion and treason due to our descent from Adam ("concupiscense") paid. When we say "salvation by faith", we are stating that these conditions can only be met through Christ's free and clear gift and God's mercy, not by any works or deeds of our own. We cannot earn salvation, we cannot merit it, we cannot do anything with regards to it except to refuse it, fight against the Spirit, and be damned.
@@williampeters9838 Speaking the truth is bold I suppose. I do not say it lightly, nor do I say it without evidence. "...Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicit Christian faith can be saved. Now they are saved through the grace of Christ indirectly received, so the grace is coming from Christ, but it might be received according to your uh conscience, so if you are following your conscience sincerely, or in your case you're following the commandments of the law sincerely, yeah you can be saved." - R. Barron (to B. Shapiro) - That sir, is a false gospel. He literally tells a "Jewish" man (Rev. 3:9), who outright rejects Christ (no faith), that he can be saved by keeping the commandments. Ah, yes, but "sincerely."
@@williampeters9838 ua-cam.com/video/0oDt8wWQsiA/v-deo.html 16:10 timestamp Also you said he is "genuinely trying his best." John 16:2 They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. - Surely those who persecuted the disciples of the Lord in this manner were also "trying their best." This verse alone collapses his (Barron's, and Vatican 2's) entire argument of one being saved by following their conscience, as obviously “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" One needs a new heart and the renewal of the mind, which only comes through faith in Christ Jesus, and receiving the Holy Spirit through faith in Him.
No disrespect to either Bishop Barron or Dr. Cooper, but I thought the recent discussion over at Gospel Simplicity on Justification was more interesting. You might want to check it out if this interests you.
Jesus said in Luk. 10:28: "do this and you will live". "this" refers to what Dr. Cooper and others called as "moral law", that is loving one another. If this is not part of justification, as Dr. Cooper said following the Reformers, Jesus would say in Luk. 10:28: "after the Son of Man is risen from the death believe in Him and you will live".
texts in isolation cannot be used as arguments, as John 3:16 and numerous other texts in isolation actually do say that belief saves. In the very book of Luke you're quoting from, Jesus gives his parable of the pharisee and the publican, where the publican with no good works is justified by repentance and faith. Jesus absolutely commands us to do good works, and all agree that we are to strive to be righteous and to abhor evil, yet our righteousness cannot, and does not justify
@@bradenglass4753 But did Dr. Cooper also do test isolation by citing from selected verses from Romans and Galatians? Jesus and Paul would not contradict each other. Jesus clearly says do this AND YOU WILL LIVE. Yet you deny that it does not justify? He did not say "do this as expression of your faith". Read also my other response to Dr. Copper showing that Greek tenses of the phrase "justified by faith" do not support faith alone justification.
@@justfromcatholic 'you will live' and 'you will justify yourself' aren't the same thing. There no contradiction here between Jesus, Scripture or Luther
@@j.g.4942 I did NOT write "i (or you) will justify yourself". Pls don't turn your statement into mine. Catholics do not believe we can justify ourselves - we are justified by grace from God through Christ. It is grace through Christ that enables us both to have faith AND to do what is right (loving one another) as commanded by Jesus Himself.
@@justfromcatholic ok, live and justify aren't the same. Also when you condemn "justification through faith alone" by adding love (which is good works, the fulfilment of the law) you are implying an active sense (at least middle) to the verb which isn't there.
The purpose of justification is sanctification. But is sanctification the cause of justification? OR is justification the cause of progressive sanctification?
The dispute between the Catholic Church and the Reformers on Justification can be summarized as: 1. According to the Catholic Church justification is on-going process that includes faith and sanctification. According to the Reformers justification is once for all and is therefore by faith alone (sola fide) 2. According to the Catholic Church through (on-going) justification the righteousness of God through Christ is infused in us and the outcome is we are made righteous. We lose our righteous state through sinning, therefore our sins must be forgiven and washed away, including what the Catholic Church refers as temporal punishment of sins, to regain our righteous state back. According to the Reformers through (once for all) justification the righteousness of Christ is imputed/counted on us and all our sins (past, present and future) imputed/counted on Christ. Imputation does not make us righteous - we are declared as righteous but remain sinners (in Latin "simul tutus et peccator"). Christ remains sinless while all our sins imputed/counted on Him. 3. According to the Catholic Church Christ willingly offered Himself to die on the cross to atone the sins of all men and to reconcile all men back to God. God did not direct His wrath and punished Him for our sins. According to the Reformers God directed His wrath and anger to Christ (because sins of believers counted on Him) and punished Him, instead of believers, for their sins. We look at the first issue: Is justification once for all and is by faith alone or is it on-going process that includes faith and sanctification? The phrase "justified by faith" appears four times in New Testament (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). New Testament was written in Greek and the one in Rom. 3:28 is in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense. Both tenses do not indicate once for all justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense. Scripture says God saves us or we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) and through sanctification (2 Th. 2:13). The word Sanctification is related to holiness. Heb. 12:14 says: “Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Salvation, according to Scripture, is therefore a process as it includes faith and sanctification - and so is justification.
You misunderstand the Lutheran reformers. Justification isn't a one time thing, it's the Day of the Lord, which we see manifest at different points in our lives. In the big picture Justification is from the beginning of life to the end of this world. In the narrow sense it is in the Means of Grace (Preaching and Baptism, Absolution, Eucharist). Both St Dismas and St Polycarp are justified by faith in Christ's Word/Work and not by the quantity or quality of theirs. For, as you state from the grammar, we don't justify ourselves. Just some quick thoughts. God bless you this Lord's Day,
@@j.g.4942 I am aware that Dr. Cooper talked about progressive justification in his other video. Sola fide means faith alone justifies, nothing else. But it is not supported by the tenses of the Greek phrase "justified by faith".
@@justfromcatholicdo you define what Protestants mean by faith alone or do they get to define that? 2) do you admit your concupiscence is sin, as Romans chapter 7 teaches?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 It is based from what I read from the works of Luther and others. Concupiscence is inclination to sin and Catholics do believe it.
”Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.“ Philippians 2:12-13 ESV Verse 13 clearly tells us that God is the one doing the work.
Thanks Dr. Cooper for doing this. I wish to emphasize something concerning the giving of the Law, namely the Ten Commandments, where the church seems to forget time and time again, that God starts with the giving of the Law or will of God for our lives by saying in Exodus 20:2 “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” Note He introduces the Ten Commandments with the Gospel of His already completed work of rescuing them from bondage. He doesn’t say ‘I am God, you better do this this and this or else.’ There’s no good motivation to follow Him there if that were so. The grace of God in Titus 2:11 is what leads us to repentance and a willing desire to want to serve God. His love to save and rescue is the motivating factor. Why do I point this out? Here the bishop does not see God’s rescuing hand as already delivering us out of our sins and then our hearts response flowing from that, not earning anything, since it was already done by the powerful, mighty, arm of the Lord (Savior God). In Exodus 20:5 there’s the warning of not loving the Lord who’s rescued us, but that breeds only the result of losing out on our Privilege as God’s chosen people. We can only lose by our actions which flow from the heart, not gain anything. Faith alone in the God who has already Saved us by His own choosing, might, and Love is what motivated obedience to God.
For those wondering, here is a very clear passage where Augustine affirms that the "works of the law" Paul excludes from justification include the eternal moral law: "Although, therefore, the apostle seems to reprove and correct those who were being persuaded to be circumcised, in such terms as to designate by the word law circumcision itself and other similar legal observances, which are now rejected as shadows of a future substance by Christians who yet hold what those shadows figuratively promised; he at the same time nevertheless would have it to be clearly understood that the law, by which he says no man is justified, lies not merely in those sacramental institutions which contained promissory figures, but also in those works by which whosoever has done them lives holily, and among which occurs this prohibition: 'You shall not covet'" (The Spirit and the Letter, Chapter 23).
There is a difference between the 10 commandments written on stone for a people with a heart of stone vs the law of love written on the heart of flesh. St. Augustine rejects the idea that people with a heart of stone can follow the moral law written on stone. So does Paul. But once love is poured out into our hearts now Christ can empower us to Love. This seems to be the part that Lutherans and Dr Cooper don't understand
Augustine is referring to initial justification. Aquinas also refers to the law including all works, not just ceremonial. But once in a state of justification, one fulfills the law and merits through charity and keeping the commandments, thus growing in and being further justified, as Augustine affirms repeatedly.
@cronmaker2 I agree with you and i don't understand why it is so hard for people to not see this. Catholics definitely believe that our initial justification is by grace alone through faith alone to enter into relationship with the love of Christ. Once united with this love however we must live in this love and allow this love to live in and through us .
@@nickynolfi833The doctrine of justification through faith alone is only concerned with how a person is considered righteous in God's sight which is through faith alone whereby Christ’s righteousness is credited to us. However this happens in combination with the Holy Spirit regenerating us so that we live a changed life of love and good works. However this changed life doesn't justify us in addition to faith as our fallen nature due to original sin still affects us and means our love and good works are less than pure and are tainted with sin. It therefore follows that our impure righteousness is incapable of adding to our justification. God only accepts Christ’s perfect righteousness as the means by which we are counted righteous. Paul says God requires perfect obedience to the law and we can't render that and that we are only saved through faith and not through obedience to the law - which includes the moral law summarised in the 10 commandments. Galatians 3:10-14 ESV - For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”- 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
@Edward-ng8oo I agree that justification is all about sharing in the righteousness of Christ. We do not produce our own righteousness. We can't because of our fallen nature. We are dependent on the righteousness of Christ. We are called to shine light on the world. Through faith we become like a lantern. Christ is the flame poured into us. With out Christ we would be worthless. A lantern without a flame is useless. We have been given not just a dead faith but a living faith. The righteous love of Christ is the soul of our faith. Saving faith is alive. What do we do with things that are alive? We feed them. This is why 2nd Peter 1 tells US to supplement our faith with virtue. Our salvation is 100% based on our living relationship with Christ. Through a true union with Christ we are credited with his righteousness. Imputed righteousness is true if it is based on a true union with Christ. Not just an alien, extra nos aspect. We are credited with the righteousness of Christ by being in Christ and Christ being in us. He is the fountain and source of righteousness. Not us.
I love it when Philippians 2:12 is brought up in isolation.....why is it they always leave off the following verse? Philippians 2:13 NASB1995 [13] for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. That fear and trembling, that comes with the knowledge that He is working in us and through us, that we are secure in Him. Drives me nuts, but never surprises me.
Like many things, catholics believe in "both/and", rather "either/or". We will be judged based on our deeds - deeds that were worked through the grace of God. Without God's grace, we can do NOTHING good.
@@MrProsat You missed the entire point of the video. There's the Judgement - being declared "righteous", and then there are the works. In order to pass the Judgement, be declared "righteous", three things are necessary: we must be pure and holy ("Sanctified) through the work of the Holy Spirit (which will not be completed until the Resurrection but is begun in this life); our sins and evil deeds must be blotted out by Christ's blood so that only our good deeds remain; and we must have the penalty for rebellion and treason due to our descent from Adam ("concupiscense") paid by Christ's atoning death on the cross. If, when you face the Judgement seat, even one sin or evil deed remains in the books unblotted, you are damned. Even the slightest thought of "Raca" is sufficient to outweigh every good deed that you do. You are correct in saying that without God's grace, we can do nothing good. At the Judgement, every good deed that the thief on the cross ever did in his life will be there, while his murder and rebellion will be blotted out. But do not think that any work that you do can earn or merit the gift of His blood, which does this blotting out and pays the penalty that we owe. It cannot be earned, only given and accepted.
@@IG88AAA Like James, John is speaking to Christians who are. Ok, you've accepted Christ's gift of His atoning death on the cross; the Holy Spirit is at work in your heart, sanctifying it; and your evil works have been blotted out of the books. Now what? We are still fallen humans and we need help loving God and loving our neighbor (Luke 10:27, the summary of the two Tables of the Law). The moral Law - epitomized by the 10 Commandments - shows how to do this. We are not righteous by following the Law, we follow it because we righteous. Doing so demonstrates to the unbelieving world that we are followers of Christ and reinforces the work of the Spirit in our own hearts. Remember, we cannot of our own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ or come to Him, or sanctify ourselves, but we can most certainly fight against the Holy Spirit and reject Him and His saving work!
@@paulblase3955 So if someone abiding in Christ does not bear good fruit, are they cut off? Are you saying we must do good works to be continue to be sanctified, to increase in sanctification? Are you saying that “the Law” referred to in Romans 3:28 is referring to the 10 Commandments? I’m trying to understand what you believe. Many problems between Catholics and Protestants is due to using terms differently. I think if we clear that up we will see our beliefs are more similar than we think.
So Eph. 2:8-9 refers to justification but Philippians 2:12 doesn't? Neither of those passages uses the word justification, but they are obviously alluding to justification. Also, you claim that Bishop Barron's use of Romans 13 and 1 Corinthians 13 isn't about justification; that's like me saying John 3:16 isn't about justification because that word isn't used there. Scripture interprets Scripture only when it suits your hermeneutic? You are spot on with your exegesis on 'works of the Law', however, I would say that once we are justified, the moral Law of Christ (Beatitudes), which fulfills the 10 Commandments, is to be obeyed and that obedience, aided by grace, increases our justification before God. Appreciate your sincere ecumenical spirit!
You went right where I hoped you did with your analysis of Romans 3:28. Either out of ignorance or willful intent, Bishop Barron ignores the greater context about the law as shown in Romans 2 and Romans 7. The funny thing about Roman theology is that it can be just as bad as segments of American evangelicalism in that it cherry picks verses. Whenever I point out to Roman Catholics the number of passages that echo justification by faith alone (Rom 3:28, Rom 4:5, Gal 2:16, Gal 2:21, Gal 5:4, etc), the passages are often simply ignored in discourse. It's frustrating to see that, because it gives the impression that Roman Catholics are more intent on "scoring points" in an argument than actually dealing with the Scriptures themselves.
My issue with faith alone is that the word alone appears after faith in 0 of your verses. Another issue with all of your cited verses is the Catholic Church does not teach we are justified by the law.
@@IG88AAA "For by works of the law no one will be justified in (God's) sight." -Romans 3:20 "For we hold that a man is justified by faith APART FROM the works of the law" -Romans 3:28 "If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." -Galatians 2:21 "And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works; otherwise, grace is no longer grace." -Romans 11:6 Even though the word "alone" does not appear in those passages "per se," it's very clear to anybody reading those verses with plain sense that "alone" is implied, as St. Paul clearly puts forth that obedience is not a cause of justification. Much like the word "Trinity" is not in the Scriptures, but the concept is clearly taught. As to your second point; no, Rome does not teach that we are SOLELY justified by the law. But a reading of the Council of Trent makes clear that Rome does indeed attach obedience to justification. Yes, they say grace is part of it, but it's a mix of the two, thus directly contradicting the passages by St. Paul.
@@Outrider74 Those first three verses are speaking to works of the law. Why do you say the Catholic Church teaches we are justified in any way by works of the law? You say it is clear in the council of Trent decree on justification, can you point out to me where it says we are justified by works of the law? Romans 11:6 is speaking to initial justification, which the Catholic Church teaches we do not merit by works. What is “it” referring to in that verse? It is not clear to me that those passages teach faith alone. The clear words of scripture say “a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.” The only place “faith alone” appears, it is rejected. Are you infallible in your interpretation of scripture?
@@IG88AAA RIght, works of the law, meaning OBEDIENCE. And if you read the entirety of the book of Romans, specifically in chapters 2 and 7, which precede and follow chapter 3, it is quite clear that obedience to the moral law is being included in this point, and not just the civil and ceremonial acts. Note that in Romans 7, Paul specifically uses the final commandment about not coveting as part of his illustration. Those passages are not clear to you because you do not want them to be clear to you, and Bishop Barron's obfuscation on this point by trying to pass them off as being only about the ceremonial and civil parts of the law--when the Scriptures allow for no such distinction--leans toward either ignorance or willful duplicity. I would suggest you give an honest reading of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews and read Scripture itself on this point. As for Romans 11:6, the context is clear that it is speaking of election, i.e., salvation. I suggest you read the whole context. And speaking of context, I see you quoted James 2:24. Perhaps you should go back up to verse 14, which starts the matter: "What does it profit, my brothers, if a man SAYS he has faith, but does not have works." Not, "if a man has faith but does not have works," but "if a man SAYS he has faith." Note the word "SAYS;" in other words, a profession, not necessarily a true possession. In fact, if you keep reading, you come to verse 19, where James says "I will show you my faith by my works." We Lutherans say nothing different; true saving faith manifests itself in the production of good works and obedience. The idea that Lutherans believe that obedience is optional, or can even be disregarded, is a caricatured strawman argument. Works are not causal to salvation, but they are an evidence of it. A lack of obedience reveals a heart of unbelief, and therefore being cut off from Christ. By the way, since you're going to play this game about the word "alone" not being in the texts, I would counter that the words "initial justification" are not found anywhere in Scripture either. Could you show me the chapter and verse which details this? And as to your point about Catholicism not including works as part of justification, let's go to the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification... let him be anathema." (Session 6, Canon 9) Hmm... yet St. Paul says "For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God. NOT BY WORKS, lest anyone should boast (Eph. 2:8-9) Note the "either/or" division created by St. Paul: faith OR works. No place is given for mingling the two in justification. By default, that makes works part of justification according to Rome; the "initial" part is just a technicality, much like "hyper-dulia" and "latria" are a distinction without a difference, especially as evidenced in the prayers uttered to Mary and the saints, some of which practically address her in terms more akin to deity than human. One last thing: how many good works must a Catholic have to be in good grace? Because perfection--God's standard--is clearly impossible, as stated in Ecclesiastes 7:20 and I John 1:8. How many good works have you succeeded in doing? Have you been perfect today? Yesterday? Tomorrow? What about concupiscence, because Jesus clearly teaches that our sinful thoughts and intents are just as evil as actions (Matthew 5:20-30). Have you ever repented of a sin and then gone back to it later in life? If you're being honest, you have. What about sins of omission, things you could have done rightly but didn't? How many of those do you think you have committed? I guarantee you you've done that one more than you may even realize. And have you remembered all of these sins and confessed every single one of them to your priest? Because as I recall, Catholicism requires that EVERY sin must be confessed verbally in order to receive forgiveness, right? I'll bet money that you've forgotten to name some of your sins in confession, probably a LOT more than you think. What about that? Shouldn't that put fear in your heart, because you didn't do your part? Do you think you can atone for those sins with good works, which suggests that Christ's work on the cross is insufficient? Do you ever think that maybe you haven't done enough some days, and that, should your life end at that moment, you may be standing before God with an unconfessed sin while in Judgment? See, I don't obey God out of terror. I obey Him out of love, because I KNOW I have eternal life (I John 5:13). And yes, I sin. No, I don't live a life of impenitent sin, and I strive for holiness daily, hourly. But I know that I will come to God at the end of the day with good works that are, as St. Augustine said, "Splendid vices," at best. But Christ covers me. My name is in the Lamb's book of life, not because I am a good Christian, but because Christ paid for my sins, and i hold to that in faith. And that faith, empowered by the Holy Spirit, produces in me good works, obedience, the intent and direction to please God and honor Him in my life, not because I want to be a child, but because I already AM His child.
I think Paul clarifies what law he is speaking of in Romans 8 when he speaks of the moral law and sin rising up in his flesh, but by the law or the Spirit which allows him to faithfully out to death those sins that rise up in his flesh by the power of the spirit, if the spirit does reside in you.
I am not Catholic, but I think Bishop Barron is more correct in this video. Starting around 13:30, Dr Cooper says that I Corinthians 13 teaches that faith is going to pass away, but love is eternal. This is from I Corinthians 13 (NKJV): 8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. 13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. Apparently, Dr Cooper is confusing knowledge (which will vanish away) with faith (which abides).
But this still doesn't speak towards justification. That's the debate happening in the video is it not? The argument is that "love is the whole of the law" but the law does not justify us. I'm not disagreeing with your view, simply confused because the bit you quoted is literally what they are debating the context of.
@@williammozy9491 This is from Romans 13 (NASB): 8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law. 9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law. Notice how the sin of covetousness is mentioned in verse 9. This sin was previously mentioned here in Romans 7 (NASB): 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died; When an unregenerate person strives to obey the commandment against covetousness, this striving fails to fulfill the law the way loving one’s neighbor does. Such striving makes the covetousness of their heart more apparent. Why didn’t St. Paul avoid covetousness through a willpower decision to love the person who had what St. Paul was coveting? St. Paul was weak through the flesh such that he needed God’s grace to love this neighbor and overcome his covetous desires. We should not consider loving one’s neighbor to fulfill the law as a work of the law. This is because such works do not overcome the sinfulness of an unregenerate person’s heart.
@@Alfredo8059 I do not know of people's beliefs, wants, hopes, aspirations in the hereafter. If a person's faith pertains to things of our lifetime (e.g. supernatural healing, beliefs about events recorded in the Bible, what actions constitute sinfulness), then I would think they pass away and are no longer important in the hereafter. I suppose that in the hereafter, a person may remember the kind of faith while alive on Earth. Because love believes all things and hopes all things (I Corinthians 13:7), then love encompasses faith and hope, and is more likely to pass into the hereafter. I agree that love is more important than faith.
@@raykidder906 , we both agre that love is more important than faith. Faith alone, before or apart love , is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2) , works ,before or apart love ,are iniquity. Luther's faith alone is probably a dead faith . The Catholic Church teaches that faith is the vehicle and love (of God) is the source of salvation.
I worry about that so many Protestants have become so flippant with their faith, that when they are convicted to know more about it, they instead cover over their worries by "converting" to Catholicism (no conversion of any sort can happen in this case, the ignorant are always of that denomination). However, it appears their ignorance remains in most cases. I hope this does not result in their deconstruction, but I fear this can be the only case for those who hold so loosely to God, and cover open a sucking chest wound with a bandaid. A single sermon should not convince you of anything so fundamental.
The vast majority of modern converts are the “rad trad” movements. The people who convert because of the resurgence of cultural conservatism among young men, not actually theological reasons.
This is to response j.g 4942 The Hebrew verb “to lay” in Isaiah 53:6 is פָּגַע (Strong H6293) that means “to meet” (Exo. 5:20, 23:4 etc.) or “to reach” (Jos. 19:22). Different verb, סָמַךְ (Strong H5564), also translated as “to lay”, is used Lev. 16:21: “And Aaron shall lay [סָמַךְ] both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness.” Aaron did not do the same thing to the other goat (that prefigured Christ atonement) that was sacrificed (Lev. 16:7-9, 15). Contrary to what Luther wrote Isaiah 53:6 does NOT support imputation. If Luther did believe imputation made Christ a sinner, then it is the most horrendous blasphemy - making the Second Person of the Holy Trinity a sinner. But to understand what Luther meant you should read what he also wrote In the same way John the Baptist called Christ “the Lamb of God” (John 1:29). He is, of course, innocent, because He is the Lamb of God without spot or blemish. But because He bears the sins of the world, His innocence is pressed down with the sins and the guilt of the entire world. Whatever sins I, you, and all of us have committed or may commit in the future, they are as much Christ’s own as if He Himself had committed them. In short, our sin must be Christ’s own sin, or we shall perish eternally. With gratitude and with a sure confidence, therefore, let us accept this doctrine, so sweet and so filled with comfort, which teaches that Christ became a curse for us, that is, a sinner worthy of the wrath of God; that He clothed Himself in our person, laid our sins upon His own shoulders, and said: “I have committed the sins that all men have committed.” Luther: Lectures on Galatians 1-4, 1535, Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, page 278, 283 - 284
"But the Apostle seems to be speaking of the moral precepts, because he continues by saying that the law was made for sinners, and these are moral precepts. The proper use of these precepts is that a man not attribute more to them than is contained in them. For the law was given in order that sin be recognized: for I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: you shall not covet (Rom 7:7). Therefore, the hope of justification must not be placed in them, but in faith alone: we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law (Rom 3:28)." - St. Thomas Aquinas The works of the law include the moral precepts.
@dennischapman7305. Justification through faith alone is justification by Christ alone. Christ is God. God is love. The real McCoy, not just the copy. His love is greater than our love, not the other way around.
love is a greater virtue than faith yes. our willingness and capacity to love is what sanctification is improving when it makes us more like God - God is love. however it doesnt avail us for justification because we dont have perfect love. faith avails us for justification because it grasps and unites us with the perfect love of God in christ jesus. even then the kind of faith that does justify intrinsically causes love for neighbor and outpours good works. SO, we can fully affirm that verse.
@@andrewborchelt305hey. I believe in the gospel as it is presented in the scriptures, that we are justified by faith, which is brought about in us by God. But I've been a little confused lately on the distinctions between faith and love. Isn't faith joined at the hip with love? How can faith exist without love, and is it a sort of love? I guess I'm asking what faith really is if it isn't love. I'm disturbed that I don't really have a solid understanding of this right now even having been justified by christ already for years. The discrepancy in my mind never showed up till now.
@@apeture_explorer4810 Im not a pastor, but lutherans have classically defined faith as both intellectual assent in the facts of God as He is revealed in scripture, AND a trust in his promises with your whole being. its this trust element that unites us with him and makes us want to serve him and love him (and consequently our neighbor) with our whole heart because his promises are those of salvation and redemption (i.e. the gospel)
The argument that the "works of the law" are only about the ceremonial laws is what Sabbatarians use to try and impose the Sabbath on Christians. This argument is very simple to destroy. All you have to do is show that, when Paul spoke of the Law, that includes the 10 commandments. It's very easy to prove this with two verses: Romans 7:6 "But now we are released from THE LAW, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." If they respond, "But the 'the law' there doesn't include the 10 Commandments," just point to the next verse: Romans 7:7 "Yet if it had not been for THE LAW, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if THE LAW had not said, 'You shall not covet.'" "You shall not covet" is one of the 10 commandments, so when Paul says, "we are released from THE LAW," he was very clearly including the 10 commandments. This is impossible to deny.
@@joekey8464 The point of my post is to prove beyond doubt the Law includes the 10 Commandments. Too many "teachers" out there try to pull a fast one and say it's just the ceremonial laws. Once you show Paul means the 10 Commandments, it crumbles the foundation of many false teachings. What's your issue with the Sermon on the Mount? Jesus said we have to pluck out whatever causes us to sin... and that includes our hearts. How is that possible?
@@marknovetske4738 Paul clearly said it and spent a lot of energy and ink saying it. Contend with him. He said under Christ we are not under the Law and the Law includes the 10 commandments.
Complicating the simple. All that B Baron is doing by his arguments is inadvertently proving that Paul contradicts himself. If we're saved by love, then all we have to do is perform good works- who needs Jesus, or Mary and the Saints? "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of FAITH. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the LAW of RIGHTEOUSNESS." Romans 9 30-31
@@billmartin3561 Which means love is salvific. B Baron is arguing against faith alone by putting works as equally necessary for justification which contradicts Scripture. See Romans 9
I work out my salvation with fear and trembling by running away from wolves in sheep's clothing like bishop Barren. He not only denies faith alone, but he denies faith in Christ. He told Ben Shapiro that Christ is only the preferred way of salvation. I work out my salvation in fear and trembling by never wanting anything but Jesus Christ and his most holy blood atonement to be my redemption. My reconciliation with God is because of Christ alone. And demons like Bishop Barren cannot take that away. Do I love God and my neighbor? Yes. God's love for me in Christ causes me to love with a purer love, a love set free from fear and trembling. I refuse to let my love for God and man contribute to my salvation. To do so would degrade my salvation. I will not tolerate any such separation from Christ my Lord.
Wow this comment deeply upsets me. As a Protestant, my Christian faith has been enriched by Bishop Barron's ministry. The Lutheran and Catholic understanding of salvation are substantially identical, as the joint council in the 90's discovered. I do not feel comfortable with "Sola Fide" since Holy Scripture explicitly denies this in James. The Catholic church is not pelegian, but we all can agree that "faith without works is dead". The goal of our Faith is Theosis, Union with Christ. Please stop with the false division. Satan loves it
@@foodforthought8308 Holy Scripture in James doesn't deny Sola Fide. Faith and works are not on the same level as if they need to work together to gain salvation (synergism). Protestantism says that works are proof of faith (monergism). Works are a consequence of faith. Without good works there is no true faith. The alleged contradiction between Paul and James is thereby proven false.
@@georgesaguelton5751. “Without good works there is no true faith.”. Exactly, that is the Catholic position, “faith without works is dead”, “faith working through love”.
I believe in Ephesians 2:8-9 where a sinner is justified by God's grace alone through simple faith alone in Christ alone. Only when a sinner is saved by grace through faith in Christ, can a justified sinner live by faith to be followed later by works as God's workmanship as mentioned in Ephesians 2:10. These works, which follows justification, are not the reason why a sinner is justified, but it matters at the judgement seat of Christ, where the works will be tested by fire to determine the reward, if the works survived. If the works are burned by fire, the justified sinner will suffer loss of reward, but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire (ref : 1 Corinthians 3:10-15)
This quote accurately shows the sin and blasphemy of Luther's doctrine. Realize what you just said. " love doesn't justify". Love is not an emotion. Love is the very nature and essence of God. God is love. We are by nature children of hate and wrath. We become united to Christ by faith. This union is the fact that the righteous divine love is poured into our hearts. Once this happens we can literally say that God lives in us! The divine righteousness love is given as a gift to us! Yet you say this righteous love poured into our hearts does not justify us. God entering into us does not justify us??? My heart brakes that people can't see the beauty in the catholic understanding of justification by faith empowered by love
@@nickynolfi833 We receive this gift of love through our faith in Jesus Christ, which is what justifies us. Faith must come first, which is what justifies, then Love is the result (fruit) of that faith. It's how to tell if someone truly has saving faith. I was raised Catholic, and have come to the true understanding of salvation, thanks to the Reformation. The Catholic church left me with much spiritual trauma and abuse as a teenager, and now I'm healing through God's love in Jesus Christ. I can say I have believed, practiced and experienced both sides of this coin; I do not come from a place of prejudice just because something was my conditioning. Please note how I didn't name-call, castigate or accuse you (or the founder or leader of your church) of anything in what you said. To me, that is another way to tell who has been properly taught about God's love. "He that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is Love." 1 John 4: 7,8
@@nickynolfi833Luther was correct when he said that love doesn't justify us. The fact that God lives in us and the Holy Spirit leads us to love others and do good works doesn't justify us because we can't act completely purely. We have sinful inclinations due to our fallen nature inherited from Adam and everything we do is tainted with sin, which is why our righteousness is incapable of justifying us and only Christ's righteousness imputed to us through faith alone can justify us. Luther said the following with respect to Galatians 5:6: Paul does not say: Faith which justifies by love; nor does he say: Faith which makes acceptable by love. Our adversaries fabricate such a text and introduce it by force at this place. Much less does Paul say: Love makes acceptable. Paul does not speak this way. He says: "Faith, which worketh by love." He says that works are done out of faith through love, not that a man is justified through love. But who is so ignorant a grammarian that he does not understand by the meaning of these words that to be justified is one thing but to do works is another? For the words of Paul are clear and plain: "Faith works through love." Therefore it is a patent theft when our adversaries do away with the true and right meaning of Paul and for "to do works" understand "to be justified....” Paul makes love, as it were, an instrument of faith, through which it works. But who does not know that an instrument derives its power, motion, and action, not from itself but from the workman, operator, or whoever uses it? For who should say: The ax gives power and motion to the chopping workman? The ship gives power and motion to the navigating shipman? Or, to adduce the example of Isaiah, who would say: The saw draws the workman, and the rod raises the hand (Is. 10:15)? It is the same when people say that love is the essence (formam) of faith, or gives faith power and activity, or justifies. (What Luther Says 1480)
@nickynolfi833 Luther was correct when he said that love doesn't justify us. The fact that God lives in us and the Holy Spirit leads us to love others and do good works doesn't justify us because we can't act completely purely. We have sinful inclinations due to our fallen nature inherited from Adam and everything we do is tainted with sin which is why our righteousness is incapable of justifying us and only Christ's righteousness imputed to us through faith alone can justify us. Luther said the following with respect to Galatians 5:6: Paul does not say: Faith which justifies by love; nor does he say: Faith which makes acceptable by love. Our adversaries fabricate such a text and introduce it by force at this place. Much less does Paul say: Love makes acceptable. Paul does not speak this way. He says: "Faith, which worketh by love." He says that works are done out of faith through love, not that a man is justified through love. But who is so ignorant a grammarian that he does not understand by the meaning of these words that to be justified is one thing but to do works is another? For the words of Paul are clear and plain: "Faith works through love." Therefore it is a patent theft when our adversaries do away with the true and right meaning of Paul and for "to do works" understand "to be justified....” Paul makes love, as it were, an instrument of faith, through which it works. But who does not know that an instrument derives its power, motion, and action, not from itself but from the workman, operator, or whoever uses it? For who should say: The ax gives power and motion to the chopping workman? The ship gives power and motion to the navigating shipman? Or, to adduce the example of Isaiah, who would say: The saw draws the workman, and the rod raises the hand (Is. 10:15)? It is the same when people say that love is the essence (formam) of faith, or gives faith power and activity, or justifies. (What Luther Says 1480)
@@doriesse824I agree that generally speaking Christians are to love others, however one has to make a distinction between those who are deceived and who should be gently corrected in a loving manner and those who are false teachers who should be opposed without showing them love. Paul for instance didn't respond in a loving manner towards those who were leading the Galatians astray with a false gospel but rather cursed them. Also Luther didn't show love towards those Catholic leaders who were leading people astray with their false works-righteous gospel. Such people are to be opposed as enemies of the faith and not treated tolerantly with love.
Seems to me, if not for salvation through grace alone, the mutual excommunication of orthodox and catholic heads from the great schism would indicate the orders that follow and of course the fathers themselves are all under excommunication as well and are not saved unless by grace alone apart from the work of mutual comunial acceptance
Paul is talking about the works of the Law required for Judaism, such as circumcision. The early christians thought you had to become a Jew first to become a Christian but this was refuted at the councel of Jerusalem (Acts 15). That's why Paul keeps talking about circumcision in Rm. 2, 3, and culminating in 4, showing that Abraham was justified without being circumcised. These works of the OT Law are not required, but love is. This is the difference between Paul and James on faith and works.
"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." If you dont have one than you dont have any. Good works come with the 3 virtues, if you don't do good works then you are lacking these qualities.
No one denies that faith, hope and love are part of the Christian walk. The argument is over whether faith on its own justifies, and Paul teaches that it does because through faith a Christian is credited with Christ's righteousness which justifies him before God. When a person is justified he has the hope of eternal life and the Holy Spirit also gives him the ability to love and do good works.
@@Edward-ng8oo Paul also says faith is nothing without charity. Faith alone does justify, but what I'm saying is that you don't have faith if you don't have charity.... People forget about loving thy neighbor Basically some think of faith as strictly by definition where as when the Bible mentions it, it has more meaning.
@@IJS92 There's no dispute over the fact that faith without love is a dead faith which can't save. If some think that faith can exist on its own without love then they're sadly deluded, and they don't have true faith.
No one is solving this 500 year argument because it is 500 years of Lutherans and Roman Catholics talking over each other. They both agree we are saved by faith, and works born of that faith and are commanded (which is why Lutherans teach combining our spiritual and vocational callings). Sometimes I think Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc would rather have the drama of division than unification under the Triune God.
1-Catholics do not believe works are merely "born of that faith". Catholics do not believe that Luther's faith alone is the same as Abraham's faith alone. Luther relegated the book of James because he did not understand Paul: Faith alone , before or apart receiving charity (supernatural love), is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2): "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Luther made up his own faith, Luther disagreed the Early Church Fathers: " God justifies the impious man not only by remitting the evil deeds which that man does, but also by GRANTING LOVE, so that the man may turn away fromevil and may do good through the Holy Spirit" (Augustine, Against Julian 2:165). Paul refers to justification before receiving love from God and faith; James refers to on-going justification AFTER receiving the love of God and faith. Scripture alone is okay, Why to reject some parts of the Bible beBible? If our theology does not like some parts of Scripture it is because there "are some things hard to be understood" as 2 Peter 3:16 teaches. 2- We both agree we are saved by faith, but we disagree about the very "faith" (sacraments of faith, ecclesiology, canon of Scripture....etc). 3-The big issue is "Sola Scriptura". "Sola scriptura" is a nice slogan but it necessarily becomes sola (my interpretation of) scriptura. I think you can see the result of that. Endless splitting of churches and disagreements over faith and doctrine.
The “born of that faith” comment was me trying to be concise on a comment section forum. I understand it is much more in depth than that. But I’ve done a lot of listening while taking the argumentative nature out of it and I still find they (Catholics and Lutherans) agree on a lot more than they want to. Concerning Luther, I’ll concede he falls into a category with many other church leaders (Protestant & Catholic alike) he said some very smart things and some very dumb things. However, I think he also may have fallen into a trap that many of us find ourselves falling into today, trying to convey complex thoughts and ideas on an even more complex subject through written conversations instead of direct spoken dialogue. A couple things for your comment: be careful saying “faith alone” because that phrase is not in the Bible. Second: I don’t think anyone is sola scrptura, at best we are all prima scriptura (whether they believe they are or not is a different story). Finally, I would love to see church leaders and influencers sit down with each other as the laity do and actually try and find ways to agree instead of the continuous splitting.
“We have been debating this for 500 years.” In 500 years the Roman church seems to have been unable to read the Augsburg confession and response. It also seems that they haven’t yet finished their Bibles but rather set it down after James 2:17. Actually if you do the math it seems that the Roman church reads 15 verses a year in order to get to James in in 2000 years. So this means that if we are next on their reading list we are only 48-50 years from them finding out that Love is connected to Faith in the Lutheran definition of Faith and works are required to keep faith alive.
The Augsburg confession teaches ,more or less , Luther's faith alone plus Luther et al's sola (private interpretation of ) Scripture. Paul taught (Abraham's obedient) faith alone justifies. Paul never ever taught Luther's faith alone justifies. The crux of the difference between the Protestant and Catholicview of justification is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification : is the imputation of Christ's righteousness EXTRA.nos (Luther's justification) or the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer ( Catholic Church's justification) . Abraham received the love of God in his heart before his faith could be accounted as righteousness ( Catholic justification). Luther did not appeal to one Church Father as having believed the viewpoint that he held. Luther realized none of them taught his "sola fide" ( as he mis-understood justifying faith). According to Luther Augustine erred, all the fathers erred. His SOLA (fallible interpretation of ) SCRIPTURE was THE authority. Luther conflated his own word and the Word of God. Is the Augsburg confession the Word of God? Should we understand Scripture according to the Augsburg confession?
@@Alfredo8059 Why was Saint Jerome canonized? He translated the Bible into the common tongue in the 300’s. Why was Tindale burned? He translated the Bible into the common tongue in the late 1400’s. Also we don’t need to use “private interpretation,” we have all the saints before the Borgias (and some early popes) agreeing that it is through faith we are justified and have salvation. The Augsburg confession cites dozens of saints and a couple Popes as well as the Bible. You changed, we went back.
@@nemoexnuqual3643 Luther's faith alone is not exactly the same as Augustine's faith alone. Tyndales' translation is not excatly an accurate translation of Scripture. I would like to answer your questions : 1- Saint Jerome made an authorized translation of Scripture ( Hebrews 10:17); Tyndale mis-translated the ancient texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views. In particular the Church authorities cited the terms "church", "priest", "do penance" and "charity" which became in the Tyndale translation ""congregation","senior" (changed to "elder" in the revised edition of 1534, "repent" and "love" challenging key doctrines of the Christian faith. It was not an accurate rendering of Sacred Scripture. The Church condemned it and did it's best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. 2. The Catholic Church totally agree that it is through (obedient) faith we are justified and have salvation. Luther conflated his own heretical faith and Abraham's obedient faith. According to Luther Augustine erred, all the fathers erred. Luther did not appeal to one church father as being believed the viewpoint that he held. Luther realized none of them taught his "sola fide" (as he usderstood justifying faith). The Catholic doctrine isn't the new kid on the block, Luther's theology was and the "Reformation" being an attemt to go back to early Christianity was for sure a man-made tradition that contradicts Scriptures because Paul taught that faith,before or apart the love of God IN your heart, is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2. ) . Works and faith alone don't save but grace by faith that works in love: " For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."(Gal. 5:6); "Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father" 1 Thess. 1:3. Martin Luther did not understand Paul in context. Ephesians 2:8 must be understood in context:We are granted LOVE before we can believe God so loved the world (Jn 3:16). Faith alone is nothing ( 1Cor. 13:2), Luther did not realize that faith , before or apart, love is not justifying faith.
@@Alfredo8059 God’s peace and if you and I are on the same liturgical calendar, may you have a happy Trinity Sunday. Hopefully both our churches will firmly remind our congregations of the Athenacian Creed as my Catholic friends and family as well as my Lutheran (mostly young sisters) seem to be forgetting that most important of our creeds. to start this response you should really read the Concordia or at least the Augsburg confession and response. Off the top of my head these scriptures you listed are discussed by far greater, more learned, and certainly more eloquent men than myself. Now as to the means of justification, we Lutherans do in fact have a different definition and understanding of faith. Roman Catholic tradition (and I could be wrong here) seems to consider “faith” to be nearly synonymous with “knowledge.” We Lutherans believe that we can do nothing without Christ, (John 15:5) that all all good works not accomplished by and through faith are as dirty rags (Isaiah 64:6). We then define Faith like the furrows (I live in a farming community so pardon the parable) from which love and good works grow and from those works we also keep the farm alive and the furrows fertile. Now I am just a random Lutheran Layman on a break right now, so please pardon my crude metaphors, but for us Faith that is alive includes love and works. Faith (if genuine) can not fail to produce the changes in man that lead to an insatiable hunger for the scripture and a lifestyle we pray would be more pleasing to God. I tease but do absolutely love you Roman Catholics. Anyone who hates his brother whom he has seen certainly doesn’t love God whom he hasn’t seen. How can one love God whom he hasn’t seen without faith? Therefore love is from faith. Works like our tithes, giving blankets, digging wells (mostly the same stuff you guys do as well although you are on a larger scale) can only be done, through faith if it is to be worth anything. Certainly you also hold that an atheist can dedicate his whole life to the noblest of earthly causes but without Christ it is absolutely meaningless. If a Hindu preached love and loved his fellow man and his pagan deity of choice is he then justified before God? Will all the love possible for a man ever be counted as righteousness without faith in the one true and triune God? Of course not. Our churches have been arguing over definitions for 500 years stemming from an argument between a Roman Catholic monk turned Dr. of Theology who was appalled by the practice of selling salvation (indulgence letters). An unbiblical practice that to my understanding has generally stopped (you’re welcome). It seems that if we could be civil you’d find that confessional Lutherans, who refer to ourselves as the Catholic Church of the west, as one small town Roman Catholic priest noted, “are more Catholic than most Catholics.” 2 Timothy 2:14 “Remind them of these things, and charge them before God[b] not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.” Unfortunately in our fallen condition so needing and undeserving of God’s Grace I fear we, until perfected in heaven, will always poke metaphorical bayonet’s through 500 year old fences and growl at each other instead of listening as we Christian brothers should do. “Reformation day” is celebrated by some but mourned by others. I mourn it. We have division to this day over an argument about justification but looking into it, this argument is over definitions and the proportional measure of each essential aspect when to me as a Layman the answer to all is “full.” We should all strive for a full measure of Faith and Love. If I believe Love is from Faith, and you believe faith is from love but we can agree to put all we can into both WHY ARE WE FIGHTING? We never needed to draw swords over chickens and eggs when we both have chicken and eggs together. The issue that will always divide us is really this: Papal infallibility. The Roman Catholic idea that an earthy mortal can ever count himself the equal of God (because only God is infallible) is the real driver behind why our churches will always be at odds. It is why the Orthodoxy left, it was why Luther left, it is why all the Protestants left, it is why there are 25 men world wide calling themselves “Pope.” Earthly politics should have stayed to things below and the churches on things above but that is not how any made in Adam’s likeness operate. Now back to poking bayonets and growling: sure Tyndale didn’t have the best translation, but he certainly had the best English translation at the time because the Roman Catholic Church with all her scholars had withheld the Word of God from the English world at the time. Now today we have some truly awful and blasphemous translations, such as the Message, queer Bible, and “passion” as well as unquestionably heretical translations like the Jehovah Witnesses NWT where indications of the divine Trinity are removed and possibly leading 8.6 million people to damnation according to the standards of Christianity of all Christian Orthodoxy and the saints. As stated in the Athenacian creed “Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith. Whoever does not keep it whole and undefiled will without doubt perish eternally. And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance.” So that leads me to question that if Tyndales translation was so bad as to warrant burning, why does the Roman Catholic Church remain silent on far worse blasphemy and heretical translations common among the mislead sheep today?
@@nemoexnuqual3643 , God's peace. Million misunderstandings. Maybe we don't share the same liturgical calendar , Now as to the means of justification, Lutherans do in fact have a different definition and understanding of faith. You say: "We Lutherans believe ... that all all good works not accomplished by and through faith are as dirty rags (Isaiah 64:6). We Catholics believe that every real "good work" (no one is good but God alone) has as it's origination the grace of God. Please, read Isaiah 64:6. It seems Lutherans conflate the terms "our righteousness" and "good works" from His righteousness. You say: "Our churches have been arguing over definitions for 500 years stemming from an argument between a Roman Catholic monk turned Dr. of Theology who was appalled by the practice of selling salvation (indulgence letters). An unbiblical practice that to my understanding has generally stopped". In fairness Tetzel wasn't actually “selling” indulgences (which the Church has always condemned as the mortal sin of simony), but allegedly (we have only Luther's word for it) promoting the almsgiving part of a particular indulgence in such a way that ignorant persons may have get the impression that they could in effect “buy” an indulgence. So Lutherans conflate a sin (selling indulgences) and a doctrine (Indulgences do not forgive sin). You ask: "if Tyndales translation was so bad as to warrant burning, why does the Roman Catholic Church remain silent on far worse blasphemy and heretical translations common among the mislead sheep today?" Heresy was a civil crime during Tyndale's age. Martin Luther spreaded the "Sola Scripture " practice so everyone's opinion about Scripture can be thought as Scripture. After Luther Protestants have no way to authoritatively decide who is right in any disagreement on doctrine and dogma. Is that how Jesus left us to decide matters of such great importance as doctrine and salvation - one person's opinion as to what the Bible says vs. another person's opinion of what the Bible says? I don't think so! And notice what Luther did. It's a perfect example of what I call the "Fallible in Theory, Infallible in Practice Doctrine". Lutherans admit that "ALL men can be fallible" when interpreting Scripture, which would include them, but then they go on to essentially imply that they, and others, can actually be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture because the Holy Spirit is guiding them. If you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then do you agree that you could, at least theoretically, misinterpret one or more Scripture verses...yes or no? If you are a flawed and biased, thus fallible, man, interpreting Scripture, then the fact that you are flawed, biased, and fallible means, by definition, that you could indeed interpret one or more Scripture verses incorrectly. You could, in fact, interpret any or all Scriptures (and Catholic doctrine ) incorrectly. Even Protestants that initially accepted Luther's faith and "Sola Scriptura"sdoctrines eventually rejected or repudiated some or many of these and formed their own faith ( little Protestant sects) according to their Sola Scriptura's doctrines . "It is quite possible that Martin Luther may have confused one theological opinion with the official teaching of the Church and initiated his program of reform on the basisof this misunderstanding" Oxford professor Alister McGrath. Martin Luther (an many after him) was simply captive to his own mind. So confident was Luther in his views that he once claimed, " I for my part am certain yhat the words I speak are not mine, but Christ's. Then my mouth also must be his whose words it speaks" Works 3: 174 . Martin Luther could not have stated more clearly the practical implication of Sola Scriptura when he wrote: "In these matters of faith. to be sure , each Christian is for himself pope and church" . There are million of different individuals that preach and teach different beliefs about Scriptura. Usually if one disagrees they just go and start their own "biblical" church. They learned to do that from Luther.
I wouldn't say that Luther holds to this three-fold division of the law per se, and this is one of the fundamental beliefs that makes Lutherans different from Reformed and Catholic; see "How a Christian Should Regard Moses" or simply refer to the discussion of the Ten Commandments in the Large Catechism. The Lutheran understanding is much more nuanced than is presented here and different from what Bp. Barron would put forward.
If love fulfills the law the problem arises on the standard Protestant approach to justification by keeping the law, or obeying works of the law, typically granted a negative. Nobody can keep the law, therefore a man is justified by faith alone. Barron's approach shows St Paul teaches love fulfills the law, negating the standard reading of Rom 3-4 and negating the faith alone conclusion. Faith alone grasps Christ presumes faith is an instrument in a courtroom scene when the bible does not teach faith is an instrument, nor Abraham was justified within a courtroom setting. The artificial imposition of the instrumentality of faith and courtroom setting negates the Luthern claim concerning faith alone grasping Christ's righteousness. St Paul also defined faith in terms of hope (Heb 11:1) making faith always interdependent upon hope. The Lutheran claim faith alone grasps Christ is impossible to reconcile with faith's dependence upon hope and vice versa. Where there is faith, there is hope, and hope, then faith. To assert faith alone fractures the interdependence of faith and hope. A similar argument occurs involving faith and love (1 Cor 13:3) having love enliven faith. Love grant's life to faith, interdependent with hope involved in justification. The three theological virtues of faith (Rom 4:1-5, 24-25), hope (Rom 4:19, 5:2-5) and love (Rom 5:5) are all present in Rom 3:21-5:9, contextualising Abraham's justification by faith in terms of hope and love. Love fulfills the law does not infer the law is love. Law is a natural and divine measure of love infused into the faithful (Rom 5:5). St Paul is not teaching faith apart from works of the law equates to faith apart from love, therefore faith alone justifies. Rather, St Paul is saying love is present in Rom 3:21-5:9 was also present in Abraham's life, presumed with his enlivened faith and hope. The Lutheran understanding of works and works of the law that do not justify are works of the natural law without grace and the Mosaic sacramental system (Rom 4:9-12), termed works of the law, that once produced grace, but are now supplanted by the new sacramental system of baptism (Rom 6:3-11). The standard Lutheran understanding of Rom 3:21-5:9 simply ignores or inadequately addresses alternative readings of the passage.
Jesus doesn't use contraceptives, so when His bride receives His seed, she will birth good works. Even the thief on the X rebuked the wicked thief and defended Jesus.
My own understanding of these passages is a tad closer to Bishop Barron's than yours, but at the same time, I would argue that Roman Catholicism has replaced one set of "works of the [ceremonial] law" with another of the same sort, and Luther was right to criticize that. We are not made right with God by indulgences, rosaries, and other such practices. I would certainly take Romans 3.19 differently than you do. Romans 1.18-32 expresses the stereotypical immorality of Gentiles, which is tied to their own ceremonial worship of idols. Then Paul points out in Chapter 2 that those Jews who would self-righteously snub their noses at all Gentiles (including the Christian converts) based on this stereotype are often guilty of immoral behavior themselves, while some Gentiles (namely the Christian converts) are actually conforming more faithfully to the moral principles of the Law despite not practicing its ceremonial elements. In the next chapter, Paul notes that Jews are superior only in the sense that they were the recipients of divine revelation and the covenant promises that came with the Law. However, since they have routinely failed to uphold the Law morally (as evidenced by all of the citations from the Psalms and Isaiah, which speak of Israelite immorality, not so much Gentile sin), the Law reveals that Jews have no room to talk about their moral superiority. Rather than acting as evidence in support of Jewish exceptionalism, it serves as a witness that they're just as bad as the Gentiles, no matter how much they practice the ceremonial side of the Law. If nominal Judaism (circumcision, et al.) is not enough to justify anyone, then the Gentile converts have no reason to become Jews. The two categories are not "righteous Jews" and "unrighteous Gentiles," but "unrighteous people who received the Law" and "unrighteous people who received natural revelation." But since divine righteousness holds even when human righteousness fails, God's righteousness has now been revealed in the faith of Jesus Christ, through which all who believe--Jew or Gentile--find justification by faith. A Gentile may therefore live out the "law of faith" (fidelity to the moral law) without taking on "works" tied directly to Jewish identity, assured that the atonement and forgiveness of sin offered by Christ is not merely for the Jews, but rather is the way that God has displayed his righteousness toward all humans.
P1: “No one is justified before God by the law” (Gal. 3:11) P2: ”The whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’“ (Gal. 5:14) C: No one is justified before God by loving one’s neighbour as oneself. Where’s the error?
@@StudyisKey. Come on. You know that the law is not "fulfilled" by itself, but by that toward which it points. To say that love fulfills--that is, fills to overflowing--the law is to say that love surpasses and transcends it. Or as our beloved St. Paul puts it, and I quote: "Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."
@@shotinthedark90 Dude, you can’t be serious. To say that love fulfills the law does _not_ mean that love “surpasses and transcends it.” It means that what the law requires is summed up by the command to love your neighbour as yourself. Your quote doesn’t substantiate what you said whatsoever, it only condemns you. Don’t be stiff-necked; stop trying to be justified by the law. As Paul says, if you are doing so, you have been alienated from Christ and have fallen away from grace. You’ve been warned. Your blood is on your own head. Love for the sake of obeying Christ and because it is good and profitable for people, not with the aim of trying to be justified before God.
Dr. Cooper, Saint Jerome didnt disagree with Saint Augustine about the ability to apply Paul's "not by works of the law" to good works. Saint Jerome does that very thing multiple times in his own writings. I am a Catholic scholar and I would love to discuss this with you sometime. :)
@@westernkselite524 I'm sure he has, but Dr. Thomas doesnt talk about Jerome and Augustine, so I don't know the relevance here. However I would say that Dr. Thomas unfortunately misrepresents the evidence from the first two centuries. There are Christians in that era that explicitly understand works of the law in terms of good works (Clement) including one of the authors he examines and says only understands it in terms of the outdated Mosaic Law. I forget off the top of my head which one but if you remind me later I'll come back with the citation..
@@taylorbarrett384 Dr. Thomas, actually speaks quite alot that the early reception was that works of the Law meant the ceremonial works, but that it could be applied to any work done outside of Grace. That the early reception was about a new covenant that was entered into by a faith that worketh through love, BUT that once entered into works can increase that justification, and that at the judgement these works will have some role in said salvation.
@@westernkselite524 Nowhere in Dr. Thomas' book does he say that the early interpreters believed Paul's "works of the law" could be applied to any works outside of grace.
I was born Catholic and I'm sure that biases me. But truly I think Luther was more right than wrong. But for me it comes down to German not being on the cross, the Roman language was. For me it's not about logic or my ability to work it out. I can agree with every Lutheran position on Justification, and even disagree with Catholic bishop's positions, and still feel a need to stay Catholic because there is one Church founded by Jesus and there is some sort of supremacy of the office of the bishop to guide me as a lay person. I appreciate your video. I think that for me as somebody who is not a bishop or priest or pastor or trained theologian those roots matter to me more than my thinking through it. As a 49 year old I've seen how my insight has changed on various topics over the years. That's not to judge any Lutherans or Protestants in general. My brothers son is going to college next year intending to become a Methodist minister. I can't wait to hear from him what he learns and accept all Christians as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Also, I don't know the history of it, but I've read the Small Catechism, and find it interesting that that catechism is built on the 10 Commandments and the Catholic Catechism the Nicene Creed. I know Lutherans accept the creed as well, but growing up we prayed the Apostles Creed as a family every day. Is this the same for Lutherans?
@@Shevockthe small Catechism is free online, just search for small Catechism CPH. Anyhow, our Catechisms have a primarily threefold structure, on the Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, and the Lord's prayer, as well as explanations of the sacraments and life as a Christian. Even before he wrote the Small Catechism, Luther refers to "the Catechism," and by that he means these three texts. It's a quick read though, it fits in a pamphlet.
Your gracious attitude is heart warning but sadly this is not the position of Rome through the centuries. Your pious devotion is applaudable but to me little nieve and misguided. The one church founded by Jesus is not the one Roman Catholic Church anymore in the 21st century. The one Catholic Church that Christ founded is all those who belong to Christ the question is how does the expression of that best fit the teaching of the Apostles he called to carry on his mesage. Only you can answer that question which I believe is found in Protestantism.
Faith alone but the individual must at least express his/her faith “Jesus is Lord”! Speak!!! Don’t hide your faith like a candle under a table! Honor God!
@@MrProsat You appear to have not understood the analogy of the tree and its fruit. A good healthy fruit tree produces good fruit but the fruit doesn't make the tree a good tree as the tree must previously have been a healthy one in order to produce good fruit. Likewise we must be righteous and justified through faith alone before we can do good works. So we're justified through faith alone but faith is never alone because it always loves and does good works.
@@Edward-ng8oo You don't seem to understand the context of that saying from Jesus. It was on how to identify people following God in their hearts - not just with their lips, as the Pharisees. You are trying to take the analogy too far. Your last statement is double talk. "We are justified by faith alone but faith is not alone...." Please. Nonsense. The word "faith" does NOT mean that it always is with love. You read James 2? The devil has FAITH. Does he have love? Clearly not. So one MUST have faith working in love. BOTH. Faith cannot be alone to be salvific.
@@MrProsat Paul's teaching is that justification is through faith alone as in Romans 4:3-5 (For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, ESV). When James referred to the Demons believing in the existence of God such belief isn't to be confused with Christian faith which is a heart felt trust in Christ as one's Saviour. Demons don't have this but on the contrary hate Christ. I agree that faith must be combined with love if it's to be saving faith, but it doesn't follow that faith and love both justify. Only faith justifies because our love is impure being tainted with sin and therefore our righteousness is imperfect. Only Christ’s perfect righteousness credited to us through faith alone justifies. Paul says that we're saved through God's grace through faith so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9) whereas if our love is a factor in our justification then we would have something to boast about because we could say that we’ve partly earned our salvation through our love. The gospel that Paul preached is that we’re justified and saved through faith alone in order that we can love God and others, not by loving God and others. James was wrong if he was meaning that one can truly believe in God without this resulting in loving Him. The Devils don't have Christian faith. They're completely devoid of it. And James was wrong to have stated that we’re justified through both faith and works. We're justified through faith alone but faith is never alone because it's always accompanied by love and good works. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.
@@MrProsat Paul's teaching is that justification is through faith alone as in Romans 4:3-5 (For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, ESV). When James referred to the Demons believing in the existence of God such belief isn't to be confused with Christian faith which is a heart felt trust in Christ as one's Saviour. Demons don't have this but on the contrary hate God. I agree that faith must be combined with love if it's to be saving faith, but it doesn't follow that faith and love both justify. Only faith justifies because our love is impure being tainted with sin and therefore our righteousness is imperfect. Only Christ’s perfect righteousness credited to us through faith alone justifies. Paul says that we're saved through God's grace through faith so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9) whereas if our love is a factor in our justification then we would have something to boast about because we could say that we’ve partly earned our salvation through our love. The gospel that Paul preached is that we’re justified and saved through faith alone in order that we can love God and others, not by loving God and others.
Regarding love being the fulfillment of the law, I do think you can have a hypothetical human (other than Christ) who PERFECTLY LOVES all things at all times, who is therefore sinless and not in need of salvation. But no actual human with a fallen nature is CAPABLE of perfect love, and will always fall short of it (and therefore short of fulfilling the law). I can do any number of "good" acts, but unless I am doing them out of perfect love, it's just an exercise in checking boxes. The only way to acquire a nature capable of perfect love is by God's grace. I have no power within me, as a fallen creature, to cultivate a nature capable of perfect love. That can only be given as a gift by the one who made me, and the good that results is the fruit of that gift, not the payment to earn it.
Bishop Barron also told Ben Shapiro (a jew) that "It is made clear in Vatican 2 that by following the law and your conscious towards God that there can be salvation for those outside of the Catholic, or even explicit Christian religion" he then went on to tell Ben (a Jew) that by Ben's adherence to the law ans his conscious towards God that Ben could be "Saved by indirectly through Christ" that Ben rejects Christ but that Christ's grace "could work indirectly" and that Ben could be saved. 😬💀
Would you agree then that Barron teaches that Vatican 2 supersedes what scripture plainly says, and essentially makes Christ Himself a liar? "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me..." Just curious....
28:10 "The impurities of your motives and actions at the judgement seat of God are covered over by the blood of Christ. God does not see them. What God does judge is those fruits of the spirit" This is interesting. As a Catholic, I believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was done for my past sins and my current sins and my future sins by his blood. But at the judgement, I do expect that those impure motives and actions will have to be purified and cleansed. This the doctrine of purgation in purgatory. And that process of cleansing will be somewhat painful. How could they not be? But the more pure a soul is when it comes before the judgement seat of God, the less purgation they will need to experience. That just makes sense, right? That does not mean that their past sins are in no need of the blood of Christ. But it does mean that some folks have done more of the leg work of purgation before their death than others. I believe that Lutherans would somewhat agree with some of these things and put them under the conceptual category of sanctification. But we Catholics do not separate sanctification from justification.... Anyway, I still need to finish the video. Just wanted to capture this thought. For any Lutherans on the thread, can you tell me where the bible clearly differentiates sanctification from justification? God bless, Daniel
I remember talking to some Calvinist guy who proposed that death itself was purgation enough. I suppose that might be acceptable with the current understanding of purgatory, which does not necessarily include an aspect of time or duration after death. It would also explain the thief who died on the cross. He still died. How do Lutherans explain the necessity of death after Christ died for our sins? In fact, I wonder how Catholics explain the necessity of death.... Will need to do some research into my own faith - I honestly don't know. :)
This is an interesting quote from the CCC "1011 In death, God calls man to himself. Therefore the Christian can experience a desire for death like St. Paul's: "My desire is to depart and be with Christ." He can transform his own death into an act of obedience and love towards the Father, after the example of Christ: My earthly desire has been crucified; . . . there is living water in me, water that murmurs and says within me: Come to the Father. I want to see God and, in order to see him, I must die. I am not dying; I am entering life." I see Christ's submission of death on the cross as an act of Faith. I also see Paul's statement that he desires to depart and be with Christ as an act of faith. Perhaps this is what Romans calls, the "Obedience of Faith". That is a content rich notion of faith. A faith that has so much love for God in it that it no longer desires the things of this world, but seeks, joyfully, to be united to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for eternity. Death, now no longer has any fear for such a person. Death no longer has power over such a one .... with a faith like this. That certainly reflects the kind of faith that Abraham had - he believed so strongly that God could do anything, that he did not even hesitate to offer up his own son as a sacrifice. Abraham believed in the resurrection of the dead! So I am curious what Lutherans think of these reflections on faith and death. Faith, in this sense, is not an easy thing to simply affirm. It requires ... strong love for God.... and strong detachment from sin. Certainly that is not the robust faith that believers immediately start of with. Their faith grows and develops over time ... along with their hope and their charity. But to segment the theological virtues off from one another just seems wrong. Often times the path to apostasy lies in a conjunction of a loss of hope that leads to a denial of the faith. And sometimes that loss of hope is grounded in being overly attached to the good things of this life. For example, the death of a loved one, the death of a spouse, or the death of a child. These are real trials and tests of faith. Someone can go through such trials worse off on the other side. Ultimately you are left with the choice of the good thief who affirms his sins and humbly asks to be included in eternal life - an act of virtuous faith, or the choice of the bad thief on the cross who mocks Jesus, who demand freedom from death on his own terms. Who wants eternal life without suffering the cross, without submitting himself to the obedience of faith. Anyway, I suppose it comes down to what our notion of the faith and whether an act of faith is simply a one time assent to some theological proposition, or a living virtue that must be practiced over a life time of pain and suffering, joys and temptations. Certainly this Faith as a Virtue conception seems to make more sense of the gospels. It is not something that would lead us to boast, as having come from our own powers, as being according to the flesh, as Paul categorizes such acts in Romans 4. Because in Catholic theology, the faith itself is a gift that comes from an encounter with the living Christ. We can choose to practice that faith, fan its flames, or neglect it, and let it die. Focus on other things of this world, rather than focus on the living Son of God, the source of eternal life. Such a faith does not lead us to boast in ourselves, but to boast in God, the source of every good gift. Anyway, hopefully interested in your thoughts. God bless
I was thinking that the primordial original sin was a sin against faith in God, hope in God, and love for God. That sin opened the door to death. Faith in Christ opens the door to eternal life. But it is a faith that must be practiced - that must have an impact on our life. Also it must be practiced throughout our lives. Not just as a one time thing. I believe Dr. Cooper said that we can fall into mortal sin and apostatize. But how can this happen unless a person's faith has first withered away and died? And how could the faith have died unless they also lost hope in Christ's promises and in the love of God and in their love for God? And we can see that faith is tested over time. Abraham was declared Justified at the beginning, but then again after his attempted sacrifice of his son. So his faith is periodically tested through his life. And our faith can grow and deepen as we age and as we continue to correspond with the Word of God and to eat the Mana from heaven. And along with our Faith, our hope and our love must also grow. Love fulfills the law as Paul says. Aquinas says that love is the form of all virtues. But the Love of God must be primary. Otherwise our loves are disordered. The other kinds of love must be purified by Agape. C.S. Lewis puts this so beautifully in his Four Loves. I think Augustine meant something similar when he said "Love God, and do whatever you please." So going back to my original questions, it seems to me that justification is an ongoing thing. It may initially begin as a small kernel of faith, but that faith, if properly nurtured, can grow and develop into from a mustard seed into the mustard tree. And so justification grows at the same time as sanctification grows or at least one's justification becomes more or less secure as one develops. Having said that, the seed that is first planted is just as much worthy of heaven, by the blood of Christ, as the mustard tree it can eventually become.
So I'm just trying to apply some of Dr. Cooper's thinking to my thoughts above. Especially his statement that Romans 13:10 shows that love , which is the fulfillment of the law, is itself included as a work of the law. My initial thoughts are that no Catholic who knows their faith believes that they are earning their salvation apart from Christ's blood such that any of their works can allow them to boast. The sacrament of baptism, which we call the sacrament of faith, is itself unearned. So it is itself completely sola fide. We baptize Children, and I believe Lutherans do as well. That shows that it is completely gratuitous. It does not depend on the intellectual merits of the recipient. Then we do confirmation. And that involves the children, who have now reached the age of reason, to make the faith their own. Unfortunately, many do not, and whatever faith they had, just withers and fades away. They no longer practice their faith. They no longer attend church. They live completely worldly lives and the love of God and the love for God is not in them. In effect, they are apostate. But, there are those who do practice their faith. They attend mass on a weekly basis. The seed of their faith grows into a sprout and then into a sapling, and then into a small tree, and so on. They are told to avoid mortal sins. The Catholic church does not see this in such a way that avoiding mortal sins equals earning their way into salvation. It sees the ten commandments as a way to keep the life of faith hope and charity alive in their hearts. Mortal sins means killing the life of God in their hearts. It means willful disobedience. And if unrepented of, leads to separation from Christ and his church. They have killed their faith, so to speak. All sins against faith in some way include some form of idolatry, which is also a sin against the love of God or a distrust of God, which is a sin against faith, or a lack of hope in God in the form of despair. Whether it is the inordinate love for wealth, which leads to theft or even just workaholicism, or sex which leads to adultery or r8pe or addiction to p8rn, of for human praise which leads to envy and jealousy, and so on. All that to say that when one of the theological virtues fails, then the others tend to fail as well. Venial sins involves minor transgressions that are sins against charity. Just look at the fruits of the spirit in Galatians 5 to see where we can fail in this regard. If it seems like we are producing the fruits of the flesh instead, then we still have a lot of sanctification needed. We still need to be purified more. Again, growing in sanctity does not mean earning your way into heaven. It means growing in virtues that have their root in Christ and flow organically from the theological virtues. Trying to bring my thoughts back to Dr. Cooper's comments ... I think an important qualifier in Romans 4 is Paul's initial remark about what does the flesh teach us in Romans 1. He often makes the distinction between those who are in the flesh, who have a Pelagian mindset and those who are in the spirit. Between those who boast of their works and those who do not because they live by faith. Those who think they are justified by their works, and those who believe they are justified by Christ. Now Catholics believe they are justified by Christ alone. But that justification is a dynamic power that grants the ungoing forgiveness of sins from the moment of baptism up until death. It is the entrance into a new life that exists in relation to God conditioned by the three theological virtues. But that life of faith must be maintained. God requires our cooperation to keep it alive. If we do not practice our faith, it withers and dies. And sometimes our faith is severely tested, sometimes to the point of martyrdom. To have that level of heroic faith, the believer must love God to the point that their desires have been to a great extent, purified from worldly desires. If the person is too much in love with the world, they will apostatize. This is what happened in the early church during the time of Cyprian. The question that church asked itself is whether to grand absolution to those who had lapsed under threat of torture and death. Eventually the church decided that such were to be granted absolution and reentry into the church community. But some, perhaps, were not penitent and they returned to paganism. All this to demonstrate that sanctification and justification appear to go hand in hand. An unsanctified faith is an empty faith. A faith that will bend and break at the first storm. It is a faith that can and will be easily lost. True faith can and will be tested. It must be an obedient faith. And, barring that, it must be a repentant faith.
Your idea of the perspicuity of Scripture seems to hold that Logical investigation and deduction is the path to the clear meaning of Scripture. To whom? To a first century Jew, to a 16th century Roman Catholic? To a 16th century Protestant Hebrew scholar? The answer is that for all of them this ought to be the case. The problem is the plain meaning of Scripture is not about rational deduction only but also about the context and culture of 1st-century Judaism as well as the communities to which the NT inspired-writers wrote. God made the the plain meaning of Scriptural contextual to a people who may or may not have made the distinctions you have. Which means development of doctrine and tradition. So which is it? Lutheran or Catholic? 30:06
We are not justified by the law in any respect moral law or ceremonial....yes of course we are called do do good works and strive towards life of Holiness more and more in the life long sanctification proccess but won't be justified by it (the law of any kind ceremonial or moral) though as who among us has fulfilled the law completely and perfectly...who among us loves are neighbor as ourself perfectly all the time or even loves God with their whole heart, mind, body etc.
A doctrine that was never part of the historical faith invented by a hysterical,monk who claimed personal Devine revelation that so many passages in the Bible refute....is frankly laughable. May God enlighten your mind, Amen 🙏
James 2:24. I certainly agree with Lutheran theology more than catholic but Faith alone contradicts scripture. Grace alone is absolutely correct. What we believe is intrinsically tied to what we do and vise versa. Because of this, "faith alone" is incorrect. In spirit it is correct as our beliefs dictate our actions and so just and right action will follow Faith (and so if no action follows the faith is false) but scripture explicitly says we are not justified by faith alone
I think a lot of this comes down to a difference in how Catholics and Protestants define “justification.” Protestants are hyper-legalistic about distinguishing faith from the things that faith causes, whereas Catholics and Orthodox would see this distinction as a trivial technicality. That’s why Catholics simply don’t talk much about justification; they just tell you to pray, repent, and carry your cross.
@@Nonz.M Incorrect, that’s a straw man. We ask the Saints for their intercession for the same reason we ask others to pray for us, because they are part of the Body of Christ (the Church). Prayers to Mary date back to the ante-Nicene period. So if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the early Church.
@@grantc9012 Instead of parroting what you've been told to believe. I encourage you to actually analyze what you've been taught. Take a look at this popular Marian prayer, Salve Regina: "Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary." There are numerous Roman Catholic prayers like this to Mary and other saints. It is clear you do not merely ask the saints to pray for you in the same way you'd ask other Christians on Earth to pray for you. You pray directly to saints, addressing them as if they are the ones who confer to you grace, mercy, and grant your petition.
Please consider correctly pronouncing Augustine "áwww-Gus-teen" instead of "uhhh... gustin'." If it is hard to remember, imagine we have a friend, GUS, who just married a 19 yr old lady (TEEN), & they look so cute together (AWWW! 😊).
The true differences is not justification by faith alone. It is what is meant by faith alone. For the Catholic we are justified by faith formed by love alone. A faith empowered by Love( the divine nature) justifies. This is fides caritate formata. This faith is a living faith and not a dead faith. Catholics distinguish between living faith ( fides formata) and dead faith ( fides informis). If a protestant will say that we are justtified by a living faith empowered by the love of Christ , then the argument would be over. The issue is that Luther rejected this teaching of justification early on. He rejected faith formed by love. He did not see faith as a living thing but as an inanimate instrument to collect the merits of Christ like a bucket. This is the difference that no one seems to talk about. To reject the catholic understanding of justification you must deny that wr are justified by a living faith empowered by love alone. You must say that love is not the form of faith and faith is not alive. Aquinas used the term faith alone 28 times. He meant faith formed by love and luther knew this and rejected this.
I agree with Luther that faith isn't formed by love but is a living trust in Christ. To affirm that faith is only valid when it’s formed by love amounts to saying that love is the essence of faith and that a person is justified through love and good works. This is the opposite of Paul's doctrine who taught that justification is through faith without works (Romans 4:1-8). If love and good works justify then it follows that keeping the moral law justifies whereas Paul excludes the law from justification. I agree with what Luther says in the following passage: This is the true, Christian way to teach: We are justified through faith in Christ, not through the works of the Law. Here you should not allow the godless comment of the sophists to disturb you who say that faith justifies you only after it is joined by love and good works. With this pernicious comment they have obscured and perverted this and similar sentences in St. Paul's letters in which he most plainly ascribes justification to faith. When a man hears that he must indeed believe in Christ, but that faith does nonetheless not justify if, in addition, it is not formed by love, then he promptly falls from faith; and he thinks: If faith does not justify without love, then faith is idle and useless, and love alone justifies. For if faith is not formed and graced by love, it is nothing. Moreover, in order to prove this pernicious and pestilential comment of theirs, the adversaries adduce the passage from 1 Corinthians 13: If I have not charity, I am nothing (v. 2). This passage they consider their iron wall. But they are senseless folk. Therefore they understand and see nothing that Paul teaches. And they have not only done violence to the words of Paul by this false interpretation but have also denied Christ and destroyed all His benefits. We should, therefore, avoid (this comment) as an infernal poison and conclude with Paul: By faith alone we are justified, not by a faith that has been formed by love (formata charitate). We must, therefore, not ascribe the power of justifying to this gracing form (formae gratificanti) but to a faith which apprehends and possesses Christ Himself in the heart as Savior. This faith, without and before love, justifies. (What Luther Says 1478)
@Edward-ng8oo this is an honest view of what luther believed and why he was wrong. God is love. Faith that does not join us to God is useless. Faith that is empowered and united to God (Love) saves and saves alone. Luther is a great example of how Catholics believe in salvation through a living relationship with Christ and how many protestants believe in salvation through a court room vedrict. " blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy' ~Jesus. Sounds like faith formed by love to me
@@nickynolfi833 There's a number of misunderstandings in your reply. You say that God is love and that faith that doesn't join us to God is useless. However faith on its own does join us to God because when we believe in Christ we receive the Holy Spirit and we're reconciled to the Father through Christ’s atonement. We’re then imbued with love by the Holy Spirit and we endeavour to live righteously and do good to everyone. Just because justification happens through faith alone doesn't mean that Christians don't subsequently live a life transformed by love. Christians are merciful because they've been justified through faith alone and now they live a life of love and of willing obedience to God's commandments. The Catholic doctrine of justification by faith formed by love sounds impressive until one examines it and realises that it's just a fancy way of teaching justification through works. If what we do by way of love justifies us then salvation isn't through God's mercy alone but happens also because we've earned it through our own behaviour and works. That contradicts Paul's teaching that works don't justify (Romans 4:1-8).
@Edward-ng8oo you misunderstand rome. God loves us first, he calls us by grace while we are sinners. God's love for us precedes grace, grace precedes faith, faith precedes trust( hope) , and Hope precedes the Virtue of Love being poured into our hearts. Doctor Cooper here is arguing against a justification by love that someone does as still an enemy of God. This order is wrong . When God justifies man, he enters man. We are justified by the virtue of Love and not by the works of love. Works or love and virtue supplement our faith as 2nd Peter says. The Catholic says we are justified by uniting faith in Christ and luther says that a justified man will be united with Christ. In all honesty if someone is united with Christ when they die then they will be saved. If we make this union in the righteous love of Christ unnecessary for salvation then we end up with antinomianism. One reading of the Gospels will show that Christ, as well as Peter, James , John,and Paul taught salvation through a living faith united in the Love of Christ. I don't know why anyone would teach against this. Who would want to go to heaven if they didn't love God? As John says in 1st John 4 " perfect love casts out all fear. I think if a protestant truly has this love they will be saved even if they get the terminology wrong. Easy believism on the otherhand that lives in lawlessness doesn't save.
@@nickynolfi833 You say God loves us first and that he calls us by His grace while we are sinners to which I agree. You also say that grace precedes faith, and faith precedes trust which you define as hope, whereas faith is trust not hope. So faith precedes hope, and we have hope because the love of God has been poured into our hearts. However you say that the virtue of love is what justifies us, but nowhere in Scripture is this taught. Justification is a person being counted righteous by God because he has obtained forgiveness of his sins through what Christ has done for him, and this can only be received through faith alone. Simply having the virtue of love in his soul can't justify him. I agree that if a person is united with Christ when he dies he’ll be saved but the only way he can be united with Christ is if he's been accepted by the Father as his child through faith in His Son. Salvation is through faith alone but faith is never alone because it always results in loving others because of the love which God has shed into our hearts. Unfortunately Catholics believe a false gospel since they reject that we're justified through faith alone, and therefore they're not actually united with Christ. Romans 5:1-5 ESV - Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
@@nc9488 an apple tree by definition has the quality of producing apples. It’s the same argument for what is a woman. A woman by definition has the quality of birthing children. Maybe that doesn’t happen. Maybe something distorts or gets in the way. But to say the fruit isn’t an integral part of the substance is to deny the wholeness of the substance. Such as woman, apple tree, god, etc
@@tookie36 I completely agree with you, and you prove my point. Our works ARE important, but they are not the sole defining factor of our salvation. Something gets in the way (sin) and we do not always produce the fruit of good works we should bear. But thanks be to God, we are not judged SOLELY on our works, but on the faith God gives us.
@@nc9488as cooper tries to suggest “the fruit are evidence”. That’s the error. They are not evidence they are inherent in the nature of the tree. Without works their is no salvation. Without fruit there is no tree. It’s a language game to suggest an apple tree doesn’t need apples. Without apples it is not an apple tree
@@tookie36 good works are evidence of our faith, in the same way apples are evidence the tree is healthy and living. Again, an apple tree that is sick and not producing fruit does not cease to be an apple tree. It was an apple tree from the moment God created it. Does it need intervention to save it from the axe? Yes, and that invention comes from outside of itself.
I did a double and triple take. This is exactly what got my Catholic youth group talking about justification and gave me, as the resident Lutheran, the opportunity to share sola Fide and my assurance of salvation. Somehow every one of your videos recently have coincided exactly with what I have been discussing with my friends, and they have proven an invaluable resource in our conversations. Thank you, and God bless you and your work Dr. Cooper!
Idk man, sola fide doesn’t seem right, how would penance and indulgence work if sola fide is true? Isn’t the council of Trent against the Lutheran idea of sola fide?
@@thelonelysponge5029 that's the problem with Rome. Because works are tied to salvation, they are needed. Paul condemns this in Galatians 2 : 15-21. You do works because you are saved NOT because they save you. Faith = works + salvation. Secondly, Indulgences have to do with (as i understand them) relief from purgatory. Problem is purgatory doesn't exist in scripture and it also points a borderline blasphemous question: If I spend time in purgatory for the penalty of sin, is Christ good enough? He didn't truely save me from sin if I'm still being punished by it after death despite me putting my faith in him.
Faith itself is a work. Our salvation comes from the crucifixion which we did nothing for. Whether we have faith or not Jesus died for the salvation of man.
@@alexdunholse6529 You’re getting it all wrong dude, salvation isn’t some math equation. Works can’t save you, nor does the Catholic Church say salvation is by faith + works, that’s ridiculous, and we will never stoop so low to make salvation into a silly slogan.
To make it easier for you, from my understanding, we will be judged based off if we love God and love our neighbor enough. If you love your neighbor, you will do good works for them.
@@thelonelysponge5029 Enough? Unless you love God with all of your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind it’s not going to be enough. And unless you love your neighbor as yourself it won’t be enough.
Unfortunately you don’t do either one of those. You may love God, and your neighbor, but you don’t to the commanded standard. You’re going to need a righteousness outside of yourself.
The Bishop is very popular with many Roman apologists, but he gets quite a bit wrong regarding Lutheranism and Protestantism in general. I find him generally pleasant, but nothing he says provides a good argument for Roman theology being the superior alternative to Lutheran theology.
He told a hew that he could go to heaven "indirectly by Christ" for following the law and his conscious 💀😬
@@WaterMelon-Cat Puts a different spin on "No one comes to the Father except through me" ...
@@pete3397 no one comes through the Father but by me indirectly through your conscious 😂
@@WaterMelon-Cat As Jesus says, "By the Law written on your hearts shall ye be saved and not by my death and resurrection."
The fact that you think it's a genuine contest between something called "Roman theology" versus something called "Lutheran theology" says it all. There is no competition, there is ONLY Catholic theology. Any kind of protestant theology is heretical nonsense.
Thank you for the excellent response. You covered all the reasons that I am no longer Roman Catholic.
I would like to see this pastor argue with jordan peterson about catholicity 🤣
His presentation would turn almost anyone away from the RCC
@@STG-88 Jordan Peterson is not a qualified theologian. He is very intelligent but intelligence does not bring good biblical discussion, but a heart filled with love for God does.
@@matthewodonnell6495
I know, but he often invites priests or pastors to discussions about religion
@@STG-88 Oh I see
Reformed brother here. Nice job defending Sola fide. I appreciate the work brother.
Reformed brothers teach " You’re going to need a righteousness outside of yourself" . That is the Protestant heresy. The biblical truth is you need a righteousness inside of yourself. Luther (and the rest of Protestants) ignored that the perfect love of God ( charity, Rom. 5:5) and the perfect works of God (Eph. 2:10) avail for justification before God because they are not deficient in righteousness. They come from Christ's perfect righteousness. Abraham's works are not only evidence of salvation, as Protestants believe, the works of Abraham perfect our faith ( James 2:22) . Protestants will stay in error as long as they keep conflatinfg Luther's heretical faith and Abraham's obedient justifying faith.
@@Alfredo8059 Romans 3:10-12, 21-23 NASB1995
[10] as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one; [11] There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; [12] All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.”
[21] But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, [22] even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Mic drop
Very good. I quite like Bishop Barron, he has a lot of good things to say. Let's pray that he comes to fully place his trust in Jesus.
Just to clarify, you don't think he fully places his trust in Jesus? I'm not sure how a doctrinal dispute between two Christian traditions implies either doesn't fully trust Jesus.
@@Shevocki think it would be because the doctrinal dispute is whether we should *completely* trust Jesus for our salvation.
@@Shevock Catholic theology implies Jesus sacrifice wasn't enough. There is even a Catholic doctorine, perhaps you know, called sin of presumption that keeps people from fully trusting and knowing they are saved by placing full trust in Jesus.
@@4jgarnerNo one completely trusts Jesus for salvation. It isn't the perfection of our faith that counts, but the perfection of his redemptive work.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 I agree in a practical sense. But we recognize that as a shortcoming and we trust in Him to be sufficient to overcome that. Dictionary one recognizes Jesus as sufficient and trusts completely in Him in that way.
Erick Ybarra has written a very good book on this subject: "The Just Shall Live By Faith: Resolving the Catholic-Protestant Debate on Justification from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans".
Erick Ybarra is a revert to the Catholic faith from Protestantism and has spent over a decade studying the doctrinal nature of the divisions that exist within Christendom, particularly between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, as well as Protestantism..
Does he admit that concupiscence is sin, as Romans chapter 7 teaches?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 , Romans chapter 7 does not say that concupiscence is sin .Some one's private fallible interpretation of Romans chapter 7 says concupicence is sin. Most Christians historically have understood that while it is highly likely to cause sin, concupiscence is not sin itself. Rather, it is the tinder for sin which "cannot harm those who do not consent. The inclination toward sin and evil is called "concupiscence" . This is why St. James said once the desire is conceived it will give birth to sin." Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure"Phil 12:12-13. It seems Protestants believe the power of our inclination to sin is greater than God's power for sanctification of our will.
Im always a little mind blown at how Catholics think we Lutherans are less likely to obtain salvation, despite confessing the ecumenical creeds, being baptized in the name of the Triune God, and having faith in the atonement and resurrection of Christ, than apparently a “good” Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. If they can be saved by being good, then why should we be worried if we are doing the good works anyway, and also have faith in the correct God?
The danger is with the Lutheran and protestant concept of imputed righteousness, where you think Christ’s righteousness will save you no matter what you do. Doing evil works that go against the 10 Commandments are what Christ and Paul clearly say is damnable. Imputed righteousness puts people in danger of thinking they can do whatever they want and still be saved.
@@billmartin3561 so then is a “good” Buddhist more likely to be saved than I am, since he doesn’t believe in imputed righteousness?
@@billmartin3561Yeah I agree it’s dangerous which is why in Hebrews and in other places are plenty of warnings. It’s nearly unanimously agreed by all Protestant churches (conservative ones that believe in scripture) that if you are defiantly living in unrepentant sin you are in severe danger of damnation.
@@AmillennialMillenial maybe because a Buddhist, Hindus, etc. are invincibly ignorant of the Christ's true gospel and church.
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation"
@@joekey8464 I don’t think so….
”Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Acts 4:12 NKJV
”How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?“
Romans 10:14 NKJV
Scripture says that only Christ can one be saved, and that it must be actually in Him, not “invisibly”. The CCC is a total change from previous RC teaching on salvation outside the church.
Further, I think faith alone justifies, but I think there are saved Roman Catholics if they believe Christ died and paid for sins, they just have an erroneous understanding. So if I believe I am justified by faith alone, but strive for good works so as to not damage my faith and do what I am commanded since I am regenerate and now able to begin to fulfill commands, how am I further from truth than a so-called invincibly ignorant non Christian?
“Now Adam was created righteous and upright and without sin by God so that he had no need of being justified and made upright through his tilling and keeping the garden; but, that he might not be idle, the Lord gave him a task to do, to cultivate and protect the garden. This task would truly have been the freest of works, done only to please God and not to obtain righteousness, which Adam already had in full measure and which would have been the birthright of us all.” - Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty
Precisely. We do good works because we righteous, by the grace of Christ, not in order to righteousness. This is what Lutherans call the third use of the Law - a guide to what "love for God" and "Love for neighbor" mean in one's path through life.
@nelsonang So you believe Martin Luther? Why? He is not the bible and he is not an apostle.
@@domingomelchor4902 huh? just because i quoted Martin Luther i believe in him instead of the Bible? you try very hard to hate, don’t you?
Servitude builds virtue..character flaws w/ Baggage.prove it by hiding in confessions.and the Grace of the Catholic Church..2024 ever since...?
@@domingomelchor4902ok… How about James, the Roman church loves to quote James 2:17 “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”
You see though Lutherans actually finished reading the Bible and know that James 2:17 is followed by James 2:18 “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
So works are the fruit of faith and keep that saving faith alive.
Also Luther’s writings cite the Bible about twice a sentence except where he cites the early saints and even early popes which agree with Luther because Luther agrees with the Bible.
I mean come on! The Roman church was selling certificates of salvation in order to build a cathedral!
No where in the Bible does it say you can buy salvation, it says the price was paid already by Jesus Christ that whoever believes in him will not die but have eternal life.
Barron dropped the ball when he was interviewed by Ben Shapiro. Catholicism is WAY to wishy washy when it comes to the gospel.
He preached a whole false gospel to Ben. In his words, "...so if you are following your conscience sincerely, or in your case you're following the commandments of the law sincerely, yeah you can be saved."
Romanism is way too wishy washy on all 5 solas.
17:22 Yes. There must be a balance between justification and sanctification in regard to assurance. 1John 5:13-18
The Lord’s supper is not a eucharist. It is an outward sign of an inward grace.
@@matthewsouthwell3500 That wasn't his own personal opinion. That is what Rome teaches (and therefore what he must believe).
Excellent work, Dr. Cooper. Thanks!
What a wonderful response and very clear. Any chance that your previous discussions can also be uploaded on youtube? Some of them are but would like to listen to the rest…
Excellent argumentation. The Lutheran position is simply most consistent with scripture.
@patriceagulu8315 You clearly missed the entire discussion. The question isn't how many times you see the words "good works" vs "faith" (faith appears much more by the way, do a search yourself). The question is, knowing that scripture talks about faith and good works as relevant to salvation, what role does each one play and which is the one that actually justifies.
@patriceagulu8315 no he wasn't. Good works cant save you. Only the work of Christ Jesus can. That's His promise through Faith.
All throughout scripture it says this.
It's important because it keeps the believer from thinking they're meriting when they do good. It's the only way you free to love. You've already been saved, now the Spirit is changing your heart and your impulses. We begin to desire His will.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
We are made for Good works but they are only possible through Faith.
@patriceagulu8315 the law shows us our sin and how we cannot live up to it. It's shows us our need for Christ.
Not one of us has kept the commandments
@patriceagulu8315 love is the fulfillment of the law. God commands us to love our God with all our heart soul mind and strength. Not one of us has lived up to that.
@@bigniftydudeyour interpreting the great commandment via the lutheran law/gospel hermeneutic which is not self-evident. It isn't a command of maximal permanent exertion/intensity or demanding an impossibility. Believers can satisfactorily keep the commandments and fulfill the law through charity and infused righteousness of Christ who works through them, they are not constantly damnably sinning in every good work.
When does faith mean just belief, and when does it mean faithfulness? I understand that the Greek word can mean either depending on the context ...or have I been misinformed?
Faith expressing itself in love 😍
Im a reformed baptist but I appreciate the Lutherans devotion to Sola Fide. I have a question for you Lutherans. From my understanding the Heidelberg catechism from the reformed confessions was the fruit of trying to find unity and fellowship with the Lutherans. I know that ended up not happening but I'm curious if Lutherans use the Heidelberg at all or how they feel about it.
Lutheran's almost always and exclusively use the Book of Concord, which does not include the Heidelberg catechism.
@@alephnaught8343I don’t know much about Lutherans. Are you Lutheran? Is the book of concord authoritative?
@@IG88AAA yes I am lutheran. The Book of Concord is authoritative in confessional church bodies. It is not equal to the Bible but it is thought of as an accurate expression of the doctrine of the Bible.
@@alephnaught8343 What kind of authority does it have? If a Lutheran disagrees with one of its teachings based on his own reading of scripture, is he expected to submit to the book of concord?
@@IG88AAA to be a lutheran yes, the authority of the book of concord comes from believing it is entirely accurate in expressing the doctrine discussed from the Scriptures. If someone wants to be a lutheran but disagrees with the book of concord they cannot be clergy but, unless it is something major, they should be able to be a member of a lutheran church. If not I guess they can become anglican or catholic or protestant?
Regarding Matthew 25: I've found Jeffrey Gibbs' Concordia Commentary very helpful. He argues that Matthew is reaching back to something he already covered in his Gospel, namely Matthew 10, specifically vs. 40-42, in which Jesus calls the Apostles "these little ones." In that light, Matthew 25 becomes about how we responded to those who brought us the message about Jesus, and is very much in line with justification by faith alone. Interested to hear your thoughts there.
"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." Did Luther received what the Apostles taught? Paul taught (Abraham's obedient) faith alone justifies. Paul never ever taught Luther's faith alone justifies. The crux of the difference between the Protestant and Catholic view of justification is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification : is the imputation of Christ's righteousness EXTRA.nos (Luther's justification) or the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer ( Catholic Church's justification) . Abraham received the love of God in his heart before his faith could be accounted as righteousness ( Catholic justification). Luther did not appeal to one Church Father as having believed the viewpoint that he held. Luther realized none of them taught his "sola fide" ( as he mis-understood justifying faith). According to Luther Augustine erred, all the fathers erred. His SOLA (fallible interpretation of ) SCRIPTURE was THE authority. Luther conflated his own word and the Word of God. Did Luther received the Apostles' teaching or did Luther received his own misinterpretation alone?
Thank you, Dr. Cooper, This Sola (Fida) is a tough one to convey to people who believe that the fruit (good works) of our true salvific faith is not filthy rags but our second payment along with faith to eternal life. We have but one hand (faith) to grasp salvation with, and with that hand we have done good works.
Agree my friend. It just mind blowing to me how so many non-sola fide believers seems to think that just because we believe in sola fide it means we don't need works.
Accepting Christ is not only about accepting the cleansing of our sins and doing whatever we want. But it also meant that now we have to carry our cross wherever we go.
Yes accepting Christ in our life means freedom, yes we are now justified before God. But it's freedom from sin not to sin. We are no longer slaves to our sins but slave to righteousness, we are now a member of a royal priesthood, and one ofthe children of our Father in Heaven. Accepting Christ not only justify us, but also gave us new identity in Him. That's the complete Faith, thats the saving faith. Works that comes because we are already redeemed, works that we do out of love for our Lord, to show gratitude for His complete Work at the cross for us, works that we give for the people around us, not to score salvational points, but truly, sincerely, from the depth of our heart. The word love here is agape, which mean selfless, unconditional love. This unconditional also meant not expecting anything in return, including Salvational points.
@@Gronky-sv5yp But if a person does nothing but believe, then the Protestant assumes that person is saved. James disagrees.
@@N1IA-4 james is about doing what you believe. Not doing something to add to your believe. He was referencing an intellectual side of Faith, which is oral declaration, acknowledgement of Jesus's status, which demons can also say. But they can never be saved because it just intellectual assent. They Will never serve Him, Will never bow to Him, and Will never commits to Him. We protestants, do not believe this. To us Grace is the reason we are saved, we received it by Faith. But this Grace comes in two forms, the redemption from sin and a brand new identity. Free from sins to be our Father's Children. Free from sin, but live carrying our Cross. Not only we intellectually agree that Jesus Is the Savior, but also comit ourselves to Him. This free Grace, do whatever movement, is the lies perpetuated by the younger generations, as seen right now on so many free Grace ministries and progrresive churches, that use our Lord and Savior perfect work as an excuse for their hedonistic and sinful lifestyle. They only want the forgiveness part of the Grace but fails to see the cross they have to bear, the new identity they have believe proudly everyday. They fail to see that their old self already dead.
Pay attention to Matthew 22:37
Matthew 22:37-40 NKJV
[37] Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ [40] On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
The word love here is Agape. Which means Selfless, unconditional love, expecting nothing in return, From Father and from others. How can you achieve this type of love? By Grace, by Mercy of our Lord.
Luke 7:41-42, 47 NKJV
[41] “There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. [42] And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?”
[47] Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”
At the cross, is The real forgiveness of sins, redemption of our status of slavery to sins. I might done works to serve Him, to serve my Father. But to me my love for Father, is nothing compared to His love for me. Because of that there's no reason for me to said anything about my works. But there's every reason to declare His love for me. Because that love is the one that gave me strength in the first place to Serve Him.
@@N1IA-4
Yes, if that Faith is a saving one. Which means, accepting and committing. Accepting forgiveness, redemption, and new Identity in Him, but also Committing one self to it. You're not Christian for a day, your Christian for a lifetime. If you believe that you are now freed from your sins, why would you still living in your sins? That is serving two masters. James is about works that kept our Faith alive, works that is aligned with our beliefs. It's about doing what we believe. The same way Abraham not afraid to sacrifice his son. Because of his Faith. Because he believe in our Fathers promises.
Hebrews 11:17-19 NKJV
[17] By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, [18] of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” [19] concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.
As a matter of fact, that is the whole point of Hebrew 11. Works that comes from Faith. You do what you believe.
Look, to make it simple:
If Faith as small as mustard seed can move the mountain, that Faith for sure can also move your mind, move your body and move your spirits. ♥️
The fruit of our faith is not "filthy rags" but precious to God... No, they do not justify, but our good works come from the new man, not the old man. They do please God. Saying they are smelly to God is going backward to the old man. New men walk in faith by the Spirit and our works are pleasing to God, but do not justify us from sin. Only faith justifies.
Jordan, you may have rushed a response out too quickly. This would be a better topic to explore more in depth with Bishop Barron as he is not attempting a broad refutation of the sola in this
short excerpt, merely one aspect that shows its weakness. As a result your missing the focus
Dr. Cooper, nice job as always. One small, none-important suggestion for the refinement of your program: you should move your phone away from your mic as it went off (buzzed) at least a dozen times during this episode and was mildly distracting. Thank you for your efforts.
Also I would say Romans 7 Paul is talking about moral law not just ceremonial.
I know you address it in another video, but it’d be awesome to have a part 2 where you go through the rest of his sermon and especially tackle his comment on James. Where he says there’s no statement of faith alone except where James says “Not by faith alone”.
Is there any chance you would be willing to address the “dare we hope” view that he espouses in his interview with Ben Shapiro? In other videos he has noted that he believes the ancient philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) are saved and that we can have a reasonable hope that hell is empty. I don’t wish to mischaracterize his opinions as he claims a number of nuances, but it seemed to me very much similar to the semi-pelagian views that Chemnitz argues Andrada left without a negative verdict at Trent in Exam 1. He uses the phrase “an Atheist of goodwill can be saved” and cites the Lumen Gencium, so while I sincerely hope this does not become mainstream Roman Doctrine, I feel like the church is moving closer and closer to it.
He believes that about the pagan philosophers because the Church has adopted so much from them especially regarding the soul and the afterlife. ECT, and the immortal soul. Purgatory is lifted directly from Plato. Veneration of icons was brought into the church by pagan converts as well.
How somebody can hold to the RC view of justification/salvation and hold out hope for Plato and nice atheists while simultaneously condemning Protestants is crazy.
@@1920sexactly
@@1920sI’m studying Plato right now at uni. So my question to you is the soul immortal? And is there an afterlife? Because what Socrates and Plato believed are very different to what the early Church fathers believed.
@@1920sThis is a good point.
Great argument
Why do you assume that being expected to behave a certain way equals "earning" salvation? I hear this a lot but I don't understand why that connection is assumed.
Great video
I'm sorry, but can you explain what you mean by, "faith does not find it's completion in love." especially in light of James 2:22
"You see that faith was active along with his works [of love], and faith was completed by his works [of love]."
Thanks.
Luther relegated the book of James to an appendix in his translation of the Bible because of this discrepancy between Paul and James on justification. James argued that good works justify in combination with faith whereas Paul denies this (Romans 4:1-8). I agree with Luther that Paul teaches justification through faith alone (i.e. that we’re counted righteous in God's sight only by Christ’s righteousness being credited to us through faith alone). I know that James has been interpreted to mean that he was referring to being justified or vindicated before men by works and not before God but I’m not convinced by that. I think that James is simply wrong and that the book was mistakenly included in the canon of Scripture and that it should be excluded. Of course I’m not denying that faith without love and good works is dead. Unless one's faith leads one to love others and do them good then one's faith isn't true Christian faith, because when one has true faith one also has the Holy Spirit who leads one to love others and do them good.
@@Edward-ng8oo , Luther relegated the book of James because he did not understand Paul: Faith alone , before or apart receiving charity (supernatural love), is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2): "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Luther made up his own faith, Luther disagreed the Early Church Fathers: " God justifies the impious man not only by remitting the evil deeds which that man does, but also by GRANTING LOVE, so that the man may turn away fromevil and may do good through the Holy Spirit" (Augustine, Against Julian 2:165). Paul refers to justification before receiving love from God and faith; James refers to on-going justification AFTER receiving the love of God and faith. Scripture alone is okay, Why to reject some parts of the Bible beBible? If our theology does not like some parts of Scripture it is because there "are some things hard to be understood" as 2 Peter 3:16 teaches.
Thank you so much for these thoughts. I am particularly grateful for the works of the law, moral, love nuance and the tree metaphor (scripturally popular from Psalms to Proverbs to Job to Jesus to James to Paul). A tree produces the type of fruit it does because of what type of tree it is, not the other way around (though in the winter without leaf, bud, blossom, or fruit, it might prove difficult to tell). Well employed!
Let's remember what "Justification" means - being declared "righteous" ("not guilty") at the Last Judgement, when Christ comes in glory, raises the dead, and judges the nations. In order to pass this Judgement, we must be pure and holy ("Sanctified) through the work of the Holy Spirit (which will not be completed until the Resurrection); our sins and evil deeds must be blotted out by Christ's blood; and we must have the penalty for rebellion and treason due to our descent from Adam ("concupiscense") paid. When we say "salvation by faith", we are stating that these conditions can only be met through Christ's free and clear gift and God's mercy, not by any works or deeds of our own. We cannot earn salvation, we cannot merit it, we cannot do anything with regards to it except to refuse it, fight against the Spirit, and be damned.
Two of my favorite UA-cam pastors and thinkers
Barron preaches a false gospel.
@@matthewsouthwell3500that’s a bit bold and uncharitable. I think he’s genuinely trying his best.
@@williampeters9838 Speaking the truth is bold I suppose. I do not say it lightly, nor do I say it without evidence.
"...Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicit Christian faith can be saved. Now they are saved through the grace of Christ indirectly received, so the grace is coming from Christ, but it might be received according to your uh conscience, so if you are following your conscience sincerely, or in your case you're following the commandments of the law sincerely, yeah you can be saved." - R. Barron (to B. Shapiro)
- That sir, is a false gospel. He literally tells a "Jewish" man (Rev. 3:9), who outright rejects Christ (no faith), that he can be saved by keeping the commandments. Ah, yes, but "sincerely."
@@williampeters9838
ua-cam.com/video/0oDt8wWQsiA/v-deo.html
16:10 timestamp
Also you said he is "genuinely trying his best."
John 16:2
They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.
- Surely those who persecuted the disciples of the Lord in this manner were also "trying their best." This verse alone collapses his (Barron's, and Vatican 2's) entire argument of one being saved by following their conscience, as obviously “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?"
One needs a new heart and the renewal of the mind, which only comes through faith in Christ Jesus, and receiving the Holy Spirit through faith in Him.
No disrespect to either Bishop Barron or Dr. Cooper, but I thought the recent discussion over at Gospel Simplicity on Justification was more interesting. You might want to check it out if this interests you.
Jesus said in Luk. 10:28: "do this and you will live". "this" refers to what Dr. Cooper and others called as "moral law", that is loving one another. If this is not part of justification, as Dr. Cooper said following the Reformers, Jesus would say in Luk. 10:28: "after the Son of Man is risen from the death believe in Him and you will live".
texts in isolation cannot be used as arguments, as John 3:16 and numerous other texts in isolation actually do say that belief saves. In the very book of Luke you're quoting from, Jesus gives his parable of the pharisee and the publican, where the publican with no good works is justified by repentance and faith.
Jesus absolutely commands us to do good works, and all agree that we are to strive to be righteous and to abhor evil, yet our righteousness cannot, and does not justify
@@bradenglass4753 But did Dr. Cooper also do test isolation by citing from selected verses from Romans and Galatians? Jesus and Paul would not contradict each other. Jesus clearly says do this AND YOU WILL LIVE. Yet you deny that it does not justify? He did not say "do this as expression of your faith". Read also my other response to Dr. Copper showing that Greek tenses of the phrase "justified by faith" do not support faith alone justification.
@@justfromcatholic 'you will live' and 'you will justify yourself' aren't the same thing.
There no contradiction here between Jesus, Scripture or Luther
@@j.g.4942 I did NOT write "i (or you) will justify yourself". Pls don't turn your statement into mine. Catholics do not believe we can justify ourselves - we are justified by grace from God through Christ. It is grace through Christ that enables us both to have faith AND to do what is right (loving one another) as commanded by Jesus Himself.
@@justfromcatholic ok, live and justify aren't the same.
Also when you condemn "justification through faith alone" by adding love (which is good works, the fulfilment of the law) you are implying an active sense (at least middle) to the verb which isn't there.
This was very good.
The purpose of justification is sanctification. But is sanctification the cause of justification? OR is justification the cause of progressive sanctification?
So are you claiming that a saving faith (fiducia) excludes charity? I thought this was resolved already between Catholics and Lutherans?
The dispute between the Catholic Church and the Reformers on Justification can be summarized as:
1. According to the Catholic Church justification is on-going process that includes faith and sanctification. According to the Reformers justification is once for all and is therefore by faith alone (sola fide)
2. According to the Catholic Church through (on-going) justification the righteousness of God through Christ is infused in us and the outcome is we are made righteous. We lose our righteous state through sinning, therefore our sins must be forgiven and washed away, including what the Catholic Church refers as temporal punishment of sins, to regain our righteous state back.
According to the Reformers through (once for all) justification the righteousness of Christ is imputed/counted on us and all our sins (past, present and future) imputed/counted on Christ. Imputation does not make us righteous - we are declared as righteous but remain sinners (in Latin "simul tutus et peccator"). Christ remains sinless while all our sins imputed/counted on Him.
3. According to the Catholic Church Christ willingly offered Himself to die on the cross to atone the sins of all men and to reconcile all men back to God. God did not direct His wrath and punished Him for our sins.
According to the Reformers God directed His wrath and anger to Christ (because sins of believers counted on Him) and punished Him, instead of believers, for their sins.
We look at the first issue: Is justification once for all and is by faith alone or is it on-going process that includes faith and sanctification?
The phrase "justified by faith" appears four times in New Testament (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). New Testament was written in Greek and the one in Rom. 3:28 is in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense. Both tenses do not indicate once for all justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense. Scripture says God saves us or we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) and through sanctification (2 Th. 2:13). The word Sanctification is related to holiness. Heb. 12:14 says: “Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Salvation, according to Scripture, is therefore a process as it includes faith and sanctification - and so is justification.
You misunderstand the Lutheran reformers.
Justification isn't a one time thing, it's the Day of the Lord, which we see manifest at different points in our lives.
In the big picture Justification is from the beginning of life to the end of this world. In the narrow sense it is in the Means of Grace (Preaching and Baptism, Absolution, Eucharist).
Both St Dismas and St Polycarp are justified by faith in Christ's Word/Work and not by the quantity or quality of theirs. For, as you state from the grammar, we don't justify ourselves.
Just some quick thoughts. God bless you this Lord's Day,
@@j.g.4942 I am aware that Dr. Cooper talked about progressive justification in his other video. Sola fide means faith alone justifies, nothing else. But it is not supported by the tenses of the Greek phrase "justified by faith".
@@justfromcatholicdo you define what Protestants mean by faith alone or do they get to define that?
2) do you admit your concupiscence is sin, as Romans chapter 7 teaches?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 It is based from what I read from the works of Luther and others. Concupiscence is inclination to sin and Catholics do believe it.
@@justfromcatholic but itself the inclination to sin itself sinful? I believe the Bible teaches that in Romans 7 by calling it sin. Rome denies it
I like when you say, "they come in one package" so I do feel it's tricky to say justify by faith 'alone'
I would love to see a conversation between you guys, similar to what you did with Jonathan Pageau
Do Lutherans believe that deeds justify faith?
”Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.“
Philippians 2:12-13 ESV
Verse 13 clearly tells us that God is the one doing the work.
So it's all God? God redeemed, God works, continue to work until it's completion? So who did God saved? The human? Or God saved himself?
Yet Lutherans hold all works done through the believer are vitiated with sin and cannot merit.
Thanks Dr. Cooper for doing this.
I wish to emphasize something concerning the giving of the Law, namely the Ten Commandments, where the church seems to forget time and time again, that God starts with the giving of the Law or will of God for our lives by saying in Exodus 20:2 “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” Note He introduces the Ten Commandments with the Gospel of His already completed work of rescuing them from bondage.
He doesn’t say ‘I am God, you better do this this and this or else.’ There’s no good motivation to follow Him there if that were so.
The grace of God in Titus 2:11 is what leads us to repentance and a willing desire to want to serve God. His love to save and rescue is the motivating factor. Why do I point this out? Here the bishop does not see God’s rescuing hand as already delivering us out of our sins and then our hearts response flowing from that, not earning anything, since it was already done by the powerful, mighty, arm of the Lord (Savior God). In Exodus 20:5 there’s the warning of not loving the Lord who’s rescued us, but that breeds only the result of losing out on our Privilege as God’s chosen people. We can only lose by our actions which flow from the heart, not gain anything. Faith alone in the God who has already Saved us by His own choosing, might, and Love is what motivated obedience to God.
Essential parts talked too rapidly. Slow a little bit so people reach the message better.
So if a person could sin their way into apostasy, how do you know you’ve reached that point?
Is it up to us to know? God will judge the hearts of men. Not us.
Yes I love your discussions because it causes me to think. All the OT fathers only had faith to be justified
such a cool intro!! good work
For those wondering, here is a very clear passage where Augustine affirms that the "works of the law" Paul excludes from justification include the eternal moral law: "Although, therefore, the apostle seems to reprove and correct those who were being persuaded to be circumcised, in such terms as to designate by the word law circumcision itself and other similar legal observances, which are now rejected as shadows of a future substance by Christians who yet hold what those shadows figuratively promised; he at the same time nevertheless would have it to be clearly understood that the law, by which he says no man is justified, lies not merely in those sacramental institutions which contained promissory figures, but also in those works by which whosoever has done them lives holily, and among which occurs this prohibition: 'You shall not covet'" (The Spirit and the Letter, Chapter 23).
There is a difference between the 10 commandments written on stone for a people with a heart of stone vs the law of love written on the heart of flesh. St. Augustine rejects the idea that people with a heart of stone can follow the moral law written on stone. So does Paul. But once love is poured out into our hearts now Christ can empower us to Love. This seems to be the part that Lutherans and Dr Cooper don't understand
Augustine is referring to initial justification. Aquinas also refers to the law including all works, not just ceremonial. But once in a state of justification, one fulfills the law and merits through charity and keeping the commandments, thus growing in and being further justified, as Augustine affirms repeatedly.
@cronmaker2 I agree with you and i don't understand why it is so hard for people to not see this. Catholics definitely believe that our initial justification is by grace alone through faith alone to enter into relationship with the love of Christ. Once united with this love however we must live in this love and allow this love to live in and through us .
@@nickynolfi833The doctrine of justification through faith alone is only concerned with how a person is considered righteous in God's sight which is through faith alone whereby Christ’s righteousness is credited to us. However this happens in combination with the Holy Spirit regenerating us so that we live a changed life of love and good works. However this changed life doesn't justify us in addition to faith as our fallen nature due to original sin still affects us and means our love and good works are less than pure and are tainted with sin. It therefore follows that our impure righteousness is incapable of adding to our justification. God only accepts Christ’s perfect righteousness as the means by which we are counted righteous. Paul says God requires perfect obedience to the law and we can't render that and that we are only saved through faith and not through obedience to the law - which includes the moral law summarised in the 10 commandments.
Galatians 3:10-14 ESV - For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”- 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
@Edward-ng8oo I agree that justification is all about sharing in the righteousness of Christ. We do not produce our own righteousness. We can't because of our fallen nature. We are dependent on the righteousness of Christ. We are called to shine light on the world. Through faith we become like a lantern. Christ is the flame poured into us. With out Christ we would be worthless. A lantern without a flame is useless. We have been given not just a dead faith but a living faith. The righteous love of Christ is the soul of our faith. Saving faith is alive. What do we do with things that are alive? We feed them. This is why 2nd Peter 1 tells US to supplement our faith with virtue. Our salvation is 100% based on our living relationship with Christ. Through a true union with Christ we are credited with his righteousness. Imputed righteousness is true if it is based on a true union with Christ. Not just an alien, extra nos aspect. We are credited with the righteousness of Christ by being in Christ and Christ being in us. He is the fountain and source of righteousness. Not us.
I love it when Philippians 2:12 is brought up in isolation.....why is it they always leave off the following verse?
Philippians 2:13 NASB1995
[13] for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
That fear and trembling, that comes with the knowledge that He is working in us and through us, that we are secure in Him. Drives me nuts, but never surprises me.
Like many things, catholics believe in "both/and", rather "either/or". We will be judged based on our deeds - deeds that were worked through the grace of God. Without God's grace, we can do NOTHING good.
@@MrProsat You missed the entire point of the video. There's the Judgement - being declared "righteous", and then there are the works. In order to pass the Judgement, be declared "righteous", three things are necessary: we must be pure and holy ("Sanctified) through the work of the Holy Spirit (which will not be completed until the Resurrection but is begun in this life); our sins and evil deeds must be blotted out by Christ's blood so that only our good deeds remain; and we must have the penalty for rebellion and treason due to our descent from Adam ("concupiscense") paid by Christ's atoning death on the cross. If, when you face the Judgement seat, even one sin or evil deed remains in the books unblotted, you are damned. Even the slightest thought of "Raca" is sufficient to outweigh every good deed that you do.
You are correct in saying that without God's grace, we can do nothing good. At the Judgement, every good deed that the thief on the cross ever did in his life will be there, while his murder and rebellion will be blotted out. But do not think that any work that you do can earn or merit the gift of His blood, which does this blotting out and pays the penalty that we owe. It cannot be earned, only given and accepted.
@@paulblase3955What do you say about John 15, to remain abiding in Christ we must bear fruit?
@@IG88AAA Like James, John is speaking to Christians who are. Ok, you've accepted Christ's gift of His atoning death on the cross; the Holy Spirit is at work in your heart, sanctifying it; and your evil works have been blotted out of the books. Now what? We are still fallen humans and we need help loving God and loving our neighbor (Luke 10:27, the summary of the two Tables of the Law). The moral Law - epitomized by the 10 Commandments - shows how to do this. We are not righteous by following the Law, we follow it because we righteous. Doing so demonstrates to the unbelieving world that we are followers of Christ and reinforces the work of the Spirit in our own hearts. Remember, we cannot of our own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ or come to Him, or sanctify ourselves, but we can most certainly fight against the Holy Spirit and reject Him and His saving work!
@@paulblase3955 So if someone abiding in Christ does not bear good fruit, are they cut off?
Are you saying we must do good works to be continue to be sanctified, to increase in sanctification?
Are you saying that “the Law” referred to in Romans 3:28 is referring to the 10 Commandments?
I’m trying to understand what you believe. Many problems between Catholics and Protestants is due to using terms differently. I think if we clear that up we will see our beliefs are more similar than we think.
So Eph. 2:8-9 refers to justification but Philippians 2:12 doesn't?
Neither of those passages uses the word justification, but they are obviously alluding to justification.
Also, you claim that Bishop Barron's use of Romans 13 and 1 Corinthians 13 isn't about justification; that's like me saying John 3:16 isn't about justification because that word isn't used there. Scripture interprets Scripture only when it suits your hermeneutic? You are spot on with your exegesis on 'works of the Law', however, I would say that once we are justified, the moral Law of Christ (Beatitudes), which fulfills the 10 Commandments, is to be obeyed and that obedience, aided by grace, increases our justification before God. Appreciate your sincere ecumenical spirit!
You went right where I hoped you did with your analysis of Romans 3:28. Either out of ignorance or willful intent, Bishop Barron ignores the greater context about the law as shown in Romans 2 and Romans 7. The funny thing about Roman theology is that it can be just as bad as segments of American evangelicalism in that it cherry picks verses.
Whenever I point out to Roman Catholics the number of passages that echo justification by faith alone (Rom 3:28, Rom 4:5, Gal 2:16, Gal 2:21, Gal 5:4, etc), the passages are often simply ignored in discourse. It's frustrating to see that, because it gives the impression that Roman Catholics are more intent on "scoring points" in an argument than actually dealing with the Scriptures themselves.
My issue with faith alone is that the word alone appears after faith in 0 of your verses.
Another issue with all of your cited verses is the Catholic Church does not teach we are justified by the law.
@@IG88AAA
"For by works of the law no one will be justified in (God's) sight." -Romans 3:20
"For we hold that a man is justified by faith APART FROM the works of the law" -Romans 3:28
"If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." -Galatians 2:21
"And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works; otherwise, grace is no longer grace." -Romans 11:6
Even though the word "alone" does not appear in those passages "per se," it's very clear to anybody reading those verses with plain sense that "alone" is implied, as St. Paul clearly puts forth that obedience is not a cause of justification. Much like the word "Trinity" is not in the Scriptures, but the concept is clearly taught.
As to your second point; no, Rome does not teach that we are SOLELY justified by the law. But a reading of the Council of Trent makes clear that Rome does indeed attach obedience to justification. Yes, they say grace is part of it, but it's a mix of the two, thus directly contradicting the passages by St. Paul.
@@Outrider74 Those first three verses are speaking to works of the law. Why do you say the Catholic Church teaches we are justified in any way by works of the law? You say it is clear in the council of Trent decree on justification, can you point out to me where it says we are justified by works of the law?
Romans 11:6 is speaking to initial justification, which the Catholic Church teaches we do not merit by works. What is “it” referring to in that verse?
It is not clear to me that those passages teach faith alone. The clear words of scripture say “a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.” The only place “faith alone” appears, it is rejected. Are you infallible in your interpretation of scripture?
@@Outrider74 Can a man grow in righteousness?
@@IG88AAA RIght, works of the law, meaning OBEDIENCE. And if you read the entirety of the book of Romans, specifically in chapters 2 and 7, which precede and follow chapter 3, it is quite clear that obedience to the moral law is being included in this point, and not just the civil and ceremonial acts. Note that in Romans 7, Paul specifically uses the final commandment about not coveting as part of his illustration. Those passages are not clear to you because you do not want them to be clear to you, and Bishop Barron's obfuscation on this point by trying to pass them off as being only about the ceremonial and civil parts of the law--when the Scriptures allow for no such distinction--leans toward either ignorance or willful duplicity. I would suggest you give an honest reading of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews and read Scripture itself on this point.
As for Romans 11:6, the context is clear that it is speaking of election, i.e., salvation. I suggest you read the whole context.
And speaking of context, I see you quoted James 2:24. Perhaps you should go back up to verse 14, which starts the matter: "What does it profit, my brothers, if a man SAYS he has faith, but does not have works." Not, "if a man has faith but does not have works," but "if a man SAYS he has faith." Note the word "SAYS;" in other words, a profession, not necessarily a true possession. In fact, if you keep reading, you come to verse 19, where James says "I will show you my faith by my works." We Lutherans say nothing different; true saving faith manifests itself in the production of good works and obedience. The idea that Lutherans believe that obedience is optional, or can even be disregarded, is a caricatured strawman argument. Works are not causal to salvation, but they are an evidence of it. A lack of obedience reveals a heart of unbelief, and therefore being cut off from Christ.
By the way, since you're going to play this game about the word "alone" not being in the texts, I would counter that the words "initial justification" are not found anywhere in Scripture either. Could you show me the chapter and verse which details this?
And as to your point about Catholicism not including works as part of justification, let's go to the Council of Trent:
"If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification... let him be anathema." (Session 6, Canon 9)
Hmm... yet St. Paul says "For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God. NOT BY WORKS, lest anyone should boast (Eph. 2:8-9)
Note the "either/or" division created by St. Paul: faith OR works. No place is given for mingling the two in justification. By default, that makes works part of justification according to Rome; the "initial" part is just a technicality, much like "hyper-dulia" and "latria" are a distinction without a difference, especially as evidenced in the prayers uttered to Mary and the saints, some of which practically address her in terms more akin to deity than human.
One last thing: how many good works must a Catholic have to be in good grace? Because perfection--God's standard--is clearly impossible, as stated in Ecclesiastes 7:20 and I John 1:8. How many good works have you succeeded in doing? Have you been perfect today? Yesterday? Tomorrow? What about concupiscence, because Jesus clearly teaches that our sinful thoughts and intents are just as evil as actions (Matthew 5:20-30). Have you ever repented of a sin and then gone back to it later in life? If you're being honest, you have. What about sins of omission, things you could have done rightly but didn't? How many of those do you think you have committed? I guarantee you you've done that one more than you may even realize. And have you remembered all of these sins and confessed every single one of them to your priest? Because as I recall, Catholicism requires that EVERY sin must be confessed verbally in order to receive forgiveness, right? I'll bet money that you've forgotten to name some of your sins in confession, probably a LOT more than you think. What about that? Shouldn't that put fear in your heart, because you didn't do your part? Do you think you can atone for those sins with good works, which suggests that Christ's work on the cross is insufficient? Do you ever think that maybe you haven't done enough some days, and that, should your life end at that moment, you may be standing before God with an unconfessed sin while in Judgment?
See, I don't obey God out of terror. I obey Him out of love, because I KNOW I have eternal life (I John 5:13). And yes, I sin. No, I don't live a life of impenitent sin, and I strive for holiness daily, hourly. But I know that I will come to God at the end of the day with good works that are, as St. Augustine said, "Splendid vices," at best. But Christ covers me. My name is in the Lamb's book of life, not because I am a good Christian, but because Christ paid for my sins, and i hold to that in faith. And that faith, empowered by the Holy Spirit, produces in me good works, obedience, the intent and direction to please God and honor Him in my life, not because I want to be a child, but because I already AM His child.
I think Paul clarifies what law he is speaking of in Romans 8 when he speaks of the moral law and sin rising up in his flesh, but by the law or the Spirit which allows him to faithfully out to death those sins that rise up in his flesh by the power of the spirit, if the spirit does reside in you.
I am not Catholic, but I think Bishop Barron is more correct in this video.
Starting around 13:30, Dr Cooper says that I Corinthians 13 teaches that faith is going to pass away, but love is eternal.
This is from I Corinthians 13 (NKJV):
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Apparently, Dr Cooper is confusing knowledge (which will vanish away) with faith (which abides).
But this still doesn't speak towards justification. That's the debate happening in the video is it not?
The argument is that "love is the whole of the law" but the law does not justify us.
I'm not disagreeing with your view, simply confused because the bit you quoted is literally what they are debating the context of.
@@williammozy9491 This is from Romans 13 (NASB):
8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law.
9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law.
Notice how the sin of covetousness is mentioned in verse 9. This sin was previously mentioned here in Romans 7 (NASB):
6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
8 But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died;
When an unregenerate person strives to obey the commandment against covetousness, this striving fails to fulfill the law the way loving one’s neighbor does. Such striving makes the covetousness of their heart more apparent. Why didn’t St. Paul avoid covetousness through a willpower decision to love the person who had what St. Paul was coveting? St. Paul was weak through the flesh such that he needed God’s grace to love this neighbor and overcome his covetous desires. We should not consider loving one’s neighbor to fulfill the law as a work of the law. This is because such works do not overcome the sinfulness of an unregenerate person’s heart.
Raykidder, does faith abide after death? I don't think so. Love alone is eternal. Faith alone, before or apart love, is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2).
@@Alfredo8059 I do not know of people's beliefs, wants, hopes, aspirations in the hereafter. If a person's faith pertains to things of our lifetime (e.g. supernatural healing, beliefs about events recorded in the Bible, what actions constitute sinfulness), then I would think they pass away and are no longer important in the hereafter. I suppose that in the hereafter, a person may remember the kind of faith while alive on Earth. Because love believes all things and hopes all things (I Corinthians 13:7), then love encompasses faith and hope, and is more likely to pass into the hereafter. I agree that love is more important than faith.
@@raykidder906 , we both agre that love is more important than faith. Faith alone, before or apart love , is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2) , works ,before or apart love ,are iniquity. Luther's faith alone is probably a dead faith . The Catholic Church teaches that faith is the vehicle and love (of God) is the source of salvation.
I worry about that so many Protestants have become so flippant with their faith, that when they are convicted to know more about it, they instead cover over their worries by "converting" to Catholicism (no conversion of any sort can happen in this case, the ignorant are always of that denomination). However, it appears their ignorance remains in most cases. I hope this does not result in their deconstruction, but I fear this can be the only case for those who hold so loosely to God, and cover open a sucking chest wound with a bandaid. A single sermon should not convince you of anything so fundamental.
The vast majority of modern converts are the “rad trad” movements. The people who convert because of the resurgence of cultural conservatism among young men, not actually theological reasons.
This is to response j.g 4942
The Hebrew verb “to lay” in Isaiah 53:6 is פָּגַע (Strong H6293) that means “to meet” (Exo. 5:20, 23:4 etc.) or “to reach” (Jos. 19:22). Different verb, סָמַךְ (Strong H5564), also translated as “to lay”, is used Lev. 16:21: “And Aaron shall lay [סָמַךְ] both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness.” Aaron did not do the same thing to the other goat (that prefigured Christ atonement) that was sacrificed (Lev. 16:7-9, 15). Contrary to what Luther wrote Isaiah 53:6 does NOT support imputation.
If Luther did believe imputation made Christ a sinner, then it is the most horrendous blasphemy - making the Second Person of the Holy Trinity a sinner. But to understand what Luther meant you should read what he also wrote
In the same way John the Baptist called Christ “the Lamb of God” (John 1:29). He is, of course, innocent, because He is the Lamb of God without spot or blemish. But because He bears the sins of the world, His innocence is pressed down with the sins and the guilt of the entire world. Whatever sins I, you, and all of us have committed or may commit in the future, they are as much Christ’s own as if He Himself had committed them. In short, our sin must be Christ’s own sin, or we shall perish eternally.
With gratitude and with a sure confidence, therefore, let us accept this doctrine, so sweet and so filled with comfort, which teaches that Christ became a curse for us, that is, a sinner worthy of the wrath of God; that He clothed Himself in our person, laid our sins upon His own shoulders, and said: “I have committed the sins that all men have committed.”
Luther: Lectures on Galatians 1-4, 1535, Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, page 278, 283 - 284
"But the Apostle seems to be speaking of the moral precepts, because he continues by saying that the law was made for sinners, and these are moral precepts. The proper use of these precepts is that a man not attribute more to them than is contained in them. For the law was given in order that sin be recognized: for I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: you shall not covet (Rom 7:7). Therefore, the hope of justification must not be placed in them, but in faith alone: we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law (Rom 3:28)."
- St. Thomas Aquinas
The works of the law include the moral precepts.
Video starts at 2:50
Faith hope love. The most of which is love.
@dennischapman7305. Justification through faith alone is justification by Christ alone. Christ is God. God is love. The real McCoy, not just the copy. His love is greater than our love, not the other way around.
love is a greater virtue than faith yes. our willingness and capacity to love is what sanctification is improving when it makes us more like God - God is love. however it doesnt avail us for justification because we dont have perfect love. faith avails us for justification because it grasps and unites us with the perfect love of God in christ jesus. even then the kind of faith that does justify intrinsically causes love for neighbor and outpours good works. SO, we can fully affirm that verse.
@@andrewborchelt305. Yes, exactly. If Love must rescue us, it cannot come from us. We must unworthily receive it…by faith.
@@andrewborchelt305hey. I believe in the gospel as it is presented in the scriptures, that we are justified by faith, which is brought about in us by God. But I've been a little confused lately on the distinctions between faith and love. Isn't faith joined at the hip with love? How can faith exist without love, and is it a sort of love? I guess I'm asking what faith really is if it isn't love. I'm disturbed that I don't really have a solid understanding of this right now even having been justified by christ already for years. The discrepancy in my mind never showed up till now.
@@apeture_explorer4810 Im not a pastor, but lutherans have classically defined faith as both intellectual assent in the facts of God as He is revealed in scripture, AND a trust in his promises with your whole being.
its this trust element that unites us with him and makes us want to serve him and love him (and consequently our neighbor) with our whole heart because his promises are those of salvation and redemption (i.e. the gospel)
Nice intro!
The argument that the "works of the law" are only about the ceremonial laws is what Sabbatarians use to try and impose the Sabbath on Christians. This argument is very simple to destroy. All you have to do is show that, when Paul spoke of the Law, that includes the 10 commandments. It's very easy to prove this with two verses:
Romans 7:6
"But now we are released from THE LAW, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."
If they respond, "But the 'the law' there doesn't include the 10 Commandments," just point to the next verse:
Romans 7:7
"Yet if it had not been for THE LAW, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if THE LAW had not said, 'You shall not covet.'"
"You shall not covet" is one of the 10 commandments, so when Paul says, "we are released from THE LAW," he was very clearly including the 10 commandments. This is impossible to deny.
what about the sermon on the mount?
this is a sermon straight from the mouth of God.
This is impossible to deny.
@@joekey8464
The point of my post is to prove beyond doubt the Law includes the 10 Commandments. Too many "teachers" out there try to pull a fast one and say it's just the ceremonial laws. Once you show Paul means the 10 Commandments, it crumbles the foundation of many false teachings.
What's your issue with the Sermon on the Mount? Jesus said we have to pluck out whatever causes us to sin... and that includes our hearts. How is that possible?
You are ignoring all the other passages that refute and contradict your assertion
@@marknovetske4738
Paul clearly said it and spent a lot of energy and ink saying it. Contend with him. He said under Christ we are not under the Law and the Law includes the 10 commandments.
Complicating the simple. All that B Baron is doing by his arguments is inadvertently proving that Paul contradicts himself. If we're saved by love, then all we have to do is perform good works- who needs Jesus, or Mary and the Saints?
"What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of FAITH.
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the LAW of RIGHTEOUSNESS."
Romans 9 30-31
This is not what Bishop Barron is saying, he is simply saying that love is an integral part of saving faith.
@@billmartin3561 Which means love is salvific. B Baron is arguing against faith alone by putting works as equally necessary for justification which contradicts Scripture. See Romans 9
I work out my salvation with fear and trembling by running away from wolves in sheep's clothing like bishop Barren. He not only denies faith alone, but he denies faith in Christ. He told Ben Shapiro that Christ is only the preferred way of salvation.
I work out my salvation in fear and trembling by never wanting anything but Jesus Christ and his most holy blood atonement to be my redemption. My reconciliation with God is because of Christ alone. And demons like Bishop Barren cannot take that away.
Do I love God and my neighbor? Yes. God's love for me in Christ causes me to love with a purer love, a love set free from fear and trembling.
I refuse to let my love for God and man contribute to my salvation. To do so would degrade my salvation. I will not tolerate any such separation from Christ my Lord.
Exactly his interview with Shapiro was damning.
Wow this comment deeply upsets me. As a Protestant, my Christian faith has been enriched by Bishop Barron's ministry. The Lutheran and Catholic understanding of salvation are substantially identical, as the joint council in the 90's discovered. I do not feel comfortable with "Sola Fide" since Holy Scripture explicitly denies this in James. The Catholic church is not pelegian, but we all can agree that "faith without works is dead". The goal of our Faith is Theosis, Union with Christ. Please stop with the false division. Satan loves it
@@foodforthought8308 Holy Scripture in James doesn't deny Sola Fide. Faith and works are not on the same level as if they need to work together to gain salvation (synergism). Protestantism says that works are proof of faith (monergism). Works are a consequence of faith. Without good works there is no true faith. The alleged contradiction between Paul and James is thereby proven false.
@georgesaguelton5751 are you saying that james is showing that a living faith justifies and a dead faith does not justify?
@@georgesaguelton5751. “Without good works there is no true faith.”. Exactly, that is the Catholic position, “faith without works is dead”, “faith working through love”.
I believe in Ephesians 2:8-9 where a sinner is justified by God's grace alone through simple faith alone in Christ alone. Only when a sinner is saved by grace through faith in Christ, can a justified sinner live by faith to be followed later by works as God's workmanship as mentioned in Ephesians 2:10. These works, which follows justification, are not the reason why a sinner is justified, but it matters at the judgement seat of Christ, where the works will be tested by fire to determine the reward, if the works survived. If the works are burned by fire, the justified sinner will suffer loss of reward, but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire (ref : 1 Corinthians 3:10-15)
Love doesn't justify, but it does identify.
This quote accurately shows the sin and blasphemy of Luther's doctrine. Realize what you just said. " love doesn't justify". Love is not an emotion. Love is the very nature and essence of God. God is love. We are by nature children of hate and wrath. We become united to Christ by faith. This union is the fact that the righteous divine love is poured into our hearts. Once this happens we can literally say that God lives in us! The divine righteousness love is given as a gift to us! Yet you say this righteous love poured into our hearts does not justify us. God entering into us does not justify us??? My heart brakes that people can't see the beauty in the catholic understanding of justification by faith empowered by love
@@nickynolfi833 We receive this gift of love through our faith in Jesus Christ, which is what justifies us. Faith must come first, which is what justifies, then Love is the result (fruit) of that faith. It's how to tell if someone truly has saving faith.
I was raised Catholic, and have come to the true understanding of salvation, thanks to the Reformation. The Catholic church left me with much spiritual trauma and abuse as a teenager, and now I'm healing through God's love in Jesus Christ. I can say I have believed, practiced and experienced both sides of this coin; I do not come from a place of prejudice just because something was my conditioning.
Please note how I didn't name-call, castigate or accuse you (or the founder or leader of your church) of anything in what you said. To me, that is another way to tell who has been properly taught about God's love.
"He that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is Love." 1 John 4: 7,8
@@nickynolfi833Luther was correct when he said that love doesn't justify us. The fact that God lives in us and the Holy Spirit leads us to love others and do good works doesn't justify us because we can't act completely purely. We have sinful inclinations due to our fallen nature inherited from Adam and everything we do is tainted with sin, which is why our righteousness is incapable of justifying us and only Christ's righteousness imputed to us through faith alone can justify us. Luther said the following with respect to Galatians 5:6:
Paul does not say: Faith which justifies by love; nor does he say: Faith which makes acceptable by love. Our adversaries fabricate such a text and introduce it by force at this place. Much less does Paul say: Love makes acceptable. Paul does not speak this way. He says: "Faith, which worketh by love." He says that works are done out of faith through love, not that a man is justified through love. But who is so ignorant a grammarian that he does not understand by the meaning of these words that to be justified is one thing but to do works is another? For the words of Paul are clear and plain: "Faith works through love." Therefore it is a patent theft when our adversaries do away with the true and right meaning of Paul and for "to do works" understand "to be justified....”
Paul makes love, as it were, an instrument of faith, through which it works. But who does not know that an instrument derives its power, motion, and action, not from itself but from the workman, operator, or whoever uses it? For who should say: The ax gives power and motion to the chopping workman? The ship gives power and motion to the navigating shipman? Or, to adduce the example of Isaiah, who would say: The saw draws the workman, and the rod raises the hand (Is. 10:15)? It is the same when people say that love is the essence (formam) of faith, or gives faith power and activity, or justifies. (What Luther Says 1480)
@nickynolfi833 Luther was correct when he said that love doesn't justify us. The fact that God lives in us and the Holy Spirit leads us to love others and do good works doesn't justify us because we can't act completely purely. We have sinful inclinations due to our fallen nature inherited from Adam and everything we do is tainted with sin which is why our righteousness is incapable of justifying us and only Christ's righteousness imputed to us through faith alone can justify us. Luther said the following with respect to Galatians 5:6:
Paul does not say: Faith which justifies by love; nor does he say: Faith which makes acceptable by love. Our adversaries fabricate such a text and introduce it by force at this place. Much less does Paul say: Love makes acceptable. Paul does not speak this way. He says: "Faith, which worketh by love." He says that works are done out of faith through love, not that a man is justified through love. But who is so ignorant a grammarian that he does not understand by the meaning of these words that to be justified is one thing but to do works is another? For the words of Paul are clear and plain: "Faith works through love." Therefore it is a patent theft when our adversaries do away with the true and right meaning of Paul and for "to do works" understand "to be justified....”
Paul makes love, as it were, an instrument of faith, through which it works. But who does not know that an instrument derives its power, motion, and action, not from itself but from the workman, operator, or whoever uses it? For who should say: The ax gives power and motion to the chopping workman? The ship gives power and motion to the navigating shipman? Or, to adduce the example of Isaiah, who would say: The saw draws the workman, and the rod raises the hand (Is. 10:15)? It is the same when people say that love is the essence (formam) of faith, or gives faith power and activity, or justifies. (What Luther Says 1480)
@@doriesse824I agree that generally speaking Christians are to love others, however one has to make a distinction between those who are deceived and who should be gently corrected in a loving manner and those who are false teachers who should be opposed without showing them love. Paul for instance didn't respond in a loving manner towards those who were leading the Galatians astray with a false gospel but rather cursed them. Also Luther didn't show love towards those Catholic leaders who were leading people astray with their false works-righteous gospel. Such people are to be opposed as enemies of the faith and not treated tolerantly with love.
Justified by love, you say? God is love.
Seems to me, if not for salvation through grace alone, the mutual excommunication of orthodox and catholic heads from the great schism would indicate the orders that follow and of course the fathers themselves are all under excommunication as well and are not saved unless by grace alone apart from the work of mutual comunial acceptance
Paul is talking about the works of the Law required for Judaism, such as circumcision. The early christians thought you had to become a Jew first to become a Christian but this was refuted at the councel of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
That's why Paul keeps talking about circumcision in Rm. 2, 3, and culminating in 4, showing that Abraham was justified without being circumcised.
These works of the OT Law are not required, but love is. This is the difference between Paul and James on faith and works.
"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
If you dont have one than you dont have any.
Good works come with the 3 virtues, if you don't do good works then you are lacking these qualities.
No one denies that faith, hope and love are part of the Christian walk. The argument is over whether faith on its own justifies, and Paul teaches that it does because through faith a Christian is credited with Christ's righteousness which justifies him before God. When a person is justified he has the hope of eternal life and the Holy Spirit also gives him the ability to love and do good works.
@@Edward-ng8oo Paul also says faith is nothing without charity.
Faith alone does justify, but what I'm saying is that you don't have faith if you don't have charity.... People forget about loving thy neighbor
Basically some think of faith as strictly by definition where as when the Bible mentions it, it has more meaning.
@@IJS92 There's no dispute over the fact that faith without love is a dead faith which can't save. If some think that faith can exist on its own without love then they're sadly deluded, and they don't have true faith.
No one is solving this 500 year argument because it is 500 years of Lutherans and Roman Catholics talking over each other. They both agree we are saved by faith, and works born of that faith and are commanded (which is why Lutherans teach combining our spiritual and vocational callings). Sometimes I think Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc would rather have the drama of division than unification under the Triune God.
1-Catholics do not believe works are merely "born of that faith". Catholics do not believe that Luther's faith alone is the same as Abraham's faith alone. Luther relegated the book of James because he did not understand Paul: Faith alone , before or apart receiving charity (supernatural love), is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2): "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Luther made up his own faith, Luther disagreed the Early Church Fathers: " God justifies the impious man not only by remitting the evil deeds which that man does, but also by GRANTING LOVE, so that the man may turn away fromevil and may do good through the Holy Spirit" (Augustine, Against Julian 2:165). Paul refers to justification before receiving love from God and faith; James refers to on-going justification AFTER receiving the love of God and faith. Scripture alone is okay, Why to reject some parts of the Bible beBible? If our theology does not like some parts of Scripture it is because there "are some things hard to be understood" as 2 Peter 3:16 teaches.
2- We both agree we are saved by faith, but we disagree about the very "faith" (sacraments of faith, ecclesiology, canon of Scripture....etc).
3-The big issue is "Sola Scriptura". "Sola scriptura" is a nice slogan but it necessarily becomes sola (my interpretation of) scriptura. I think you can see the result of that. Endless splitting of churches and disagreements over faith and doctrine.
The “born of that faith” comment was me trying to be concise on a comment section forum. I understand it is much more in depth than that. But I’ve done a lot of listening while taking the argumentative nature out of it and I still find they (Catholics and Lutherans) agree on a lot more than they want to.
Concerning Luther, I’ll concede he falls into a category with many other church leaders (Protestant & Catholic alike) he said some very smart things and some very dumb things. However, I think he also may have fallen into a trap that many of us find ourselves falling into today, trying to convey complex thoughts and ideas on an even more complex subject through written conversations instead of direct spoken dialogue.
A couple things for your comment: be careful saying “faith alone” because that phrase is not in the Bible.
Second: I don’t think anyone is sola scrptura, at best we are all prima scriptura (whether they believe they are or not is a different story).
Finally, I would love to see church leaders and influencers sit down with each other as the laity do and actually try and find ways to agree instead of the continuous splitting.
“We have been debating this for 500 years.”
In 500 years the Roman church seems to have been unable to read the Augsburg confession and response.
It also seems that they haven’t yet finished their Bibles but rather set it down after James 2:17. Actually if you do the math it seems that the Roman church reads 15 verses a year in order to get to James in in 2000 years. So this means that if we are next on their reading list we are only 48-50 years from them finding out that Love is connected to Faith in the Lutheran definition of Faith and works are required to keep faith alive.
The Augsburg confession teaches ,more or less , Luther's faith alone plus Luther et al's sola (private interpretation of ) Scripture. Paul taught (Abraham's obedient) faith alone justifies. Paul never ever taught Luther's faith alone justifies. The crux of the difference between the Protestant and Catholicview of justification is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification : is the imputation of Christ's righteousness EXTRA.nos (Luther's justification) or the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer ( Catholic Church's justification) . Abraham received the love of God in his heart before his faith could be accounted as righteousness ( Catholic justification). Luther did not appeal to one Church Father as having believed the viewpoint that he held. Luther realized none of them taught his "sola fide" ( as he mis-understood justifying faith). According to Luther Augustine erred, all the fathers erred. His SOLA (fallible interpretation of ) SCRIPTURE was THE authority. Luther conflated his own word and the Word of God. Is the Augsburg confession the Word of God? Should we understand Scripture according to the Augsburg confession?
@@Alfredo8059 Why was Saint Jerome canonized? He translated the Bible into the common tongue in the 300’s.
Why was Tindale burned? He translated the Bible into the common tongue in the late 1400’s.
Also we don’t need to use “private interpretation,” we have all the saints before the Borgias (and some early popes) agreeing that it is through faith we are justified and have salvation.
The Augsburg confession cites dozens of saints and a couple Popes as well as the Bible.
You changed, we went back.
@@nemoexnuqual3643 Luther's faith alone is not exactly the same as Augustine's faith alone. Tyndales' translation is not excatly an accurate translation of Scripture. I would like to answer your questions : 1- Saint Jerome made an authorized translation of Scripture ( Hebrews 10:17); Tyndale mis-translated the ancient texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views. In particular the Church authorities cited the terms "church", "priest", "do penance" and "charity" which became in the Tyndale translation ""congregation","senior" (changed to "elder" in the revised edition of 1534, "repent" and "love" challenging key doctrines of the Christian faith. It was not an accurate rendering of Sacred Scripture. The Church condemned it and did it's best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. 2. The Catholic Church totally agree that it is through (obedient) faith we are justified and have salvation. Luther conflated his own heretical faith and Abraham's obedient faith. According to Luther Augustine erred, all the fathers erred. Luther did not appeal to one church father as being believed the viewpoint that he held. Luther realized none of them taught his "sola fide" (as he usderstood justifying faith). The Catholic doctrine isn't the new kid on the block, Luther's theology was and the "Reformation" being an attemt to go back to early Christianity was for sure a man-made tradition that contradicts Scriptures because Paul taught that faith,before or apart the love of God IN your heart, is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2. ) . Works and faith alone don't save but grace by faith that works in love: " For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."(Gal. 5:6); "Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father" 1 Thess. 1:3. Martin Luther did not understand Paul in context. Ephesians 2:8 must be understood in context:We are granted LOVE before we can believe God so loved the world (Jn 3:16). Faith alone is nothing ( 1Cor. 13:2), Luther did not realize that faith , before or apart, love is not justifying faith.
@@Alfredo8059 God’s peace and if you and I are on the same liturgical calendar, may you have a happy Trinity Sunday. Hopefully both our churches will firmly remind our congregations of the Athenacian Creed as my Catholic friends and family as well as my Lutheran (mostly young sisters) seem to be forgetting that most important of our creeds.
to start this response you should really read the Concordia or at least the Augsburg confession and response. Off the top of my head these scriptures you listed are discussed by far greater, more learned, and certainly more eloquent men than myself.
Now as to the means of justification, we Lutherans do in fact have a different definition and understanding of faith.
Roman Catholic tradition (and I could be wrong here) seems to consider “faith” to be nearly synonymous with “knowledge.”
We Lutherans believe that we can do nothing without Christ, (John 15:5) that all all good works not accomplished by and through faith are as dirty rags (Isaiah 64:6).
We then define Faith like the furrows (I live in a farming community so pardon the parable) from which love and good works grow and from those works we also keep the farm alive and the furrows fertile.
Now I am just a random Lutheran Layman on a break right now, so please pardon my crude metaphors, but for us Faith that is alive includes love and works. Faith (if genuine) can not fail to produce the changes in man that lead to an insatiable hunger for the scripture and a lifestyle we pray would be more pleasing to God.
I tease but do absolutely love you Roman Catholics. Anyone who hates his brother whom he has seen certainly doesn’t love God whom he hasn’t seen. How can one love God whom he hasn’t seen without faith? Therefore love is from faith.
Works like our tithes, giving blankets, digging wells (mostly the same stuff you guys do as well although you are on a larger scale) can only be done, through faith if it is to be worth anything.
Certainly you also hold that an atheist can dedicate his whole life to the noblest of earthly causes but without Christ it is absolutely meaningless. If a Hindu preached love and loved his fellow man and his pagan deity of choice is he then justified before God? Will all the love possible for a man ever be counted as righteousness without faith in the one true and triune God? Of course not.
Our churches have been arguing over definitions for 500 years stemming from an argument between a Roman Catholic monk turned Dr. of Theology who was appalled by the practice of selling salvation (indulgence letters). An unbiblical practice that to my understanding has generally stopped (you’re welcome).
It seems that if we could be civil you’d find that confessional Lutherans, who refer to ourselves as the Catholic Church of the west, as one small town Roman Catholic priest noted, “are more Catholic than most Catholics.”
2 Timothy 2:14 “Remind them of these things, and charge them before God[b] not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.”
Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.”
Unfortunately in our fallen condition so needing and undeserving of God’s Grace I fear we, until perfected in heaven, will always poke metaphorical bayonet’s through 500 year old fences and growl at each other instead of listening as we Christian brothers should do.
“Reformation day” is celebrated by some but mourned by others. I mourn it. We have division to this day over an argument about justification but looking into it, this argument is over definitions and the proportional measure of each essential aspect when to me as a Layman the answer to all is “full.”
We should all strive for a full measure of Faith and Love. If I believe Love is from Faith, and you believe faith is from love but we can agree to put all we can into both WHY ARE WE FIGHTING? We never needed to draw swords over chickens and eggs when we both have chicken and eggs together.
The issue that will always divide us is really this:
Papal infallibility.
The Roman Catholic idea that an earthy mortal can ever count himself the equal of God (because only God is infallible) is the real driver behind why our churches will always be at odds. It is why the Orthodoxy left, it was why Luther left, it is why all the Protestants left, it is why there are 25 men world wide calling themselves “Pope.”
Earthly politics should have stayed to things below and the churches on things above but that is not how any made in Adam’s likeness operate.
Now back to poking bayonets and growling:
sure Tyndale didn’t have the best translation, but he certainly had the best English translation at the time because the Roman Catholic Church with all her scholars had withheld the Word of God from the English world at the time.
Now today we have some truly awful and blasphemous translations, such as the Message, queer Bible, and “passion” as well as unquestionably heretical translations like the Jehovah Witnesses NWT where indications of the divine Trinity are removed and possibly leading 8.6 million people to damnation according to the standards of Christianity of all Christian Orthodoxy and the saints. As stated in the Athenacian creed
“Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith.
Whoever does not keep it whole and undefiled will without doubt perish eternally.
And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance.”
So that leads me to question that if Tyndales translation was so bad as to warrant burning, why does the Roman Catholic Church remain silent on far worse blasphemy and heretical translations common among the mislead sheep today?
@@nemoexnuqual3643 , God's peace. Million misunderstandings. Maybe we don't share the same liturgical calendar , Now as to the means of justification, Lutherans do in fact have a different definition and understanding of faith. You say: "We Lutherans believe ... that all all good works not accomplished by and through faith are as dirty rags (Isaiah 64:6). We Catholics believe that every real "good work" (no one is good but God alone) has as it's origination the grace of God. Please, read Isaiah 64:6. It seems Lutherans conflate the terms "our righteousness" and "good works" from His righteousness.
You say: "Our churches have been arguing over definitions for 500 years stemming from an argument between a Roman Catholic monk turned Dr. of Theology who was appalled by the practice of selling salvation (indulgence letters). An unbiblical practice that to my understanding has generally stopped". In fairness Tetzel wasn't actually “selling” indulgences (which the Church has always condemned as the mortal sin of simony), but allegedly (we have only Luther's word for it) promoting the almsgiving part of a particular indulgence in such a way that ignorant persons may have get the impression that they could in effect “buy” an indulgence. So Lutherans conflate a sin (selling indulgences) and a doctrine (Indulgences do not forgive sin).
You ask: "if Tyndales translation was so bad as to warrant burning, why does the Roman Catholic Church remain silent on far worse blasphemy and heretical translations common among the mislead sheep today?" Heresy was a civil crime during Tyndale's age. Martin Luther spreaded the "Sola Scripture " practice so everyone's opinion about Scripture can be thought as Scripture. After Luther Protestants have no way to authoritatively decide who is right in any disagreement on doctrine and dogma. Is that how Jesus left us to decide matters of such great importance as doctrine and salvation - one person's opinion as to what the Bible says vs. another person's opinion of what the Bible says? I don't think so!
And notice what Luther did. It's a perfect example of what I call the "Fallible in Theory, Infallible in Practice Doctrine". Lutherans admit that "ALL men can be fallible" when interpreting Scripture, which would include them, but then they go on to essentially imply that they, and others, can actually be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture because the Holy Spirit is guiding them. If you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then do you agree that you could, at least theoretically, misinterpret one or more Scripture verses...yes or no? If you are a flawed and biased, thus fallible, man, interpreting Scripture, then the fact that you are flawed, biased, and fallible means, by definition, that you could indeed interpret one or more Scripture verses incorrectly. You could, in fact, interpret any or all Scriptures (and Catholic doctrine ) incorrectly. Even Protestants that initially accepted Luther's faith and "Sola Scriptura"sdoctrines eventually rejected or repudiated some or many of these and formed their own faith ( little Protestant sects) according to their Sola Scriptura's doctrines . "It is quite possible that Martin Luther may have confused one theological opinion with the official teaching of the Church and initiated his program of reform on the basisof this misunderstanding" Oxford professor Alister McGrath. Martin Luther (an many after him) was simply captive to his own mind. So confident was Luther in his views that he once claimed, " I for my part am certain yhat the words I speak are not mine, but Christ's. Then my mouth also must be his whose words it speaks" Works 3: 174 . Martin Luther could not have stated more clearly the practical implication of Sola Scriptura when he wrote: "In these matters of faith. to be sure , each Christian is for himself pope and church" . There are million of different individuals that preach and teach different beliefs about Scriptura. Usually if one disagrees they just go and start their own "biblical" church. They learned to do that from Luther.
Catholics: Love is the fulfilling of the law!
Lutherans: exactly!
I wouldn't say that Luther holds to this three-fold division of the law per se, and this is one of the fundamental beliefs that makes Lutherans different from Reformed and Catholic; see "How a Christian Should Regard Moses" or simply refer to the discussion of the Ten Commandments in the Large Catechism. The Lutheran understanding is much more nuanced than is presented here and different from what Bp. Barron would put forward.
If sin is transgression of the Law, and offending in one point breaks the whole Law- then no amount of law/Works can justify a sinner....
If love fulfills the law the problem arises on the standard Protestant approach to justification by keeping the law, or obeying works of the law, typically granted a negative. Nobody can keep the law, therefore a man is justified by faith alone. Barron's approach shows St Paul teaches love fulfills the law, negating the standard reading of Rom 3-4 and negating the faith alone conclusion.
Faith alone grasps Christ presumes faith is an instrument in a courtroom scene when the bible does not teach faith is an instrument, nor Abraham was justified within a courtroom setting. The artificial imposition of the instrumentality of faith and courtroom setting negates the Luthern claim concerning faith alone grasping Christ's righteousness.
St Paul also defined faith in terms of hope (Heb 11:1) making faith always interdependent upon hope. The Lutheran claim faith alone grasps Christ is impossible to reconcile with faith's dependence upon hope and vice versa. Where there is faith, there is hope, and hope, then faith. To assert faith alone fractures the interdependence of faith and hope. A similar argument occurs involving faith and love (1 Cor 13:3) having love enliven faith. Love grant's life to faith, interdependent with hope involved in justification. The three theological virtues of faith (Rom 4:1-5, 24-25), hope (Rom 4:19, 5:2-5) and love (Rom 5:5) are all present in Rom 3:21-5:9, contextualising Abraham's justification by faith in terms of hope and love.
Love fulfills the law does not infer the law is love. Law is a natural and divine measure of love infused into the faithful (Rom 5:5). St Paul is not teaching faith apart from works of the law equates to faith apart from love, therefore faith alone justifies. Rather, St Paul is saying love is present in Rom 3:21-5:9 was also present in Abraham's life, presumed with his enlivened faith and hope. The Lutheran understanding of works and works of the law that do not justify are works of the natural law without grace and the Mosaic sacramental system (Rom 4:9-12), termed works of the law, that once produced grace, but are now supplanted by the new sacramental system of baptism (Rom 6:3-11).
The standard Lutheran understanding of Rom 3:21-5:9 simply ignores or inadequately addresses alternative readings of the passage.
Justification, Sanctification, Glorification…
Jesus doesn't use contraceptives, so when His bride receives His seed, she will birth good works. Even the thief on the X rebuked the wicked thief and defended Jesus.
My own understanding of these passages is a tad closer to Bishop Barron's than yours, but at the same time, I would argue that Roman Catholicism has replaced one set of "works of the [ceremonial] law" with another of the same sort, and Luther was right to criticize that. We are not made right with God by indulgences, rosaries, and other such practices.
I would certainly take Romans 3.19 differently than you do. Romans 1.18-32 expresses the stereotypical immorality of Gentiles, which is tied to their own ceremonial worship of idols. Then Paul points out in Chapter 2 that those Jews who would self-righteously snub their noses at all Gentiles (including the Christian converts) based on this stereotype are often guilty of immoral behavior themselves, while some Gentiles (namely the Christian converts) are actually conforming more faithfully to the moral principles of the Law despite not practicing its ceremonial elements.
In the next chapter, Paul notes that Jews are superior only in the sense that they were the recipients of divine revelation and the covenant promises that came with the Law. However, since they have routinely failed to uphold the Law morally (as evidenced by all of the citations from the Psalms and Isaiah, which speak of Israelite immorality, not so much Gentile sin), the Law reveals that Jews have no room to talk about their moral superiority. Rather than acting as evidence in support of Jewish exceptionalism, it serves as a witness that they're just as bad as the Gentiles, no matter how much they practice the ceremonial side of the Law.
If nominal Judaism (circumcision, et al.) is not enough to justify anyone, then the Gentile converts have no reason to become Jews. The two categories are not "righteous Jews" and "unrighteous Gentiles," but "unrighteous people who received the Law" and "unrighteous people who received natural revelation." But since divine righteousness holds even when human righteousness fails, God's righteousness has now been revealed in the faith of Jesus Christ, through which all who believe--Jew or Gentile--find justification by faith. A Gentile may therefore live out the "law of faith" (fidelity to the moral law) without taking on "works" tied directly to Jewish identity, assured that the atonement and forgiveness of sin offered by Christ is not merely for the Jews, but rather is the way that God has displayed his righteousness toward all humans.
"If love is the fulfillment of the law, love is a work of the Law..."
Wut?
Makes no sense. It's like saying Christ was no better or different than the shadows He fulfilled.
P1: “No one is justified before God by the law” (Gal. 3:11)
P2: ”The whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’“ (Gal. 5:14)
C: No one is justified before God by loving one’s neighbour as oneself.
Where’s the error?
@@StudyisKey. Come on. You know that the law is not "fulfilled" by itself, but by that toward which it points. To say that love fulfills--that is, fills to overflowing--the law is to say that love surpasses and transcends it. Or as our beloved St. Paul puts it, and I quote:
"Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."
@@shotinthedark90 Dude, you can’t be serious. To say that love fulfills the law does _not_ mean that love “surpasses and transcends it.” It means that what the law requires is summed up by the command to love your neighbour as yourself.
Your quote doesn’t substantiate what you said whatsoever, it only condemns you. Don’t be stiff-necked; stop trying to be justified by the law. As Paul says, if you are doing so, you have been alienated from Christ and have fallen away from grace. You’ve been warned. Your blood is on your own head. Love for the sake of obeying Christ and because it is good and profitable for people, not with the aim of trying to be justified before God.
@@StudyisKey. I don't think you know what I'm saying, but you seem very secure in your position, so I'll leave you to it.
Dr. Cooper, Saint Jerome didnt disagree with Saint Augustine about the ability to apply Paul's "not by works of the law" to good works. Saint Jerome does that very thing multiple times in his own writings. I am a Catholic scholar and I would love to discuss this with you sometime. :)
I wonder if he's read Matthew Thomas's work on Paul and Works of the Law.
@@westernkselite524 I'm sure he has, but Dr. Thomas doesnt talk about Jerome and Augustine, so I don't know the relevance here. However I would say that Dr. Thomas unfortunately misrepresents the evidence from the first two centuries. There are Christians in that era that explicitly understand works of the law in terms of good works (Clement) including one of the authors he examines and says only understands it in terms of the outdated Mosaic Law. I forget off the top of my head which one but if you remind me later I'll come back with the citation..
@@taylorbarrett384 Dr. Thomas, actually speaks quite alot that the early reception was that works of the Law meant the ceremonial works, but that it could be applied to any work done outside of Grace. That the early reception was about a new covenant that was entered into by a faith that worketh through love, BUT that once entered into works can increase that justification, and that at the judgement these works will have some role in said salvation.
@@westernkselite524 Nowhere in Dr. Thomas' book does he say that the early interpreters believed Paul's "works of the law" could be applied to any works outside of grace.
I was born Catholic and I'm sure that biases me. But truly I think Luther was more right than wrong. But for me it comes down to German not being on the cross, the Roman language was. For me it's not about logic or my ability to work it out. I can agree with every Lutheran position on Justification, and even disagree with Catholic bishop's positions, and still feel a need to stay Catholic because there is one Church founded by Jesus and there is some sort of supremacy of the office of the bishop to guide me as a lay person. I appreciate your video. I think that for me as somebody who is not a bishop or priest or pastor or trained theologian those roots matter to me more than my thinking through it. As a 49 year old I've seen how my insight has changed on various topics over the years. That's not to judge any Lutherans or Protestants in general. My brothers son is going to college next year intending to become a Methodist minister. I can't wait to hear from him what he learns and accept all Christians as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Also, I don't know the history of it, but I've read the Small Catechism, and find it interesting that that catechism is built on the 10 Commandments and the Catholic Catechism the Nicene Creed. I know Lutherans accept the creed as well, but growing up we prayed the Apostles Creed as a family every day. Is this the same for Lutherans?
It’s fine to be Roman catholic. I probably would feel the same as you if I were in your position. Just don’t follow the wrong stuff in there.
@@Shevockthe small Catechism is free online, just search for small Catechism CPH.
Anyhow, our Catechisms have a primarily threefold structure, on the Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, and the Lord's prayer, as well as explanations of the sacraments and life as a Christian. Even before he wrote the Small Catechism, Luther refers to "the Catechism," and by that he means these three texts.
It's a quick read though, it fits in a pamphlet.
@@ShevockYes, the Small Catechism encourages families to say the Apostles Creed.
Your gracious attitude is heart warning but sadly this is not the position of Rome through the centuries. Your pious devotion is applaudable but to me little nieve and misguided. The one church founded by Jesus is not the one Roman Catholic Church anymore in the 21st century. The one Catholic Church that Christ founded is all those who belong to Christ the question is how does the expression of that best fit the teaching of the Apostles he called to carry on his mesage. Only you can answer that question which I believe is found in Protestantism.
I would prefer to hear Bish B than what you think and want us to think..
Verbosity is a turn off
Faith alone but the individual must at least express his/her faith “Jesus is Lord”! Speak!!! Don’t hide your faith like a candle under a table! Honor God!
Faith without love is nothing. Thus, faith is not alone.
@@MrProsat You appear to have not understood the analogy of the tree and its fruit. A good healthy fruit tree produces good fruit but the fruit doesn't make the tree a good tree as the tree must previously have been a healthy one in order to produce good fruit. Likewise we must be righteous and justified through faith alone before we can do good works. So we're justified through faith alone but faith is never alone because it always loves and does good works.
@@Edward-ng8oo You don't seem to understand the context of that saying from Jesus. It was on how to identify people following God in their hearts - not just with their lips, as the Pharisees. You are trying to take the analogy too far.
Your last statement is double talk. "We are justified by faith alone but faith is not alone...." Please.
Nonsense. The word "faith" does NOT mean that it always is with love. You read James 2? The devil has FAITH. Does he have love? Clearly not. So one MUST have faith working in love. BOTH. Faith cannot be alone to be salvific.
@@MrProsat Paul's teaching is that justification is through faith alone as in Romans 4:3-5 (For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, ESV). When James referred to the Demons believing in the existence of God such belief isn't to be confused with Christian faith which is a heart felt trust in Christ as one's Saviour. Demons don't have this but on the contrary hate Christ.
I agree that faith must be combined with love if it's to be saving faith, but it doesn't follow that faith and love both justify. Only faith justifies because our love is impure being tainted with sin and therefore our righteousness is imperfect. Only Christ’s perfect righteousness credited to us through faith alone justifies.
Paul says that we're saved through God's grace through faith so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9) whereas if our love is a factor in our justification then we would have something to boast about because we could say that we’ve partly earned our salvation through our love. The gospel that Paul preached is that we’re justified and saved through faith alone in order that we can love God and others, not by loving God and others.
James was wrong if he was meaning that one can truly believe in God without this resulting in loving Him. The Devils don't have Christian faith. They're completely devoid of it. And James was wrong to have stated that we’re justified through both faith and works. We're justified through faith alone but faith is never alone because it's always accompanied by love and good works. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.
@@MrProsat Paul's teaching is that justification is through faith alone as in Romans 4:3-5 (For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, ESV). When James referred to the Demons believing in the existence of God such belief isn't to be confused with Christian faith which is a heart felt trust in Christ as one's Saviour. Demons don't have this but on the contrary hate God.
I agree that faith must be combined with love if it's to be saving faith, but it doesn't follow that faith and love both justify. Only faith justifies because our love is impure being tainted with sin and therefore our righteousness is imperfect. Only Christ’s perfect righteousness credited to us through faith alone justifies.
Paul says that we're saved through God's grace through faith so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9) whereas if our love is a factor in our justification then we would have something to boast about because we could say that we’ve partly earned our salvation through our love. The gospel that Paul preached is that we’re justified and saved through faith alone in order that we can love God and others, not by loving God and others.
"Fear and trembling," sounds a lot like what Luther describes as tentatio.
Regarding love being the fulfillment of the law, I do think you can have a hypothetical human (other than Christ) who PERFECTLY LOVES all things at all times, who is therefore sinless and not in need of salvation.
But no actual human with a fallen nature is CAPABLE of perfect love, and will always fall short of it (and therefore short of fulfilling the law). I can do any number of "good" acts, but unless I am doing them out of perfect love, it's just an exercise in checking boxes.
The only way to acquire a nature capable of perfect love is by God's grace. I have no power within me, as a fallen creature, to cultivate a nature capable of perfect love. That can only be given as a gift by the one who made me, and the good that results is the fruit of that gift, not the payment to earn it.
Bishop Barron also told Ben Shapiro (a jew) that "It is made clear in Vatican 2 that by following the law and your conscious towards God that there can be salvation for those outside of the Catholic, or even explicit Christian religion" he then went on to tell Ben (a Jew) that by Ben's adherence to the law ans his conscious towards God that Ben could be "Saved by indirectly through Christ" that Ben rejects Christ but that Christ's grace "could work indirectly" and that Ben could be saved. 😬💀
Justification by works alone.
@@DrJordanBCooper For they preach, but do not practice.
@@DrJordanBCooper
I would like to see you argue with Jordan Peterson or some atheists about the Protestant church
@@STG-88 Dr. Peterson is not much of a theologian
Would you agree then that Barron teaches that Vatican 2 supersedes what scripture plainly says, and essentially makes Christ Himself a liar?
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me..."
Just curious....
Way to take James out of context bishop 😩
28:10 "The impurities of your motives and actions at the judgement seat of God are covered over by the blood of Christ. God does not see them. What God does judge is those fruits of the spirit"
This is interesting. As a Catholic, I believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was done for my past sins and my current sins and my future sins by his blood. But at the judgement, I do expect that those impure motives and actions will have to be purified and cleansed. This the doctrine of purgation in purgatory. And that process of cleansing will be somewhat painful. How could they not be? But the more pure a soul is when it comes before the judgement seat of God, the less purgation they will need to experience. That just makes sense, right? That does not mean that their past sins are in no need of the blood of Christ. But it does mean that some folks have done more of the leg work of purgation before their death than others.
I believe that Lutherans would somewhat agree with some of these things and put them under the conceptual category of sanctification. But we Catholics do not separate sanctification from justification.... Anyway, I still need to finish the video. Just wanted to capture this thought.
For any Lutherans on the thread, can you tell me where the bible clearly differentiates sanctification from justification?
God bless,
Daniel
I remember talking to some Calvinist guy who proposed that death itself was purgation enough.
I suppose that might be acceptable with the current understanding of purgatory, which does not necessarily include an aspect of time or duration after death.
It would also explain the thief who died on the cross. He still died.
How do Lutherans explain the necessity of death after Christ died for our sins? In fact, I wonder how Catholics explain the necessity of death.... Will need to do some research into my own faith - I honestly don't know. :)
This is an interesting quote from the CCC
"1011 In death, God calls man to himself. Therefore the Christian can experience a desire for death like St. Paul's: "My desire is to depart and be with Christ." He can transform his own death into an act of obedience and love towards the Father, after the example of Christ:
My earthly desire has been crucified; . . . there is living water in me, water that murmurs and says within me: Come to the Father.
I want to see God and, in order to see him, I must die.
I am not dying; I am entering life."
I see Christ's submission of death on the cross as an act of Faith. I also see Paul's statement that he desires to depart and be with Christ as an act of faith. Perhaps this is what Romans calls, the "Obedience of Faith".
That is a content rich notion of faith. A faith that has so much love for God in it that it no longer desires the things of this world, but seeks, joyfully, to be united to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for eternity. Death, now no longer has any fear for such a person. Death no longer has power over such a one .... with a faith like this. That certainly reflects the kind of faith that Abraham had - he believed so strongly that God could do anything, that he did not even hesitate to offer up his own son as a sacrifice. Abraham believed in the resurrection of the dead!
So I am curious what Lutherans think of these reflections on faith and death. Faith, in this sense, is not an easy thing to simply affirm. It requires ... strong love for God.... and strong detachment from sin. Certainly that is not the robust faith that believers immediately start of with. Their faith grows and develops over time ... along with their hope and their charity. But to segment the theological virtues off from one another just seems wrong. Often times the path to apostasy lies in a conjunction of a loss of hope that leads to a denial of the faith. And sometimes that loss of hope is grounded in being overly attached to the good things of this life. For example, the death of a loved one, the death of a spouse, or the death of a child. These are real trials and tests of faith. Someone can go through such trials worse off on the other side. Ultimately you are left with the choice of the good thief who affirms his sins and humbly asks to be included in eternal life - an act of virtuous faith, or the choice of the bad thief on the cross who mocks Jesus, who demand freedom from death on his own terms. Who wants eternal life without suffering the cross, without submitting himself to the obedience of faith.
Anyway, I suppose it comes down to what our notion of the faith and whether an act of faith is simply a one time assent to some theological proposition, or a living virtue that must be practiced over a life time of pain and suffering, joys and temptations. Certainly this Faith as a Virtue conception seems to make more sense of the gospels. It is not something that would lead us to boast, as having come from our own powers, as being according to the flesh, as Paul categorizes such acts in Romans 4. Because in Catholic theology, the faith itself is a gift that comes from an encounter with the living Christ. We can choose to practice that faith, fan its flames, or neglect it, and let it die. Focus on other things of this world, rather than focus on the living Son of God, the source of eternal life. Such a faith does not lead us to boast in ourselves, but to boast in God, the source of every good gift.
Anyway, hopefully interested in your thoughts.
God bless
I was thinking that the primordial original sin was a sin against faith in God, hope in God, and love for God. That sin opened the door to death. Faith in Christ opens the door to eternal life. But it is a faith that must be practiced - that must have an impact on our life. Also it must be practiced throughout our lives. Not just as a one time thing. I believe Dr. Cooper said that we can fall into mortal sin and apostatize. But how can this happen unless a person's faith has first withered away and died? And how could the faith have died unless they also lost hope in Christ's promises and in the love of God and in their love for God?
And we can see that faith is tested over time. Abraham was declared Justified at the beginning, but then again after his attempted sacrifice of his son. So his faith is periodically tested through his life. And our faith can grow and deepen as we age and as we continue to correspond with the Word of God and to eat the Mana from heaven. And along with our Faith, our hope and our love must also grow. Love fulfills the law as Paul says. Aquinas says that love is the form of all virtues. But the Love of God must be primary. Otherwise our loves are disordered. The other kinds of love must be purified by Agape. C.S. Lewis puts this so beautifully in his Four Loves. I think Augustine meant something similar when he said "Love God, and do whatever you please."
So going back to my original questions, it seems to me that justification is an ongoing thing. It may initially begin as a small kernel of faith, but that faith, if properly nurtured, can grow and develop into from a mustard seed into the mustard tree. And so justification grows at the same time as sanctification grows or at least one's justification becomes more or less secure as one develops. Having said that, the seed that is first planted is just as much worthy of heaven, by the blood of Christ, as the mustard tree it can eventually become.
So I'm just trying to apply some of Dr. Cooper's thinking to my thoughts above. Especially his statement that Romans 13:10 shows that love , which is the fulfillment of the law, is itself included as a work of the law.
My initial thoughts are that no Catholic who knows their faith believes that they are earning their salvation apart from Christ's blood such that any of their works can allow them to boast. The sacrament of baptism, which we call the sacrament of faith, is itself unearned. So it is itself completely sola fide. We baptize Children, and I believe Lutherans do as well. That shows that it is completely gratuitous. It does not depend on the intellectual merits of the recipient.
Then we do confirmation. And that involves the children, who have now reached the age of reason, to make the faith their own. Unfortunately, many do not, and whatever faith they had, just withers and fades away. They no longer practice their faith. They no longer attend church. They live completely worldly lives and the love of God and the love for God is not in them. In effect, they are apostate.
But, there are those who do practice their faith. They attend mass on a weekly basis. The seed of their faith grows into a sprout and then into a sapling, and then into a small tree, and so on. They are told to avoid mortal sins. The Catholic church does not see this in such a way that avoiding mortal sins equals earning their way into salvation. It sees the ten commandments as a way to keep the life of faith hope and charity alive in their hearts. Mortal sins means killing the life of God in their hearts. It means willful disobedience. And if unrepented of, leads to separation from Christ and his church. They have killed their faith, so to speak. All sins against faith in some way include some form of idolatry, which is also a sin against the love of God or a distrust of God, which is a sin against faith, or a lack of hope in God in the form of despair. Whether it is the inordinate love for wealth, which leads to theft or even just workaholicism, or sex which leads to adultery or r8pe or addiction to p8rn, of for human praise which leads to envy and jealousy, and so on. All that to say that when one of the theological virtues fails, then the others tend to fail as well.
Venial sins involves minor transgressions that are sins against charity. Just look at the fruits of the spirit in Galatians 5 to see where we can fail in this regard. If it seems like we are producing the fruits of the flesh instead, then we still have a lot of sanctification needed. We still need to be purified more. Again, growing in sanctity does not mean earning your way into heaven. It means growing in virtues that have their root in Christ and flow organically from the theological virtues.
Trying to bring my thoughts back to Dr. Cooper's comments ... I think an important qualifier in Romans 4 is Paul's initial remark about what does the flesh teach us in Romans 1. He often makes the distinction between those who are in the flesh, who have a Pelagian mindset and those who are in the spirit. Between those who boast of their works and those who do not because they live by faith. Those who think they are justified by their works, and those who believe they are justified by Christ. Now Catholics believe they are justified by Christ alone. But that justification is a dynamic power that grants the ungoing forgiveness of sins from the moment of baptism up until death. It is the entrance into a new life that exists in relation to God conditioned by the three theological virtues. But that life of faith must be maintained. God requires our cooperation to keep it alive. If we do not practice our faith, it withers and dies. And sometimes our faith is severely tested, sometimes to the point of martyrdom. To have that level of heroic faith, the believer must love God to the point that their desires have been to a great extent, purified from worldly desires. If the person is too much in love with the world, they will apostatize. This is what happened in the early church during the time of Cyprian. The question that church asked itself is whether to grand absolution to those who had lapsed under threat of torture and death. Eventually the church decided that such were to be granted absolution and reentry into the church community. But some, perhaps, were not penitent and they returned to paganism.
All this to demonstrate that sanctification and justification appear to go hand in hand. An unsanctified faith is an empty faith. A faith that will bend and break at the first storm. It is a faith that can and will be easily lost. True faith can and will be tested. It must be an obedient faith. And, barring that, it must be a repentant faith.
Your idea of the perspicuity of Scripture seems to hold that Logical investigation and deduction is the path to the clear meaning of Scripture. To whom? To a first century Jew, to a 16th century Roman Catholic? To a 16th century Protestant Hebrew scholar?
The answer is that for all of them this ought to be the case. The problem is the plain meaning of Scripture is not about rational deduction only but also about the context and culture of 1st-century Judaism as well as the communities to which the NT inspired-writers wrote. God made the the plain meaning of Scriptural contextual to a people who may or may not have made the distinctions you have. Which means development of doctrine and tradition. So which is it? Lutheran or Catholic? 30:06
Sola Fide really has lost any comprehensive meaning in the modern church. Justification by faith alone means now anything one wants it to means now.
We are not justified by the law in any respect moral law or ceremonial....yes of course we are called do do good works and strive towards life of Holiness more and more in the life long sanctification proccess but won't be justified by it (the law of any kind ceremonial or moral) though as who among us has fulfilled the law completely and perfectly...who among us loves are neighbor as ourself perfectly all the time or even loves God with their whole heart, mind, body etc.
Got a joke for you:
Q: What’s the difference between Lutherans and Roman Catholics?
A: Lutherans read the whole book.
Faith alone. A concept found nowhere in scripture. How do protestants not see that? I thought they read the Bible
I thought this argumentation from Cooper was weak and porous. Was expecting more.
A doctrine that was never part of the historical faith invented by a hysterical,monk who claimed personal Devine revelation that so many passages in the Bible refute....is frankly laughable. May God enlighten your mind, Amen 🙏
James 2:24. I certainly agree with Lutheran theology more than catholic but Faith alone contradicts scripture. Grace alone is absolutely correct. What we believe is intrinsically tied to what we do and vise versa. Because of this, "faith alone" is incorrect. In spirit it is correct as our beliefs dictate our actions and so just and right action will follow Faith (and so if no action follows the faith is false) but scripture explicitly says we are not justified by faith alone
I think a lot of this comes down to a difference in how Catholics and Protestants define “justification.” Protestants are hyper-legalistic about distinguishing faith from the things that faith causes, whereas Catholics and Orthodox would see this distinction as a trivial technicality. That’s why Catholics simply don’t talk much about justification; they just tell you to pray, repent, and carry your cross.
I think I agree, but then that is practicing "sola fide" for only those who trust the commands will to follow them.
Roman Catholics just tell you to pray to Mary and she'll take care of you.
@@Nonz.M Incorrect, that’s a straw man. We ask the Saints for their intercession for the same reason we ask others to pray for us, because they are part of the Body of Christ (the Church). Prayers to Mary date back to the ante-Nicene period. So if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the early Church.
@@grantc9012 Instead of parroting what you've been told to believe. I encourage you to actually analyze what you've been taught.
Take a look at this popular Marian prayer, Salve Regina:
"Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary."
There are numerous Roman Catholic prayers like this to Mary and other saints. It is clear you do not merely ask the saints to pray for you in the same way you'd ask other Christians on Earth to pray for you. You pray directly to saints, addressing them as if they are the ones who confer to you grace, mercy, and grant your petition.
Luther’s doctrine of justification has been thoroughly discredited as ahistorical at this point.
If the baby looks like Jesus, it's evidence the woman has been with Jesus.
Please consider correctly pronouncing Augustine "áwww-Gus-teen" instead of "uhhh... gustin'." If it is hard to remember, imagine we have a friend, GUS, who just married a 19 yr old lady (TEEN), & they look so cute together (AWWW! 😊).
No more arguments! Let’s unite for Christ! Win the 6 billion lost humans for Christ!
The true differences is not justification by faith alone. It is what is meant by faith alone. For the Catholic we are justified by faith formed by love alone. A faith empowered by Love( the divine nature) justifies. This is fides caritate formata. This faith is a living faith and not a dead faith. Catholics distinguish between living faith ( fides formata) and dead faith ( fides informis). If a protestant will say that we are justtified by a living faith empowered by the love of Christ , then the argument would be over. The issue is that Luther rejected this teaching of justification early on. He rejected faith formed by love. He did not see faith as a living thing but as an inanimate instrument to collect the merits of Christ like a bucket. This is the difference that no one seems to talk about. To reject the catholic understanding of justification you must deny that wr are justified by a living faith empowered by love alone. You must say that love is not the form of faith and faith is not alive. Aquinas used the term faith alone 28 times. He meant faith formed by love and luther knew this and rejected this.
I agree with Luther that faith isn't formed by love but is a living trust in Christ. To affirm that faith is only valid when it’s formed by love amounts to saying that love is the essence of faith and that a person is justified through love and good works. This is the opposite of Paul's doctrine who taught that justification is through faith without works (Romans 4:1-8). If love and good works justify then it follows that keeping the moral law justifies whereas Paul excludes the law from justification. I agree with what Luther says in the following passage:
This is the true, Christian way to teach: We are justified through faith in Christ, not through the works of the Law. Here you should not allow the godless comment of the sophists to disturb you who say that faith justifies you only after it is joined by love and good works. With this pernicious comment they have obscured and perverted this and similar sentences in St. Paul's letters in which he most plainly ascribes justification to faith. When a man hears that he must indeed believe in Christ, but that faith does nonetheless not justify if, in addition, it is not formed by love, then he promptly falls from faith; and he thinks: If faith does not justify without love, then faith is idle and useless, and love alone justifies. For if faith is not formed and graced by love, it is nothing. Moreover, in order to prove this pernicious and pestilential comment of theirs, the adversaries adduce the passage from 1 Corinthians 13: If I have not charity, I am nothing (v. 2). This passage they consider their iron wall. But they are senseless folk. Therefore they understand and see nothing that Paul teaches. And they have not only done violence to the words of Paul by this false interpretation but have also denied Christ and destroyed all His benefits. We should, therefore, avoid (this comment) as an infernal poison and conclude with Paul: By faith alone we are justified, not by a faith that has been formed by love (formata charitate). We must, therefore, not ascribe the power of justifying to this gracing form (formae gratificanti) but to a faith which apprehends and possesses Christ Himself in the heart as Savior. This faith, without and before love, justifies. (What Luther Says 1478)
@Edward-ng8oo this is an honest view of what luther believed and why he was wrong. God is love. Faith that does not join us to God is useless. Faith that is empowered and united to God (Love) saves and saves alone. Luther is a great example of how Catholics believe in salvation through a living relationship with Christ and how many protestants believe in salvation through a court room vedrict. " blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy' ~Jesus. Sounds like faith formed by love to me
@@nickynolfi833 There's a number of misunderstandings in your reply. You say that God is love and that faith that doesn't join us to God is useless. However faith on its own does join us to God because when we believe in Christ we receive the Holy Spirit and we're reconciled to the Father through Christ’s atonement. We’re then imbued with love by the Holy Spirit and we endeavour to live righteously and do good to everyone. Just because justification happens through faith alone doesn't mean that Christians don't subsequently live a life transformed by love. Christians are merciful because they've been justified through faith alone and now they live a life of love and of willing obedience to God's commandments.
The Catholic doctrine of justification by faith formed by love sounds impressive until one examines it and realises that it's just a fancy way of teaching justification through works. If what we do by way of love justifies us then salvation isn't through God's mercy alone but happens also because we've earned it through our own behaviour and works. That contradicts Paul's teaching that works don't justify (Romans 4:1-8).
@Edward-ng8oo you misunderstand rome. God loves us first, he calls us by grace while we are sinners. God's love for us precedes grace, grace precedes faith, faith precedes trust( hope) , and Hope precedes the Virtue of Love being poured into our hearts. Doctor Cooper here is arguing against a justification by love that someone does as still an enemy of God. This order is wrong . When God justifies man, he enters man. We are justified by the virtue of Love and not by the works of love. Works or love and virtue supplement our faith as 2nd Peter says. The Catholic says we are justified by uniting faith in Christ and luther says that a justified man will be united with Christ. In all honesty if someone is united with Christ when they die then they will be saved. If we make this union in the righteous love of Christ unnecessary for salvation then we end up with antinomianism. One reading of the Gospels will show that Christ, as well as Peter, James , John,and Paul taught salvation through a living faith united in the Love of Christ. I don't know why anyone would teach against this. Who would want to go to heaven if they didn't love God? As John says in 1st John 4 " perfect love casts out all fear. I think if a protestant truly has this love they will be saved even if they get the terminology wrong. Easy believism on the otherhand that lives in lawlessness doesn't save.
@@nickynolfi833 You say God loves us first and that he calls us by His grace while we are sinners to which I agree. You also say that grace precedes faith, and faith precedes trust which you define as hope, whereas faith is trust not hope. So faith precedes hope, and we have hope because the love of God has been poured into our hearts. However you say that the virtue of love is what justifies us, but nowhere in Scripture is this taught. Justification is a person being counted righteous by God because he has obtained forgiveness of his sins through what Christ has done for him, and this can only be received through faith alone. Simply having the virtue of love in his soul can't justify him.
I agree that if a person is united with Christ when he dies he’ll be saved but the only way he can be united with Christ is if he's been accepted by the Father as his child through faith in His Son. Salvation is through faith alone but faith is never alone because it always results in loving others because of the love which God has shed into our hearts. Unfortunately Catholics believe a false gospel since they reject that we're justified through faith alone, and therefore they're not actually united with Christ.
Romans 5:1-5 ESV - Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
People who change after 12min of talk is shallow n easily swayyed. Sad. Do the right thing n read more n dig deeper
The apples don’t make the apple tree? What an error in logic if I’ve ever seen one
@tookie, so an apple tree is no longer an apple tree once its apples are harvested?
@@nc9488 an apple tree by definition has the quality of producing apples. It’s the same argument for what is a woman. A woman by definition has the quality of birthing children. Maybe that doesn’t happen. Maybe something distorts or gets in the way. But to say the fruit isn’t an integral part of the substance is to deny the wholeness of the substance. Such as woman, apple tree, god, etc
@@tookie36 I completely agree with you, and you prove my point. Our works ARE important, but they are not the sole defining factor of our salvation. Something gets in the way (sin) and we do not always produce the fruit of good works we should bear. But thanks be to God, we are not judged SOLELY on our works, but on the faith God gives us.
@@nc9488as cooper tries to suggest “the fruit are evidence”. That’s the error. They are not evidence they are inherent in the nature of the tree. Without works their is no salvation. Without fruit there is no tree. It’s a language game to suggest an apple tree doesn’t need apples. Without apples it is not an apple tree
@@tookie36 good works are evidence of our faith, in the same way apples are evidence the tree is healthy and living. Again, an apple tree that is sick and not producing fruit does not cease to be an apple tree. It was an apple tree from the moment God created it. Does it need intervention to save it from the axe? Yes, and that invention comes from outside of itself.