Pastor Andrew, thank you so much for sharing the story of your journey. It was beautiful, and will be even more so when the Lord has finished writing his story for you on this side of eternity. Your story encouraged my soul in the truth of the free Gospel of grace. May you, your family, and your ministry be blessed, always secure and joyful in the perfect righteousness you have in Christ Jesus our Lord who is our salvation and peace. (From a Baptist brother!
I'm a Catholic priest who studied with Pastor Andrew in the seminary. I remember him to be earnest and honest in his desire for Christ. I'm edified to see that endure in his life and prayerfully wish him continued blessing.
Works are important for both Catholics and Protestants. For Catholics works contribute to our salvation. For Protestants works are a consequence of our salvation. Many thanks for this video. Blessings from UK.
Reading the entirety of the Apostle Paul's epistle(letter) to the Gentiles of Ephesians gives me peace and joy with the Lord by His grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone in accordance with Scriptures alone to God's glory alone. Alleluia !
Man you know I was just thinking a week or so ago that it’d be nice if more Lutherans posted more conversion stories coming into the lutheran Church like the Romans do and low and behold I end up finding your channel doing exactly that.
RC here: At 20:00 everything that the pastor said, as a Roman Catholic I could respond ME TOO. I never studied for the priesthood and lived my life (I'm 77) as a single man. BUT I studied Lutheran teachings as Pastor Andrew did (and I still do) and have come to the conclusion I can live my Catholic Faith as a LUTHERANIZED CATHOLIC without compomising anything. Let's face face it, to me the Pope occupies 1/500th of my daily living BUT every game needs a referee I attend weekly Mass, receive Communion, pray and read the Bible daily. So, why can't I read the Gospels, Romans, Galatians etc. and believe exactly what they say regarding the knowledge that I am SAVED, be CERTAIN about it through through Christ's free Gospel of grace? I've tossed out of my life the Church's IMPLIED assertion WELL YOU CAN NEVER BE SURE YOU ARE SAVED.....JUST LIVE WITH THE HOPE YOU ARE AND JUMP THROUGH THE REST OF OUR HOOPS. Being a practicing Catholic to me means being part of a 2000 yr. old, worldwide family established by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and having about 2 billion brothers & sisters. Thanks and God bless you Pastor Andrew for FINALLY enabling me "being able to put it all together!" Oh...and I just ordered a new copy of THE BOOK OF CONCORD......mine was falling apart.
Get your Book of Concord from CPH (Concordia) "It is also taught among us that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sins and righteousness before God by our own merits, works or satisfactions..." Read Confessio Augustana (Augsburg Confession) and it's Apology (Defense).
Pastor Andrew, God shaped your life and prepared you to serve to this capacity for such a time as this. Thank you for being an instrument of His peace.
Thank you, Javier, for this interview! Very fascinating! While in college in the 90s, people from some different groups on campus were confused on justification and through dialogue and turmoil of soul came to have confidence in the sufficiency of Jesus. I'm a bivocational Congregational pastor now and love encouraging others to see Jesus for them and find confidence in His sufficiency.
OK! I’ve been up and binge watching your content and it slaps. I really just have to comment that the intro music is so good. That neo soul riff is so aesthetic
@@javierperd2604 "Bring the truth to bare"? Protestantism has no organ of authoritative teaching to arrive at truth. The Bible practice, by it very nature, results in each group/individual arriving at different and opposing doctrinal conclusions. With each sect, no matter what other particular sources are mixed with the Bible, the result is the same: ones own rendering of Scripture outside the authority of the Catholic Church. It is simply a rebellion of pride. Remember that most heretics who founded movements were priests. Nothing new here. Javier brother, return to the Rock of Peter, the holy faith that is your inheritance.
Roman Catholic here, God bless you both. I like this pastor very much and I’m glad you’re making videos showing people who crossed the Tiber on the other side, there’s not a lot of Protestant apologetics out there but I appreciate what you and what Gavin Ortlund is doing with Truth Unites. That and resources like Catholic Answers are important to people trying to discern truth claims of different Christian traditions. We are often SO uncharitable with one another but at the end of the day we’re both brothers and sisters in Christ. Of course this pastor does see things harshly for Catholics. I know a lot of Catholic converts who see things harshly for Protestants too, it’s very human, not holding that against him. I used to see especially Reformed Protestants the same way. I agree with many of his concerns actually. I agree salvation is by grace, by faith, all by Jesus. I have issues with some of the things I have heard in my church and that’s making me have serious second thoughts even as a VERY devout adult convert. I just want to know what’s really true. Please pray for me. I don’t understand how it all works, I am very cautious personally and taking it slow. I want to believe what is objectively true and not what I WANT to believe is true. I want to do what God wants me to do, not what I want to do. I trust that Jesus has saved me, is saving me, will save me. I trust that I am saved very, very much in-spite of myself. Ah, if my church really is THAT wrong on something so crucial, it needs prayers. And if you Protestants are wrong, you need prayers. I like this prayer for the Church, “catholic” here can mean either the denomination or just “universal”: “Gracious Father, we pray for your holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ your Son our Savior. Amen. - William Laud And there is this prayer also by Thomas Merton that is so good for people in this kind of situation: “My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road, though I may know nothing about it. Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.”
I mean he sees certain aspects of the tradition in that way, not Catholics themselves. He seems to have a reasonable view of Catholics in spite of his disagreements. “I love the Catholic church”, ah, I can so feel that pain. Oh, how I wish we all were one and in agreement fully on what is truly right whatever that is!
I really appreciate thoughtful and good-faith comments like this. I just prayed for God's continued guidance for you as well as for all of us engaging in these sorts of dialogues and faith journeys 🙏
Man, this comment brings me joy. There seriously is a lack of charity amongst the varying traditions. You sound very sincere towards other traditions and just seeking truth in general. I will pray for your concerns.
Awesome story, I am also from Michigan, army reserve baptist seminarian experiences, got the same bishop treatment from my people when I quoted Luther at them, got in big trouble, left and married a Lutheran girl.
Good interview, Javier and Pastor Andrew. What I appreciate most about this dialogue is the honesty about the Protestant tradition and the historical reasons people join and stay within Protestantism. There is this presumption that some take into "internet theology" that the only reason someone is Protestant is because they haven't read enough yet. As if it's a nursing stage for young Christians as they study the theology and history of the church, until they can move into the "real" theology of Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. When in reality, there is no shortage of Protestants who are quite well versed in Church History, Greek and Latin, the Church Fathers and the conciliar canons of the early church (and would defend their knowledge on these topics as reasons why they are Protestant). The mission of Mereosity is to promote Christian dialogue and to make theology that traditionally has only been available in university lecture halls accessible to anyone who is interested. We do not do explicitly Protestant material (we have a Roman catholic on our team), but we do promote intellectual honesty and good scholarship. Two things missing in a lot of internet theology channels, and two things I have found in your channel. Thanks for the hard work and God bless.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Pastor Andrew, at one point, mentioned that growing up Catholic he had never heard of alien righteousness before. From my research, it seems to me the reason for this is because the concept of alien righteousness as the basis of justification was a novel idea to Luther. As a former Confessional LCMS Lutheran, I can honestly say it was a deep dive into the topic of justification that lead me to the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran, I had been taught many things about the Catholic Church that ended up simply not being true. I also found out that many of the key ideas for the Lutheran approach to justification were simply not found in the Church before the Reformation. Conversely, you can find ample historical evidence of the Catholic view of justification through out the different eras of the Church. I strongly recommend any Protestants to take the time and learn more about what Catholics actually teach about justification (from Catholic sources!), because you are likely to find it is not what you think they teach. One common misconception in particular, is that Catholics are pelagians or semipelagians. They are in no way shape or form either, and have many Church documents and councils that condemn these positions. After my research, I now think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories: 1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics). 2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics). 3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis) 4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes. **I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy**. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace". Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification: "A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within man)... where none was conceded before. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification, is defined as the alien righteousness of Christ, external to man and imputed to him, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to him… It is clearly of importance to account for this new understanding of the nature of justifying righteousness, with its associated conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification. Attempts on the part of an earlier generation of Protestant apologists to defend this innovation as a recovery of the authentic teaching of Augustine, and of their Catholic opponents to demonstrate that it constituted a vestige of a discredited and ossified Ockhamism, can no longer be taken seriously. It is the task of the historian to account for this new development, which marks a complete break with the tradition up to this point." (McGrath, Allister E. 1986. lustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (1st Ed. Vol. 2). Cambridae University Press.) The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external. In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126* These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127* The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on . *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127* In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct. Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135* I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him. "A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186) God bless!
McGrath is actually a good example of how analytical scholars like he and Calvin allow logic to trump exegesis, and the weaknesses of natural theology. St Bernard of Clairveaux and Joban Tauler are good examples of proto-Lutheran Roman Catholic priests and thinkers which prove that Luther never invented his biblical theology but derived it from those two Catholics along with Theological Germanica. The main catalyst that pushed Luther into action was a sin that continues to this day in the Catholic faith - the selling of souvenirs that somehow score points with God. Just yesterday on Facebook I saw another ad from The Catholic Church about some special rosary that we must buy because of its magic power. Luther swept all that stuff away as unbiblical. Peace
@@SibleySteve Hi SibleySteve. Thanks for pointing out a few possible sources that might offer a different perspective than McGrath. I think Joseph from the lonelypilgrim blog answers what is going here perfectly, so I won't try to reproduce it but instead just paste it in here. I also would like to affirm that any misunderstandings/abuses particular Catholics may make doesn't invalidate the actual doctrine of the Church. Magic rosaries that score points with God would certainly not be anything the Church teaches about soteriology. Here is the response on St. Bernard of Clairveaux showing he most certainly understood justification in terms of infused righteousness, not an alien imputed righteousness that Luther would later invent: "...you are taking a few words and ideas that resemble the ones you are looking for out of the larger context of the authors’ arguments, and ignoring all the rest they have to say. You are finding half your doctrine, if that much, and then interpolating the rest, even when the rest contradicts it. To take your excerpt from St. Bernard: for one thing, he never uses the word “imputed” at all. It isn’t there in the Latin, but was interpolated by the translator (Bernard actually uses the word “assigned”). For another - there is nothing at all Bernard says here that is inconsistent with Catholic theology. Catholics also believe, and Paul clearly teaches, that the righteousness of Christ is given to believers (Romans 3:22, cf. CCC 1987). The difference between Catholic theology and Protestant theology is their understanding of the nature of that gift, what it actually is and does. Catholics believe that in addition to assigning Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, God actually infuses that sanctifying grace and love into the sinner’s heart (Romans 5:5), and that that grace effects a change in his soul, cleansing him, destroying the power of sin over him, and actually making him righteous. On the other hand, Protestants believe, and you have articulated, that the alien righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner in such a way that it neither becomes his own nor actually, in itself, effects a change in him: that this imputation is a purely forensic act, a declaring “not guilty” that attributes to the sinner Christ’s righteousness but doesn’t actually give him that righteousness; and that this imputation is once and for all, irreversible, and all that is necessary for salvation. But that isn’t what Bernard says at all. “Bernard teaching imputation” would be Bernard articulating that doctrine in the same terms Protestants eventually did, the same terms you understand it. As it reads now, he is mostly just quoting Paul, and you are interpolating your understanding of imputation in exactly the same way you do with Paul. A few quick quotes from the very same letter: “If from the one [Adam’s fall] I was infected with concupiscence from my birth, by Christ spiritual grace was infused into me.” (Chapter VI) “He who had mercy on the sinner will not condemn the righteous; I mean that I am righteous, but it is in His righteousness, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4). In short, He was made our righteousness by God the Father (1 Corinthians 1:30). Is not that righteousness mine which was made for me? If my guilt was inherited, why should not my righteousness be accorded to me? And, truly, what is given me is safer than what was born in me. For this, indeed, has whereof to glory, but not before God; but that, since it is effectual to salvation, has nothing whereof to glory but in the Lord.” (Chapter VI) Just as Protestants read a denial of the necessity of works into Augustine’s affirmations of grace against Pelagius, taking those affirmations out of the larger context, they are here reading much the same into Bernard’s arguments against Abelard’s denials of grace and justification. For example: [Against’s Abelard’s “moral influence” theory of the Atonement:] “If the life which Christ gives is nothing but his instruction, the death which Adam gave is in like manner only his instruction; so that one by example leads men to sin, the other by His example and His Word leads them to a holy life and to love Him. But if we rest in the Christian faith, and not in the heresy of Pelagius, and confess that by generation and not by example was the sin of Adam imparted to us, and by sin death, let us also confess that it is necessary for righteousness to be restored to us by Christ, not by instruction, but by regeneration, and by righteousness life (Romans 5:18). And if this be so, how can Peter [Abelard] say the only purpose and cause of the Incarnation was that he might enlighten the world by the light of His wisdom and inflame it with love of Him? Where, then, is redemption? There come from Christ, as he deigns to confess, merely illumination and enkindling to love. Whence come redemption and liberation?” (Chapter IX) Spending any length of time with Bernard, beyond the abbreviated excerpt you’ve given, would show that Bernard actually teaches nothing at all like the Protestant doctrine of “imputation.” Just because he quotes the same passages from Paul that you derive that doctrine from doesn’t mean that Bernard derived that doctrine." Why the Catholic Understanding of Justification Is Not "Faith Plus Works" | The Lonely Pilgrim God bless!
@@SibleySteve Hi SibleySteve. Thanks for pointing out a few possible sources that might offer a different perspective than McGrath. I think Joseph from the lonelypilgrim blog answers what is going here perfectly, so I won't try to reproduce it but instead just paste it in here. I also would like to affirm that any misunderstandings/abuses particular Catholics may make doesn't invalidate the actual doctrine of the Church. Magic rosaries that score points with God would certainly not be anything the Church teaches about soteriology. Here is the response on St. Bernard of Clairveaux showing he most certainly understood justification in terms of infused righteousness, not an alien imputed righteousness that Luther would later invent: "...you are taking a few words and ideas that resemble the ones you are looking for out of the larger context of the authors’ arguments, and ignoring all the rest they have to say. You are finding half your doctrine, if that much, and then interpolating the rest, even when the rest contradicts it. To take your excerpt from St. Bernard: for one thing, he never uses the word “imputed” at all. It isn’t there in the Latin, but was interpolated by the translator (Bernard actually uses the word “assigned”). For another - there is nothing at all Bernard says here that is inconsistent with Catholic theology. Catholics also believe, and Paul clearly teaches, that the righteousness of Christ is given to believers (Romans 3:22, cf. CCC 1987). The difference between Catholic theology and Protestant theology is their understanding of the nature of that gift, what it actually is and does. Catholics believe that in addition to assigning Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, God actually infuses that sanctifying grace and love into the sinner’s heart (Romans 5:5), and that that grace effects a change in his soul, cleansing him, destroying the power of sin over him, and actually making him righteous. On the other hand, Protestants believe, and you have articulated, that the alien righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner in such a way that it neither becomes his own nor actually, in itself, effects a change in him: that this imputation is a purely forensic act, a declaring “not guilty” that attributes to the sinner Christ’s righteousness but doesn’t actually give him that righteousness; and that this imputation is once and for all, irreversible, and all that is necessary for salvation. But that isn’t what Bernard says at all. “Bernard teaching imputation” would be Bernard articulating that doctrine in the same terms Protestants eventually did, the same terms you understand it. As it reads now, he is mostly just quoting Paul, and you are interpolating your understanding of imputation in exactly the same way you do with Paul. A few quick quotes from the very same letter: “If from the one [Adam’s fall] I was infected with concupiscence from my birth, by Christ spiritual grace was infused into me.” (Chapter VI) “He who had mercy on the sinner will not condemn the righteous; I mean that I am righteous, but it is in His righteousness, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4). In short, He was made our righteousness by God the Father (1 Corinthians 1:30). Is not that righteousness mine which was made for me? If my guilt was inherited, why should not my righteousness be accorded to me? And, truly, what is given me is safer than what was born in me. For this, indeed, has whereof to glory, but not before God; but that, since it is effectual to salvation, has nothing whereof to glory but in the Lord.” (Chapter VI) Just as Protestants read a denial of the necessity of works into Augustine’s affirmations of grace against Pelagius, taking those affirmations out of the larger context, they are here reading much the same into Bernard’s arguments against Abelard’s denials of grace and justification. For example: [Against’s Abelard’s “moral influence” theory of the Atonement:] “If the life which Christ gives is nothing but his instruction, the death which Adam gave is in like manner only his instruction; so that one by example leads men to sin, the other by His example and His Word leads them to a holy life and to love Him. But if we rest in the Christian faith, and not in the heresy of Pelagius, and confess that by generation and not by example was the sin of Adam imparted to us, and by sin death, let us also confess that it is necessary for righteousness to be restored to us by Christ, not by instruction, but by regeneration, and by righteousness life (Romans 5:18). And if this be so, how can Peter [Abelard] say the only purpose and cause of the Incarnation was that he might enlighten the world by the light of His wisdom and inflame it with love of Him? Where, then, is redemption? There come from Christ, as he deigns to confess, merely illumination and enkindling to love. Whence come redemption and liberation?” (Chapter IX) Spending any length of time with Bernard, beyond the abbreviated excerpt you’ve given, would show that Bernard actually teaches nothing at all like the Protestant doctrine of “imputation.” Just because he quotes the same passages from Paul that you derive that doctrine from doesn’t mean that Bernard derived that doctrine." - Why the Catholic Understanding of Justification Is Not "Faith Plus Works" | The Lonely Pilgrim God bless!
@@SibleySteve Hi SibleySteve. Thanks for pointing out a few possible sources that might offer a different perspective than McGrath. I think Joseph from the lonelypilgrim blog answers what is going here perfectly, so I won't try to reproduce it but instead just paste it in here. I also would like to affirm that any misunderstandings/abuses particular Catholics may make doesn't invalidate the actual doctrine of the Church. Magic rosaries that score points with God would certainly not be anything the Church teaches about soteriology. Here is the response on St. Bernard of Clairveaux showing he most certainly understood justification in terms of infused righteousness, not an alien imputed righteousness that Luther would later invent: "...you are taking a few words and ideas that resemble the ones you are looking for out of the larger context of the authors’ arguments, and ignoring all the rest they have to say. You are finding half your doctrine, if that much, and then interpolating the rest, even when the rest contradicts it. To take your excerpt from St. Bernard: for one thing, he never uses the word “imputed” at all. It isn’t there in the Latin, but was interpolated by the translator (Bernard actually uses the word “assigned”). For another - there is nothing at all Bernard says here that is inconsistent with Catholic theology. Catholics also believe, and Paul clearly teaches, that the righteousness of Christ is given to believers (Romans 3:22, cf. CCC 1987). The difference between Catholic theology and Protestant theology is their understanding of the nature of that gift, what it actually is and does. Catholics believe that in addition to assigning Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, God actually infuses that sanctifying grace and love into the sinner’s heart (Romans 5:5), and that that grace effects a change in his soul, cleansing him, destroying the power of sin over him, and actually making him righteous. On the other hand, Protestants believe, and you have articulated, that the alien righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner in such a way that it neither becomes his own nor actually, in itself, effects a change in him: that this imputation is a purely forensic act, a declaring “not guilty” that attributes to the sinner Christ’s righteousness but doesn’t actually give him that righteousness; and that this imputation is once and for all, irreversible, and all that is necessary for salvation. But that isn’t what Bernard says at all. “Bernard teaching imputation” would be Bernard articulating that doctrine in the same terms Protestants eventually did, the same terms you understand it. As it reads now, he is mostly just quoting Paul, and you are interpolating your understanding of imputation in exactly the same way you do with Paul. A few quick quotes from the very same letter: “If from the one [Adam’s fall] I was infected with concupiscence from my birth, by Christ spiritual grace was infused into me.” (Chapter VI) “He who had mercy on the sinner will not condemn the righteous; I mean that I am righteous, but it is in His righteousness, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4). In short, He was made our righteousness by God the Father (1 Corinthians 1:30). Is not that righteousness mine which was made for me? If my guilt was inherited, why should not my righteousness be accorded to me? And, truly, what is given me is safer than what was born in me. For this, indeed, has whereof to glory, but not before God; but that, since it is effectual to salvation, has nothing whereof to glory but in the Lord.” (Chapter VI) Just as Protestants read a denial of the necessity of works into Augustine’s affirmations of grace against Pelagius, taking those affirmations out of the larger context, they are here reading much the same into Bernard’s arguments against Abelard’s denials of grace and justification. For example: [Against’s Abelard’s “moral influence” theory of the Atonement:] “If the life which Christ gives is nothing but his instruction, the death which Adam gave is in like manner only his instruction; so that one by example leads men to sin, the other by His example and His Word leads them to a holy life and to love Him. But if we rest in the Christian faith, and not in the heresy of Pelagius, and confess that by generation and not by example was the sin of Adam imparted to us, and by sin death, let us also confess that it is necessary for righteousness to be restored to us by Christ, not by instruction, but by regeneration, and by righteousness life (Romans 5:18). And if this be so, how can Peter [Abelard] say the only purpose and cause of the Incarnation was that he might enlighten the world by the light of His wisdom and inflame it with love of Him? Where, then, is redemption? There come from Christ, as he deigns to confess, merely illumination and enkindling to love. Whence come redemption and liberation?” (Chapter IX) Spending any length of time with Bernard, beyond the abbreviated excerpt you’ve given, would show that Bernard actually teaches nothing at all like the Protestant doctrine of “imputation.” Just because he quotes the same passages from Paul that you derive that doctrine from doesn’t mean that Bernard derived that doctrine." Why the Catholic Understanding of Justification Is Not "Faith Plus Works" - The Lonely Pilgrim God bless!
@@SibleySteve Hi SibleySteve. Thanks for pointing out a few possible sources that might offer a different perspective than McGrath. I think this response that I came across to a similar claim about St. Bernard teaching imputed righteousness answers what is going here perfectly. I also would like to affirm that any misunderstandings/abuses particular Catholics may make doesn't invalidate the actual doctrine of the Church. Magic rosaries that score points with God would certainly not be anything the Church teaches about soteriology. Here is the response on St. Bernard of Clairveaux showing he most certainly understood justification in terms of infused righteousness, not an alien imputed righteousness that Luther would later invent: "...you are taking a few words and ideas that resemble the ones you are looking for out of the larger context of the authors’ arguments, and ignoring all the rest they have to say. You are finding half your doctrine, if that much, and then interpolating the rest, even when the rest contradicts it. To take your excerpt from St. Bernard: for one thing, he never uses the word “imputed” at all. It isn’t there in the Latin, but was interpolated by the translator (Bernard actually uses the word “assigned”). For another - there is nothing at all Bernard says here that is inconsistent with Catholic theology. Catholics also believe, and Paul clearly teaches, that the righteousness of Christ is given to believers (Romans 3:22, cf. CCC 1987). The difference between Catholic theology and Protestant theology is their understanding of the nature of that gift, what it actually is and does. Catholics believe that in addition to assigning Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, God actually infuses that sanctifying grace and love into the sinner’s heart (Romans 5:5), and that that grace effects a change in his soul, cleansing him, destroying the power of sin over him, and actually making him righteous. On the other hand, Protestants believe, and you have articulated, that the alien righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner in such a way that it neither becomes his own nor actually, in itself, effects a change in him: that this imputation is a purely forensic act, a declaring “not guilty” that attributes to the sinner Christ’s righteousness but doesn’t actually give him that righteousness; and that this imputation is once and for all, irreversible, and all that is necessary for salvation. But that isn’t what Bernard says at all. “Bernard teaching imputation” would be Bernard articulating that doctrine in the same terms Protestants eventually did, the same terms you understand it. As it reads now, he is mostly just quoting Paul, and you are interpolating your understanding of imputation in exactly the same way you do with Paul. A few quick quotes from the very same letter: “If from the one [Adam’s fall] I was infected with concupiscence from my birth, by Christ spiritual grace was infused into me.” (Chapter VI) “He who had mercy on the sinner will not condemn the righteous; I mean that I am righteous, but it is in His righteousness, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4). In short, He was made our righteousness by God the Father (1 Corinthians 1:30). Is not that righteousness mine which was made for me? If my guilt was inherited, why should not my righteousness be accorded to me? And, truly, what is given me is safer than what was born in me. For this, indeed, has whereof to glory, but not before God; but that, since it is effectual to salvation, has nothing whereof to glory but in the Lord.” (Chapter VI) Just as Protestants read a denial of the necessity of works into Augustine’s affirmations of grace against Pelagius, taking those affirmations out of the larger context, they are here reading much the same into Bernard’s arguments against Abelard’s denials of grace and justification. For example: [Against’s Abelard’s “moral influence” theory of the Atonement:] “If the life which Christ gives is nothing but his instruction, the death which Adam gave is in like manner only his instruction; so that one by example leads men to sin, the other by His example and His Word leads them to a holy life and to love Him. But if we rest in the Christian faith, and not in the heresy of Pelagius, and confess that by generation and not by example was the sin of Adam imparted to us, and by sin death, let us also confess that it is necessary for righteousness to be restored to us by Christ, not by instruction, but by regeneration, and by righteousness life (Romans 5:18). And if this be so, how can Peter [Abelard] say the only purpose and cause of the Incarnation was that he might enlighten the world by the light of His wisdom and inflame it with love of Him? Where, then, is redemption? There come from Christ, as he deigns to confess, merely illumination and enkindling to love. Whence come redemption and liberation?” (Chapter IX) Spending any length of time with Bernard, beyond the abbreviated excerpt you’ve given, would show that Bernard actually teaches nothing at all like the Protestant doctrine of “imputation.” Just because he quotes the same passages from Paul that you derive that doctrine from doesn’t mean that Bernard derived that doctrine." Why the Catholic Understanding of Justification Is Not "Faith Plus Works" | The Lonely Pilgrim God bless!
As ex Catholic and ex Orthodox they both teach you can’t know that you’re saved. Which is also one of the hundreds of reasons I left both and went back to Protestantism.
From what I've gathered from Lutheran-Catholic dialogues...Catholics look at Lutherans the way they look at Evangelicals. To some degree, I understand. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide have kind of been taken by Evangelicals here in America (since they are probably the most well-known) to mean a certain thing. Doesn't necessarily mean that it means that...that's just what it has become. What a Catholic ends up learning, in the end, is that the Lutherans share more in common with them than Evangelicals. Lutherans...oddly...are invested in the church fathers. They have church creeds. They follow traditions. They have an episcopal hierarchy. They have synods. etc. etc. These are all things that people have decided are "Catholic". Why do Lutherans have these if they are all about those "Solas"? Maybe...they have been misunderstood. Luther started a movement...but quickly got trampled by a whole host of people. It was as if people just heard a phrase of his without even bothering to listen CAREFULLY to what he was saying and they ran with it. Thus...Lutheran theology got buried under the messiness of the reformation. If one is not careful...one would think those "silly" Lutherans (of which I think I might be catechized in the LCMS sooner rather than later) are actually Catholics. In practice...they are VERY Catholic. It was quite a shock to me when I found this out. Then I had to ask "how do they believe in the solas, when they are SO Catholic?" Luther didn't come to jettison church tradition from the church. He came to bring it back to the surface after it got buried under a pile of post-Nicaea dogmas that had little (or no) evidence in the early church. And from what I've seen from channels like Scholastic Lutherans is that the things that Luther talked about (when one understands the solas properly) ARE in the church fathers...if close attention is given. I know that Catholics will inevitably run to some church father that talked about the importance of works. Yes. They are important. Luther affirmed this. In fact, he went on whole tirades about lukewarmness in the church at his time. How people thought the sacraments were "automatic" and that they could just take them and live how they wanted. What Luther was criticizing was what the Catholic Church was saying about HOW works worked within salvation...not if they could just NOT exist in our salvation. And if one pays close attention to the fathers, you can see what he was talking about. I pray that our Protestant Churches push harder for unity. We seem to making good strides with that whole "sharing of the pulpit" between some Church denominations (like the Anglican Church, for instance). We very well could have a unified Protestant church if we push for it. I think there is too much that we agree on to stay separated like we are. And maybe our churches could bring more monasticism into our churches. Heck, maybe bring on board the Messianic movement.
Luther was a disturbed individual, poorly formed in the Faith, obsessed with his own sins, given to fits of rage, malicious and calling for the death of a group of many thousands of peasants. He was responsible for the loss of millions of souls which continues this to this day. Do your research. Satan is very happy with the labors of Martin Luther
@@doriesse824 he said that it was ok for Christians to burn down synagogues with the people left inside. Definitely some dark foreshadowing of some of the future events that would follow in Germany’s history. While it is acceptable to believe that the Jews rejected Christ it’s not good by any stretch to go down the blanketed violent route.
@jp326 Oh, gotcha! Yes, here is the original video that I found Pastor Andrew through, which led to this interview: th-cam.com/video/gs0l1UhT9P0/w-d-xo.html
@@charlesjoyce982the true church of the 1st century never bowed down to dolls statues. Zero penance indulgences. Zero mary doctrines. Zero praying to anyone other than God. 🤡🤡
After a 40 year absence I am a returned Catholic. I was educated in the Post Vatican ll church and realize how malformed & uninformed I was. I suspect Pastor Andrew's journey through Catholicism was similar. I am attending an Eastern Catholic Church where the Priests can be married unlike Roman Catholic Priests. Most of this discussion was anecdotal, sharing opinions and situational experiences. It unfortunately did not accurately represent the actual Catholic teaching nor sound theologically/biblically. The priest who despaired he was going to Hell is not representative of most Catholic Priests I know. I am not tormented about my salvation but do know that I am not saved by faith alone. James 26 says, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead.” . I won't go into all the scripture that supports the Catholic view on Salvation, sin and sacraments but will say the bible was scarcely quoted here which is what Catholics base our faith upon in addition to the rich deposit of faith (remember all the books in all the libraries in the world cannot contain all the words of our Lord that he spoke while on earth. While not dogma and requirement to my faith, the many miracles associated with the Catholic faith help strengthen my faith. Example #1 our Lady of Guadalupe's appearance December 9, 1531 (almost 15 years before Martin Luther died) with the living miracle of the Tilma still on display in Mexico City. Example #2 Our Lady's appearance at Fatima and the miracle of the sun October 13, 1917 witnessed by 70,000 people, including atheists. Example #3 Our lady's appearance in Garabandal in the early 1960's. I could go on and on but think these are enough to support my point that no other faith has these confirmations. I'd love to have Dr Scot Hahn on your program to truly explain the bible and how Martin got so many things wrong.
Beautiful said, (my opinion). I am really enjoying speaking and dialogue with Lutheran brothers, Anglican, and of course Eastern Orthodox. I feel so much connection among each other. Instead of a so called rapture (I don’t believe or think it’s accurate) in my life time I would like to see the unification of at least two of Gods churches.
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isaiah 64:6 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 . Ephesians 2:8-9 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28 It's clear that the book of James is talking about Good works as a result of salvation. Now concerning the "Marian" apparitions. The scriptures tell us to test all things . And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light . Therefore it is no great thing if his Ministers also be transformed as the Ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works . 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 The Virgin of Guadalupe is actually tonantzin The Aztec goddess that was worshipped by all the tribes of Mexico . The lady of Fatima , the original accounts describe the being as having large Black eyes & wearing a short skirt . If anything Spiritual/Supernatural can convince you of being the truth, without having discernment that comes by the Word of God, than you'll believe anything .
@@miguelz8721 do you understand your filthy rags, Isiah 64.5-6 5 You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness, Who remembers You in Your ways. You are indeed angry, for we have sinned- In these ways we continue; And we need to be saved. 6 But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like [a]filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away. So if we do works, it’s just works since the Israelites hadn’t repented and continued to sin. Yes at that point good works are fruitless. Romans 3:28 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. ( thanks to the Dead Sea scrolls we were able to get more information on work of the law.) Work of the law = Mosaic law= Torah law Of course we are no longer saved by circumcision Matthew 16 Where Jesus goes to Caesarea Philippi This was. Church for the God Pan( he was the God of Shepards). Jesus is often referred as the Good Shepard. So if we think like an Atheist, Jesus just took Pans spot Just like virgin of Guadalupe her church was built on top of the old temple of Tonantzin, to show who was the real venerable mother. Revelation 12 sounds just like the virgin of Guadalupe. How can the virgin be satan, first I know you have heard a kingdom divided will fall, you sound just like the Pharisees who told Jesus his work was done by Beelzebub You said it test, and you will know them by their fruits. Thanks to the virgin of Guadalupe 8 million converted to being Christian Catholics. Her message is the same as any catholic or Protestant church. Turn away from sin ,and to turn to Jesus. So let’s dig deep into the Hebrew word Satanas , diabulos, can you tell me what that means , (divider accuser) ; funny thing is that’s exactly what the Protestant deformation did. It divided, and since then you guys accuse of some of the stupidest stuff in the world. You claim scripture only, ( fine print but our interpretation only ) so what is it scripture only , or your interpretation only. You claim faith only ( fine print good works are a cause and effect of being saved). I agree with this but that kind of defeats Sola fide Don’t you know thanks to baptism we are brothers in Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:26 And whenever one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or when one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Same thing when you criticize you catholic Christian brothers, you criticize yourself, especially your arguments that come from Atheists
Mary is not dead she is alive and well the Lord told me if anybody calls them dead the saints tell them I am the god of the living not the dead. The holy book called Mary the saint of All saints.
@@carpediem5526 Scripture does teach that the saints are alive (which includes Mary, probably the most famous of all the saints). Jesus teaches that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is “not God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32; see also 22:23-33). In addition, Moses and Elijah are alive to Jesus at the Transfiguration and converse with him, even though their earthly deaths had occurred many years before (see Matt. 17:1-8). Colossians 1 and Revelation 5 refer to ”the saints,” and it seems clear they both are referring to Christians who are presently “walk[ing] through the valley of the shadow of death,” as Psalm 23 says.
Loneliness warps the mind.. For him, it set him on a journey of self discovery, for others it can cause self harm. He found God in his own way, how else to serve God if one is unhappy with life oneself? He may be better off serving God in his ministry as a Lutheran Pastor, if anything, his Catholic background will serve him well to know traditions. At least he didn't sway to the modern liberalistic protestantism. Let him find peace and joy serving the Lord his own way, whether he swims back or not, it's not for us to force it upon him, but the holy spirit. As a RC, I will still give him my full blessing that he had found his way to serve the Lord. It is true that the Catholic church don't remunerate Church Priest like protestant churches do for their pastors( heaven forbids the lavish lifestyles of the prosperity megachurch preachers) for them to lead a decent family life if they are married. It's exactly the same worry than Steve Ray and Scott Hahn had when they left their ministry, even Keith Nester etc etc... But the Good Lord had provided for them. Let him serve God and his flock as he wishes for now. We can pray that he might one day decide to swim back and become an on-fire soldier of the church. I personally wish him the best in his ministry.
I believe lots of Roman Catholics view Herr Dr. Luther very favorably even Pope Benedict 16th seem to view Luther as a Saint. True, Radical Traditionalist Roman Catholics don't like Herr. Dr. Luther. Yet, I would not be surprised if Herr Dr. Luther will not be a Canonized Saint in the Roman Catholic Church in the near future.
It’s doubtful since Luther arguably went into unrepentant schism with the Catholic Church. I think the comments by Benedict suggested that had Luther NOT brought about the Protestant schism, his push to reform the many abuses in the church at the time would have been admirable and may have led to sainthood, just like many saints brought about reform in the church while remaining obedient to Rome.
@@killianmiller6107 Most Roman Catholic clergy, I come across have great admiration for Her Dr. Luther most Roman Catholic laypeople I come across don't like Luther. I believe there is a big disconnect between Roman Catholic clergy and laity on this issue or at least that is my experience. I took a class in Sacramental Theology at the University the professor was a Roman Catholic priest he openly regarded Luther as a Saint and even admired Luther's Teachings on the Sacrements.
@@adolphCat Luther was a disturbed individual, poorly formed in the Faith, obsessed with his own sins, given to fits of rage, malicious and calling for the death of a group of many thousands of peasants. He was responsible for the loss of millions of souls which continues this to this day. Do your research. Satan is very happy with the labors of Martin Luther
@@dougy6237 I assure you very few priests or Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church or educated lay people hold your view. Many Roman Catholic priests actually hold Luther to be a Saint. The priest who taught me Sacramental Theology at my University openly held Luther to be a Saint and hoped that he would be soon Canonized by the Pope. Traditionalist Roman Catholics have a habit of making things up out of thin air and are not taken seriously by educated Roman Catholics. I myself believe that in the next 25 years Luther will be a Canonized Saint in the Roman Catholic Church. Lutherans bodies and Roman Catholics are quickly moving to full Communion with one another.
I have the utmost respect for the personal struggles this man went through from a human point of view, but I cannot help noticing how incredibly similar his life was to Luther’s himself. Given all the confusion he had as a Catholic priest, Lutheranism was his obvious destination. Summarizing: 1. He was a failed Catholic priest that, as soon as he made celibacy vows (a solemn promise to Christ), he turned back and realized he couldn’t live without having relationships. 2. He saw celibacy as a prison of desperate loneliness. Imagine that: a priest that promised to dedicate his life to Christ realizes that spending his life with Christ alone is a dreadful prospect. 3. He changed his mind about Luther after he watched a movie. Say what?? If a movie that portrayed Luther as a good guy was enough for him to flip, just imagine how poor his formation was. How poor his understanding of the history of the Church. How poor his knowledge of the Church Fathers. 4. He felt his breaking the vows of celibacy was “liberating.” Same exact words as Luther’s. If you consider renouncing a whole life with Christ a liberation, you definitely shouldn’t have been a priest in the first place and got everything wrong about what an intimate relationship with Christ means and entails. 5. He is convinced that the Catholic Church had hidden the gospel from him. Again, this proves how poor his formation was in terms of doctrine and history of the church. If you believe that Luther in the 16th century discovered the “true” gospel that the wicked Catholic Church had tried to hide for centuries, you probably have no idea of what the gospel is about and of what the Church Fathers ever taught. 6. He complains about the Catholic Church promoting the fear of Purgatory. Obviously he has no idea about what the Catholic Church teaches about Purgatory, which is frankly shocking. Purgatory is not a place to be feared, but the greatest manifestation of God’s mercy. Without Purgatory most of us would all end up in hell (nothing impure can enter heaven). 7. He claims that the Catholic Church teaches that we must live a “perfectly saintly life to be liberated from sin.” Again, shocking to hear how wrong he got the whole Catholic theology. I seriously wonder what they are teaching in seminary these days. 8. He claims that in the Catholic tradition “we are not permitted to be sure about salvation.” This is totally false. The Catholic Church clearly teaches what you need to do to be able to go to heaven, which is very simple: not dying in mortal sin. Lutheran doctrine also teaches you can lose your salvation if you renounce your faith. So, unless you are omniscient, even in Lutheranism there’s no assurance of salvation. 9. He ends by claiming that he finally realized the true gospel: his salvation does not depend on how he lives his life. This is another shocking statement that nullifies Jesus’ words and perfectly show the Lutheran idea of “true” gospel. The “true” gospel is the one the “liberates” me from my human fears and obsessions. It’s the one that confirms me in my weaknesses. It’s a man-made gospel that conforms the Word of God to my high needs and to my low expectations about myself. I’ll be praying for this confused ex Catholic priest deceived by a confused ex Catholic monk.
I would like to provide some point-by-point responses here: 1. It's very uncharitable to sum up all of the, I would argue, very valid struggles which Pastor Andrew had to him simply being a "failed priest." While the forced celibacy upon the pastorate was a big deal to Pastor Andrew and was the reason he left the priesthood -- that is not the reason he left Roman Catholicism. He states as much in the interview, even saying that, before encountering Lutheran thelogy, he fully planned on staying a part of the pope's flock for the rest of his life. 2. Adam had God in the Garden of Eden with him. And yet... God said it was not good for Man to be alone. Would you denigrate Adam due to his need for a wife despite of his having God to keep him company already? My guess is that you wouldn't -- and God was abiding in the midst of the garden eith Man! Forcing celibacy upon an individual who has not been gifted with the calling to celibacy and singleness *is* assigning him to a prison of despair and loneliness as it pertains to this life. And it is also contrary to Scripture as Paul commands those who burn with passion (who make up the vast majority of people) to be married. Pair that with all of the requirement for a Presbyter regarding his wife and family, and it really doesn't seem like Scripture supports forced celibacy for the pastorate. 3. Once again, this is a mischaracterization of Pastor Andrew's story. Watching the Luther movie is what piqued his interest into Luther -- but it was continually speaking with a Lutheran pastor friend as well as reading through Lutheran books like the one I linked in the description of this video which changed Pastor Andrew's theology over time and brought him from Roman Catholicism to Lutheranism. Regarding your comment on knowledge of the Fathers, I would like to point out that the word "patrology," the study of the Fathers of the Church, was coined by Johann Gerhard, a Lutheran Reformer. And even the term "patristics" stems from 17th century Lutherans who were fervently studying the Fathers' writings and copiously quoting and utilizing them in their argumentation against both Rome and the Reformed. 4. "Renouncing a whole life with Christ" -- tons of snuck premises in this sentence alone. Is being celibate the only significant way to have a life with Christ? That sounds like it would be a surprise to all of the original apostles -- all of whom were married. Same for the vast majority of all of the Old Testament prophets. If a vow is made when contravening the command of God, then that vow is invalid (see this principle in action with Christ's commentary on the Corban rule in Mark 7:9-13). If God commands those Christians who desire the intimacy of marriage to marry instead of burning with passion, then to say one must adhere to a vow made to God which contravenes His express command is to say something frankly contradictory and nonsensical. 5. We would argue that Luther recovered the gospel in its *greatest clarity* by removing accretions that were obscuring it. Like I've pointed out in other videos on my channel, nobody here is arguing that the Gospel was destroyed or absent throughout Church History. In fact, Luther claims the exact opposite all over his writings. After explaining that the Gospel is found wherever the Word of God exists and is read and taught, Luther says in his Galatians Commentary: "Baptism, the Gospel, and other things do not become impure even though people are tainted and impure and have a wrong concept of them. They continue to be holy things regardless if found among the pious or the wicked, since they cannot be contaminated or sanctified. Through our good and bad words, although our life be good or bad, notwithstanding our lifestyle, they could be profane or sanctified before the world but not before God. Therefore, the Church is holy even where fanatic spirits rule, as long as they don't deny the word and the Sacraments. But if these are denied, it's not possible for the church to exist." - MLA CITATION: Luther, Martin. Martin Luther's Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (1535): Lecture Notes Transcribed by Students and Presented in Today's English. Translated by Haroldo Camacho, 1517 Publishing, 2018, p. 12. Obscuring the Gospel is not the same thing as destroying the Gospel entirely. We would argue that Luther discovered the pure Gospel in its clearest, most Biblical sense by removing the accretions that were obscuring it -- accretions which came upon it by centuries of largely well-meaning, yet flawed human traditions and faulty reasoning.
6. The reason Purgatory is feared by many Roman Catholics is precisely because it is not just a place of cleansing in the abstract -- it is a place of retributive and punitive suffering. And one which lasts for a long time. In his section on Purgatory in the Summa, Aquinas says in two different places: "In Purgatory there will be a twofold loss, namely the delay of the divine vision, and the PAIN OF SENSE, namely the PUNISHMENT by bodily fire. With regard to both, the LEAST PAIN of Purgatory SURPASSES the GREATEST PAIN of this life." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement "It is probable, however, and more in keeping with the statements of holy men and the revelations made to many, that there is a twofold place of Purgatory. One, according to the common law; and thus the place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hell, so that it is the SAME FIRE which torments the damned in hell and cleanses the just in Purgatory; although the damned being lower in merit, are to be consigned to a lower place. Another place of Purgatory is according to dispensation: and thus sometimes, as we read, some are PUNISHED in various places, either that the living may learn, or that the dead may be succored, seeing that their PUNISHMENT being made known to the living may be mitigated through the prayers of the Church." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement Catherine of Genoa, a canonized Roman Catholic saint, said: “It would seem better to suffer for a thousand years every woe possible to this body in this world, than to remain one hour in purgatory.” - Life and Doctrine of Saint Catherine of Genoa (The Christian Press Assoc. Publishing Co., New York, 1907), Chapter XVI; found at ccel.org/ccel/catherine_g/life Regarding time in purgatory, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, Pope Clement VIII’s personal theologian and Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, said: "There is no doubt that the pains of Purgatory are not limited to ten or twenty years, and that they last in some cases entire centuries." - Robert Bellarmine, De Genitu, lib. ii. c. 9; as found in Schouppe, Purgatory, 68. Of course suffering in this way would be feared and make people anxious. 8. The Council of Trent states: "If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema." - Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon 1. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine also said, "The greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance." - Robert Bellarmine, Tertiae Controversiae Generalis: Controversia Secunda Generalis Quae Est De Justificatione Impii, Book III. Chapter 3. This is where a lot of Rome's apologists today draw a distinction between epistemic, cartesian certainty and moral certainty -- but who on the Protestant side of these debates is ever talking about cartesian certainty? Also, regarding mortal sin: Rome provides NO infallible list of mortal sins. The discernment of whether or not something falls under the category of mortla sin is a rather large part of serious, scrupulous Roman Catholics' day-to-day lives. The reason for this is, in large part, due to the vague definition of mortal sin by the Catholic Catechism, which says that: "1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." And then as an example of the range of sin that can make up "grave matter," the following paragraph then cites the ten commandments and Jesus' conversation with the rich young ruler -- that's quite a wide range without immediately discernable boundaries. That's major cause for anxiety and scrupulosity issues for those who take sin very seriously. 9. As for Lutheranism as a whole, there is an incredibly robust doctrine and practice of the Third Use of the Law in instructing Christians how they ought to live out of thankfulness to Christ as well as preaching the First use of the Law toward Christians due to the fact that repeated, grave sin risks pushing one toward unbelief and apostasy -- Luther himself covers this in his treatises against the antinomians of his day. In fact, Luther is the first person to coin the word "Antinomian" in order to refer to those who deny the function of the Law in the Christian life. Lutherans believe that the point of the Law is to crush us by showing us our sinfulness and our inability to be perfectly holy... so that we run to Jesus. Pastor Andrew very clearly lays out in our interview the Great Exchange that happens between the sinner and Christ as we are run to Him and are wed to Him in faith, wherein Christ receives our brokenness and the penalty of our sin while we receive His perfect righteousness imputed unto us -- and it is that righteousness of Christ which saves. In sum, with a lot of love and respect, my friend, I would humbly put forth that you unfortunately grossly misrepresented both Pastor Andrew as well as Lutheranism at large at several points throughout your long comment here. As such, I thought it warranted a response both for yourself as well as for anyone else reading it. It took me a while to sit down and write up this even longer response, so I likely won't respond past this point. I do want to say one more thing, though. There was a part of your final point in the comment chain, which you presented in a mocking tone, that was actually dead right: the Gospel is for weak and vexed sinners in need of a mighty savior. Christ came for sinners who are evil, broken, and filled with all sorts of weakness and anxiety. And I am glad that He did, for I am chief among them. Romans 7:14-25 2 Corinthians 12:7-10
The fact that Paul himself says that a pastor can be a husband and father tells us that he should not be bound in conscience to celibacy for him to be at one with Christ.
@javierperd2604 thank you for this long and well thought-out response you made. Your videos and your commentary has helped me considerably (I think) regarding my doubts, my fears, and my "ecclesial anxiety" [though I know I still have these to some degree]. I'm trying to get over fears of hell and being rejected by Christ about leaving and never again returning to the Roman Catholic church. I think I'm somewhere between Episcopal, United Methodist, and Lutheran, though open to Presbyterianism. I don't think I can be able to definitely be in Roman Catholicism again either. But that being said, I still have worries about some Catholic apologists being able to overpower me or use "gotcha" questions or what have you. I'm just trying to trust what you and Pastor Andrew are saying, but I admittedly still have doubts, and am even scared. Like, what if Rome and it's apologists really are right? I was pretty upset when this priest (and a young one at that) told me that my scrupulousity itself was actually a sin.
@imherwerdio6852 I completely understand your struggle, friend -- more than you know. I would say: you're right, this is a very important decision with a lot on the line... so take your time. Take your time to study the Scriptures, to study church history, and to learn how to best argue and spot inconsistencies within polemics. And then pray with all faith and trust in the Lord to give you wisdom and guide you to the right place -- then take heart! For He promises to answer. James 1:5 ESV "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him."
I on the other hand, am so very grateful to the Holy Spirit for keeping me in the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@lifewasgiventous1614 Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus built His Church on Peter the rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@matthewbroderick6287 The entire context of Mathew 16 is Peter recognizing Christ as God, it was only after he said that, that he called him Peter and said on this rock I will build my church, he did NOT say on you Peter, he said on this rock, what is the rock? The rock of confession in faith of Christ. Christ has always been referred to as the cornerstone that the builders rejected, Christ is the rock, and in confessing Christ was Simon named Peter. God bless you as always
@lifewasgiventous1614 Yet, you are simply providing your own fallible opinion regarding Matthew 16, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all interpretations, FALLIBLE! As the theory goes anyway! Yet, even many Protestant scholars disagree with you, as many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church, as Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Yeah, what that's not even close. This is the most frustrating part of conversation with Roman cathloics, they think every split is someone leaving and creating a new church when every split is someone trying to return to proper church teaching in doctrine ( reformation) or not adopting new doctrine ( orthodox).
Hello. Sorry to see nice, well meaning people give credence to a bitter German cleric from 500years ago. This is not to disparage you guys personally put to maybe, just maybe, call you to salvation. Stop arguing with God's church and come home. Let's be real -No apostolic succession -No real belief in communion -No respect for the sacraments -No respect to tradition and magisterium. -No real importance to the blessed Mary Christianity a la carte
Sounds like you did a lot of swimming but a real Catholic the faith is in their heart when it's in your heart you don't leave the true church.. mother Angelica said you will be a janitor in heaven..
Haha Satan infiltrated the RCC long ago and its been spitting out doctrines of demons ever sense. The real true church is invisible within many visible institutions... The RCC is in error, to many to list here
Mary says anyone that leaves the Catholic faith and joins a c u l t could lose their soul. She also says anyone who leaves the Catholic faith and joins another Christian religion will have a lower place in heaven. Satan chose Martin Luther to destroy the Catholic faith!!! PS I only trust Jesus.
First of all God is listening and it's in the holy book. You Protestants always like saying show me in the Bible so I would like to say when you praying for your airplanes and Rolex watches show me where that is in the Bible I've never seen Rolex watch in the bible..
Pastor Andrew, thank you so much for sharing the story of your journey. It was beautiful, and will be even more so when the Lord has finished writing his story for you on this side of eternity. Your story encouraged my soul in the truth of the free Gospel of grace. May you, your family, and your ministry be blessed, always secure and joyful in the perfect righteousness you have in Christ Jesus our Lord who is our salvation and peace. (From a Baptist brother!
He is still a priest. He is just living in error
@PopeUrbanII-ws7rm
You misheard his story.
This pastor was delivered from error. Christ Jesus is our priest.
Soli Deo Gloria!!!
I'm a Catholic priest who studied with Pastor Andrew in the seminary. I remember him to be earnest and honest in his desire for Christ. I'm edified to see that endure in his life and prayerfully wish him continued blessing.
Thanks be to God!
Works are important for both Catholics and Protestants. For Catholics works contribute to our salvation. For Protestants works are a consequence of our salvation. Many thanks for this video. Blessings from UK.
Thank you for watching!
Thank you for your honesty, many Catholics deny that works contribute even though that is what they believe
Reading the entirety of the Apostle Paul's epistle(letter) to the Gentiles of Ephesians gives me peace and joy with the Lord by His grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone in accordance with Scriptures alone to God's glory alone. Alleluia !
Please never stop doing these videos. You are a voice for many Protestant’s.
protestant’s what?
Man you know I was just thinking a week or so ago that it’d be nice if more Lutherans posted more conversion stories coming into the lutheran Church like the Romans do and low and behold I end up finding your channel doing exactly that.
RC here: At 20:00 everything that the pastor said, as a Roman Catholic I could respond ME TOO. I never studied for the priesthood and lived my life (I'm 77) as a single man. BUT I studied Lutheran teachings as Pastor Andrew did (and I still do) and have come to the conclusion I can live my Catholic Faith as a LUTHERANIZED CATHOLIC without compomising anything. Let's face face it, to me the
Pope occupies 1/500th of my daily living BUT every game needs a referee I attend weekly Mass, receive Communion, pray and read the Bible daily. So, why can't I read the Gospels, Romans, Galatians etc. and believe exactly what they say regarding the knowledge that I am SAVED, be CERTAIN about it through through Christ's free Gospel of grace? I've tossed out of my life the Church's IMPLIED assertion WELL YOU CAN NEVER BE SURE YOU ARE SAVED.....JUST LIVE WITH THE HOPE YOU ARE AND JUMP THROUGH THE REST OF OUR HOOPS. Being a practicing Catholic to me means being part of a 2000 yr. old, worldwide family established by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and having about 2 billion brothers & sisters. Thanks and God bless you Pastor Andrew for FINALLY enabling me "being able to put it all together!" Oh...and I just ordered a new copy of THE BOOK OF CONCORD......mine was falling apart.
Get your Book of Concord from CPH (Concordia)
"It is also taught among us that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sins and righteousness before God by our own merits, works or satisfactions..." Read Confessio Augustana (Augsburg Confession) and it's Apology (Defense).
Pastor Andrew,
God shaped your life and prepared you to serve to this capacity for such a time as this. Thank you for being an instrument of His peace.
Thank you, Javier, for this interview! Very fascinating! While in college in the 90s, people from some different groups on campus were confused on justification and through dialogue and turmoil of soul came to have confidence in the sufficiency of Jesus. I'm a bivocational Congregational pastor now and love encouraging others to see Jesus for them and find confidence in His sufficiency.
Thankyou for this Pastor. I apriciate your being willing to share your story.
OK! I’ve been up and binge watching your content and it slaps. I really just have to comment that the intro music is so good. That neo soul riff is so aesthetic
@Hunteronix Thank you for the kind words.
I'm glad to hear you've been finding the content edifying 🙂
Great channel! Thank you Javier for your efforts!
Thank you for watching 😁
@@javierperd2604 "Bring the truth to bare"? Protestantism has no organ of authoritative teaching to arrive at truth. The Bible practice, by it very nature, results in each group/individual arriving at different and opposing doctrinal conclusions. With each sect, no matter what other particular sources are mixed with the Bible, the result is the same: ones own rendering of Scripture outside the authority of the Catholic Church. It is simply a rebellion of pride. Remember that most heretics who founded movements were priests. Nothing new here. Javier brother, return to the Rock of Peter, the holy faith that is your inheritance.
Thank you so much for sharing your story of Almighty God's great work in your life.
"My soul doth magnify the Lord and my spirit rejoiceth in God, my SAVIOUR. " May, mother of our Lord, was in need of a Savior, just like us.
Roman Catholic here, God bless you both. I like this pastor very much and I’m glad you’re making videos showing people who crossed the Tiber on the other side, there’s not a lot of Protestant apologetics out there but I appreciate what you and what Gavin Ortlund is doing with Truth Unites. That and resources like Catholic Answers are important to people trying to discern truth claims of different Christian traditions. We are often SO uncharitable with one another but at the end of the day we’re both brothers and sisters in Christ. Of course this pastor does see things harshly for Catholics. I know a lot of Catholic converts who see things harshly for Protestants too, it’s very human, not holding that against him. I used to see especially Reformed Protestants the same way. I agree with many of his concerns actually. I agree salvation is by grace, by faith, all by Jesus. I have issues with some of the things I have heard in my church and that’s making me have serious second thoughts even as a VERY devout adult convert. I just want to know what’s really true. Please pray for me. I don’t understand how it all works, I am very cautious personally and taking it slow. I want to believe what is objectively true and not what I WANT to believe is true. I want to do what God wants me to do, not what I want to do. I trust that Jesus has saved me, is saving me, will save me. I trust that I am saved very, very much in-spite of myself. Ah, if my church really is THAT wrong on something so crucial, it needs prayers. And if you Protestants are wrong, you need prayers. I like this prayer for the Church, “catholic” here can mean either the denomination or just “universal”:
“Gracious Father, we pray for your holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ your Son our Savior. Amen.
- William Laud
And there is this prayer also by Thomas Merton that is so good for people in this kind of situation:
“My Lord God,
I have no idea where I am going.
I do not see the road ahead of me.
I cannot know for certain where it will end. nor do I really know myself,
and the fact that I think I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so.
But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you.
And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing.
I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire.
And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road, though I may know nothing about it.
Therefore will I trust you always though
I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death.
I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.”
I mean he sees certain aspects of the tradition in that way, not Catholics themselves. He seems to have a reasonable view of Catholics in spite of his disagreements. “I love the Catholic church”, ah, I can so feel that pain. Oh, how I wish we all were one and in agreement fully on what is truly right whatever that is!
I really appreciate thoughtful and good-faith comments like this.
I just prayed for God's continued guidance for you as well as for all of us engaging in these sorts of dialogues and faith journeys 🙏
Man, this comment brings me joy. There seriously is a lack of charity amongst the varying traditions. You sound very sincere towards other traditions and just seeking truth in general. I will pray for your concerns.
Amazing story.
1 Tim 3:15...The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth
Awesome story, I am also from Michigan, army reserve baptist seminarian experiences, got the same bishop treatment from my people when I quoted Luther at them, got in big trouble, left and married a Lutheran girl.
Are you a Lutheran now?
It’s here
It is Finished! It is Accomplished! TETELESTAI !!!
Praise God by grace through faith are you saved. No more purgatory and all traditions no confession to a priest Praise God
Good interview, Javier and Pastor Andrew. What I appreciate most about this dialogue is the honesty about the Protestant tradition and the historical reasons people join and stay within Protestantism. There is this presumption that some take into "internet theology" that the only reason someone is Protestant is because they haven't read enough yet. As if it's a nursing stage for young Christians as they study the theology and history of the church, until they can move into the "real" theology of Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. When in reality, there is no shortage of Protestants who are quite well versed in Church History, Greek and Latin, the Church Fathers and the conciliar canons of the early church (and would defend their knowledge on these topics as reasons why they are Protestant).
The mission of Mereosity is to promote Christian dialogue and to make theology that traditionally has only been available in university lecture halls accessible to anyone who is interested. We do not do explicitly Protestant material (we have a Roman catholic on our team), but we do promote intellectual honesty and good scholarship. Two things missing in a lot of internet theology channels, and two things I have found in your channel.
Thanks for the hard work and God bless.
So Glad to hear your Testimony ❤️
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Pastor Andrew, at one point, mentioned that growing up Catholic he had never heard of alien righteousness before. From my research, it seems to me the reason for this is because the concept of alien righteousness as the basis of justification was a novel idea to Luther.
As a former Confessional LCMS Lutheran, I can honestly say it was a deep dive into the topic of justification that lead me to the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran, I had been taught many things about the Catholic Church that ended up simply not being true. I also found out that many of the key ideas for the Lutheran approach to justification were simply not found in the Church before the Reformation. Conversely, you can find ample historical evidence of the Catholic view of justification through out the different eras of the Church.
I strongly recommend any Protestants to take the time and learn more about what Catholics actually teach about justification (from Catholic sources!), because you are likely to find it is not what you think they teach. One common misconception in particular, is that Catholics are pelagians or semipelagians. They are in no way shape or form either, and have many Church documents and councils that condemn these positions.
After my research, I now think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories:
1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics).
2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics).
3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis)
4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes.
**I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy**. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace".
Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification:
"A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within man)... where none was conceded before. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification, is defined as the alien righteousness of Christ, external to man and imputed to him, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to him… It is clearly of importance to account for this new understanding of the nature of justifying righteousness, with its associated conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification. Attempts on the part of an earlier generation of Protestant apologists to defend this innovation as a recovery of the authentic teaching of Augustine, and of their Catholic opponents to demonstrate that it constituted a vestige of a discredited and ossified Ockhamism, can no longer be taken seriously. It is the task of the historian to account for this new development, which marks a complete break with the tradition up to this point."
(McGrath, Allister E. 1986. lustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (1st Ed. Vol. 2). Cambridae University Press.)
The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external.
In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126*
These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127*
The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on .
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127*
In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct.
Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135*
I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him.
"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186)
God bless!
McGrath is actually a good example of how analytical scholars like he and Calvin allow logic to trump exegesis, and the weaknesses of natural theology. St Bernard of Clairveaux and Joban Tauler are good examples of proto-Lutheran Roman Catholic priests and thinkers which prove that Luther never invented his biblical theology but derived it from those two Catholics along with Theological Germanica. The main catalyst that pushed Luther into action was a sin that continues to this day in the Catholic faith - the selling of souvenirs that somehow score points with God. Just yesterday on Facebook I saw another ad from The Catholic Church about some special rosary that we must buy because of its magic power. Luther swept all that stuff away as unbiblical. Peace
@@SibleySteve Hi SibleySteve. Thanks for pointing out a few possible sources that might offer a different perspective than McGrath. I think Joseph from the lonelypilgrim blog answers what is going here perfectly, so I won't try to reproduce it but instead just paste it in here.
I also would like to affirm that any misunderstandings/abuses particular Catholics may make doesn't invalidate the actual doctrine of the Church. Magic rosaries that score points with God would certainly not be anything the Church teaches about soteriology.
Here is the response on St. Bernard of Clairveaux showing he most certainly understood justification in terms of infused righteousness, not an alien imputed righteousness that Luther would later invent:
"...you are taking a few words and ideas that resemble the ones you are looking for out of the larger context of the authors’ arguments, and ignoring all the rest they have to say. You are finding half your doctrine, if that much, and then interpolating the rest, even when the rest contradicts it.
To take your excerpt from St. Bernard: for one thing, he never uses the word “imputed” at all. It isn’t there in the Latin, but was interpolated by the translator (Bernard actually uses the word “assigned”). For another - there is nothing at all Bernard says here that is inconsistent with Catholic theology. Catholics also believe, and Paul clearly teaches, that the righteousness of Christ is given to believers (Romans 3:22, cf. CCC 1987). The difference between Catholic theology and Protestant theology is their understanding of the nature of that gift, what it actually is and does. Catholics believe that in addition to assigning Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, God actually infuses that sanctifying grace and love into the sinner’s heart (Romans 5:5), and that that grace effects a change in his soul, cleansing him, destroying the power of sin over him, and actually making him righteous. On the other hand, Protestants believe, and you have articulated, that the alien righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner in such a way that it neither becomes his own nor actually, in itself, effects a change in him: that this imputation is a purely forensic act, a declaring “not guilty” that attributes to the sinner Christ’s righteousness but doesn’t actually give him that righteousness; and that this imputation is once and for all, irreversible, and all that is necessary for salvation. But that isn’t what Bernard says at all. “Bernard teaching imputation” would be Bernard articulating that doctrine in the same terms Protestants eventually did, the same terms you understand it. As it reads now, he is mostly just quoting Paul, and you are interpolating your understanding of imputation in exactly the same way you do with Paul.
A few quick quotes from the very same letter:
“If from the one [Adam’s fall] I was infected with concupiscence from my birth, by Christ spiritual grace was infused into me.” (Chapter VI)
“He who had mercy on the sinner will not condemn the righteous; I mean that I am righteous, but it is in His righteousness, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4). In short, He was made our righteousness by God the Father (1 Corinthians 1:30). Is not that righteousness mine which was made for me? If my guilt was inherited, why should not my righteousness be accorded to me? And, truly, what is given me is safer than what was born in me. For this, indeed, has whereof to glory, but not before God; but that, since it is effectual to salvation, has nothing whereof to glory but in the Lord.” (Chapter VI)
Just as Protestants read a denial of the necessity of works into Augustine’s affirmations of grace against Pelagius, taking those affirmations out of the larger context, they are here reading much the same into Bernard’s arguments against Abelard’s denials of grace and justification. For example:
[Against’s Abelard’s “moral influence” theory of the Atonement:] “If the life which Christ gives is nothing but his instruction, the death which Adam gave is in like manner only his instruction; so that one by example leads men to sin, the other by His example and His Word leads them to a holy life and to love Him. But if we rest in the Christian faith, and not in the heresy of Pelagius, and confess that by generation and not by example was the sin of Adam imparted to us, and by sin death, let us also confess that it is necessary for righteousness to be restored to us by Christ, not by instruction, but by regeneration, and by righteousness life (Romans 5:18). And if this be so, how can Peter [Abelard] say the only purpose and cause of the Incarnation was that he might enlighten the world by the light of His wisdom and inflame it with love of Him? Where, then, is redemption? There come from Christ, as he deigns to confess, merely illumination and enkindling to love. Whence come redemption and liberation?” (Chapter IX)
Spending any length of time with Bernard, beyond the abbreviated excerpt you’ve given, would show that Bernard actually teaches nothing at all like the Protestant doctrine of “imputation.” Just because he quotes the same passages from Paul that you derive that doctrine from doesn’t mean that Bernard derived that doctrine."
Why the Catholic Understanding of Justification Is Not "Faith Plus Works" | The Lonely Pilgrim
God bless!
@@SibleySteve Hi SibleySteve. Thanks for pointing out a few possible sources that might offer a different perspective than McGrath. I think Joseph from the lonelypilgrim blog answers what is going here perfectly, so I won't try to reproduce it but instead just paste it in here.
I also would like to affirm that any misunderstandings/abuses particular Catholics may make doesn't invalidate the actual doctrine of the Church. Magic rosaries that score points with God would certainly not be anything the Church teaches about soteriology.
Here is the response on St. Bernard of Clairveaux showing he most certainly understood justification in terms of infused righteousness, not an alien imputed righteousness that Luther would later invent:
"...you are taking a few words and ideas that resemble the ones you are looking for out of the larger context of the authors’ arguments, and ignoring all the rest they have to say. You are finding half your doctrine, if that much, and then interpolating the rest, even when the rest contradicts it.
To take your excerpt from St. Bernard: for one thing, he never uses the word “imputed” at all. It isn’t there in the Latin, but was interpolated by the translator (Bernard actually uses the word “assigned”). For another - there is nothing at all Bernard says here that is inconsistent with Catholic theology. Catholics also believe, and Paul clearly teaches, that the righteousness of Christ is given to believers (Romans 3:22, cf. CCC 1987). The difference between Catholic theology and Protestant theology is their understanding of the nature of that gift, what it actually is and does. Catholics believe that in addition to assigning Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, God actually infuses that sanctifying grace and love into the sinner’s heart (Romans 5:5), and that that grace effects a change in his soul, cleansing him, destroying the power of sin over him, and actually making him righteous. On the other hand, Protestants believe, and you have articulated, that the alien righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner in such a way that it neither becomes his own nor actually, in itself, effects a change in him: that this imputation is a purely forensic act, a declaring “not guilty” that attributes to the sinner Christ’s righteousness but doesn’t actually give him that righteousness; and that this imputation is once and for all, irreversible, and all that is necessary for salvation. But that isn’t what Bernard says at all. “Bernard teaching imputation” would be Bernard articulating that doctrine in the same terms Protestants eventually did, the same terms you understand it. As it reads now, he is mostly just quoting Paul, and you are interpolating your understanding of imputation in exactly the same way you do with Paul.
A few quick quotes from the very same letter:
“If from the one [Adam’s fall] I was infected with concupiscence from my birth, by Christ spiritual grace was infused into me.” (Chapter VI)
“He who had mercy on the sinner will not condemn the righteous; I mean that I am righteous, but it is in His righteousness, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4). In short, He was made our righteousness by God the Father (1 Corinthians 1:30). Is not that righteousness mine which was made for me? If my guilt was inherited, why should not my righteousness be accorded to me? And, truly, what is given me is safer than what was born in me. For this, indeed, has whereof to glory, but not before God; but that, since it is effectual to salvation, has nothing whereof to glory but in the Lord.” (Chapter VI)
Just as Protestants read a denial of the necessity of works into Augustine’s affirmations of grace against Pelagius, taking those affirmations out of the larger context, they are here reading much the same into Bernard’s arguments against Abelard’s denials of grace and justification. For example:
[Against’s Abelard’s “moral influence” theory of the Atonement:] “If the life which Christ gives is nothing but his instruction, the death which Adam gave is in like manner only his instruction; so that one by example leads men to sin, the other by His example and His Word leads them to a holy life and to love Him. But if we rest in the Christian faith, and not in the heresy of Pelagius, and confess that by generation and not by example was the sin of Adam imparted to us, and by sin death, let us also confess that it is necessary for righteousness to be restored to us by Christ, not by instruction, but by regeneration, and by righteousness life (Romans 5:18). And if this be so, how can Peter [Abelard] say the only purpose and cause of the Incarnation was that he might enlighten the world by the light of His wisdom and inflame it with love of Him? Where, then, is redemption? There come from Christ, as he deigns to confess, merely illumination and enkindling to love. Whence come redemption and liberation?” (Chapter IX)
Spending any length of time with Bernard, beyond the abbreviated excerpt you’ve given, would show that Bernard actually teaches nothing at all like the Protestant doctrine of “imputation.” Just because he quotes the same passages from Paul that you derive that doctrine from doesn’t mean that Bernard derived that doctrine."
- Why the Catholic Understanding of Justification Is Not "Faith Plus Works" | The Lonely Pilgrim
God bless!
@@SibleySteve Hi SibleySteve. Thanks for pointing out a few possible sources that might offer a different perspective than McGrath. I think Joseph from the lonelypilgrim blog answers what is going here perfectly, so I won't try to reproduce it but instead just paste it in here.
I also would like to affirm that any misunderstandings/abuses particular Catholics may make doesn't invalidate the actual doctrine of the Church. Magic rosaries that score points with God would certainly not be anything the Church teaches about soteriology.
Here is the response on St. Bernard of Clairveaux showing he most certainly understood justification in terms of infused righteousness, not an alien imputed righteousness that Luther would later invent:
"...you are taking a few words and ideas that resemble the ones you are looking for out of the larger context of the authors’ arguments, and ignoring all the rest they have to say. You are finding half your doctrine, if that much, and then interpolating the rest, even when the rest contradicts it.
To take your excerpt from St. Bernard: for one thing, he never uses the word “imputed” at all. It isn’t there in the Latin, but was interpolated by the translator (Bernard actually uses the word “assigned”). For another - there is nothing at all Bernard says here that is inconsistent with Catholic theology. Catholics also believe, and Paul clearly teaches, that the righteousness of Christ is given to believers (Romans 3:22, cf. CCC 1987). The difference between Catholic theology and Protestant theology is their understanding of the nature of that gift, what it actually is and does. Catholics believe that in addition to assigning Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, God actually infuses that sanctifying grace and love into the sinner’s heart (Romans 5:5), and that that grace effects a change in his soul, cleansing him, destroying the power of sin over him, and actually making him righteous. On the other hand, Protestants believe, and you have articulated, that the alien righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner in such a way that it neither becomes his own nor actually, in itself, effects a change in him: that this imputation is a purely forensic act, a declaring “not guilty” that attributes to the sinner Christ’s righteousness but doesn’t actually give him that righteousness; and that this imputation is once and for all, irreversible, and all that is necessary for salvation. But that isn’t what Bernard says at all. “Bernard teaching imputation” would be Bernard articulating that doctrine in the same terms Protestants eventually did, the same terms you understand it. As it reads now, he is mostly just quoting Paul, and you are interpolating your understanding of imputation in exactly the same way you do with Paul.
A few quick quotes from the very same letter:
“If from the one [Adam’s fall] I was infected with concupiscence from my birth, by Christ spiritual grace was infused into me.” (Chapter VI)
“He who had mercy on the sinner will not condemn the righteous; I mean that I am righteous, but it is in His righteousness, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4). In short, He was made our righteousness by God the Father (1 Corinthians 1:30). Is not that righteousness mine which was made for me? If my guilt was inherited, why should not my righteousness be accorded to me? And, truly, what is given me is safer than what was born in me. For this, indeed, has whereof to glory, but not before God; but that, since it is effectual to salvation, has nothing whereof to glory but in the Lord.” (Chapter VI)
Just as Protestants read a denial of the necessity of works into Augustine’s affirmations of grace against Pelagius, taking those affirmations out of the larger context, they are here reading much the same into Bernard’s arguments against Abelard’s denials of grace and justification. For example:
[Against’s Abelard’s “moral influence” theory of the Atonement:] “If the life which Christ gives is nothing but his instruction, the death which Adam gave is in like manner only his instruction; so that one by example leads men to sin, the other by His example and His Word leads them to a holy life and to love Him. But if we rest in the Christian faith, and not in the heresy of Pelagius, and confess that by generation and not by example was the sin of Adam imparted to us, and by sin death, let us also confess that it is necessary for righteousness to be restored to us by Christ, not by instruction, but by regeneration, and by righteousness life (Romans 5:18). And if this be so, how can Peter [Abelard] say the only purpose and cause of the Incarnation was that he might enlighten the world by the light of His wisdom and inflame it with love of Him? Where, then, is redemption? There come from Christ, as he deigns to confess, merely illumination and enkindling to love. Whence come redemption and liberation?” (Chapter IX)
Spending any length of time with Bernard, beyond the abbreviated excerpt you’ve given, would show that Bernard actually teaches nothing at all like the Protestant doctrine of “imputation.” Just because he quotes the same passages from Paul that you derive that doctrine from doesn’t mean that Bernard derived that doctrine."
Why the Catholic Understanding of Justification Is Not "Faith Plus Works" - The Lonely Pilgrim
God bless!
@@SibleySteve Hi SibleySteve. Thanks for pointing out a few possible sources that might offer a different perspective than McGrath. I think this response that I came across to a similar claim about St. Bernard teaching imputed righteousness answers what is going here perfectly.
I also would like to affirm that any misunderstandings/abuses particular Catholics may make doesn't invalidate the actual doctrine of the Church. Magic rosaries that score points with God would certainly not be anything the Church teaches about soteriology.
Here is the response on St. Bernard of Clairveaux showing he most certainly understood justification in terms of infused righteousness, not an alien imputed righteousness that Luther would later invent:
"...you are taking a few words and ideas that resemble the ones you are looking for out of the larger context of the authors’ arguments, and ignoring all the rest they have to say. You are finding half your doctrine, if that much, and then interpolating the rest, even when the rest contradicts it.
To take your excerpt from St. Bernard: for one thing, he never uses the word “imputed” at all. It isn’t there in the Latin, but was interpolated by the translator (Bernard actually uses the word “assigned”). For another - there is nothing at all Bernard says here that is inconsistent with Catholic theology. Catholics also believe, and Paul clearly teaches, that the righteousness of Christ is given to believers (Romans 3:22, cf. CCC 1987). The difference between Catholic theology and Protestant theology is their understanding of the nature of that gift, what it actually is and does. Catholics believe that in addition to assigning Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, God actually infuses that sanctifying grace and love into the sinner’s heart (Romans 5:5), and that that grace effects a change in his soul, cleansing him, destroying the power of sin over him, and actually making him righteous. On the other hand, Protestants believe, and you have articulated, that the alien righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner in such a way that it neither becomes his own nor actually, in itself, effects a change in him: that this imputation is a purely forensic act, a declaring “not guilty” that attributes to the sinner Christ’s righteousness but doesn’t actually give him that righteousness; and that this imputation is once and for all, irreversible, and all that is necessary for salvation. But that isn’t what Bernard says at all. “Bernard teaching imputation” would be Bernard articulating that doctrine in the same terms Protestants eventually did, the same terms you understand it. As it reads now, he is mostly just quoting Paul, and you are interpolating your understanding of imputation in exactly the same way you do with Paul.
A few quick quotes from the very same letter:
“If from the one [Adam’s fall] I was infected with concupiscence from my birth, by Christ spiritual grace was infused into me.” (Chapter VI)
“He who had mercy on the sinner will not condemn the righteous; I mean that I am righteous, but it is in His righteousness, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4). In short, He was made our righteousness by God the Father (1 Corinthians 1:30). Is not that righteousness mine which was made for me? If my guilt was inherited, why should not my righteousness be accorded to me? And, truly, what is given me is safer than what was born in me. For this, indeed, has whereof to glory, but not before God; but that, since it is effectual to salvation, has nothing whereof to glory but in the Lord.” (Chapter VI)
Just as Protestants read a denial of the necessity of works into Augustine’s affirmations of grace against Pelagius, taking those affirmations out of the larger context, they are here reading much the same into Bernard’s arguments against Abelard’s denials of grace and justification. For example:
[Against’s Abelard’s “moral influence” theory of the Atonement:] “If the life which Christ gives is nothing but his instruction, the death which Adam gave is in like manner only his instruction; so that one by example leads men to sin, the other by His example and His Word leads them to a holy life and to love Him. But if we rest in the Christian faith, and not in the heresy of Pelagius, and confess that by generation and not by example was the sin of Adam imparted to us, and by sin death, let us also confess that it is necessary for righteousness to be restored to us by Christ, not by instruction, but by regeneration, and by righteousness life (Romans 5:18). And if this be so, how can Peter [Abelard] say the only purpose and cause of the Incarnation was that he might enlighten the world by the light of His wisdom and inflame it with love of Him? Where, then, is redemption? There come from Christ, as he deigns to confess, merely illumination and enkindling to love. Whence come redemption and liberation?” (Chapter IX)
Spending any length of time with Bernard, beyond the abbreviated excerpt you’ve given, would show that Bernard actually teaches nothing at all like the Protestant doctrine of “imputation.” Just because he quotes the same passages from Paul that you derive that doctrine from doesn’t mean that Bernard derived that doctrine."
Why the Catholic Understanding of Justification Is Not "Faith Plus Works" | The Lonely Pilgrim
God bless!
So Sick. Welcome to true Orthodoxy brother.
Oh hi Logan
I enjoy attending the Episcopal church .Mo re Bible following.
Hi Javier
Do you speak Spanish?
I do!
As ex Catholic and ex Orthodox they both teach you can’t know that you’re saved. Which is also one of the hundreds of reasons I left both and went back to Protestantism.
please tell me why you left, and what happened!
From what I've gathered from Lutheran-Catholic dialogues...Catholics look at Lutherans the way they look at Evangelicals. To some degree, I understand. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide have kind of been taken by Evangelicals here in America (since they are probably the most well-known) to mean a certain thing. Doesn't necessarily mean that it means that...that's just what it has become.
What a Catholic ends up learning, in the end, is that the Lutherans share more in common with them than Evangelicals. Lutherans...oddly...are invested in the church fathers. They have church creeds. They follow traditions. They have an episcopal hierarchy. They have synods. etc. etc. These are all things that people have decided are "Catholic". Why do Lutherans have these if they are all about those "Solas"? Maybe...they have been misunderstood.
Luther started a movement...but quickly got trampled by a whole host of people. It was as if people just heard a phrase of his without even bothering to listen CAREFULLY to what he was saying and they ran with it. Thus...Lutheran theology got buried under the messiness of the reformation.
If one is not careful...one would think those "silly" Lutherans (of which I think I might be catechized in the LCMS sooner rather than later) are actually Catholics. In practice...they are VERY Catholic. It was quite a shock to me when I found this out. Then I had to ask "how do they believe in the solas, when they are SO Catholic?"
Luther didn't come to jettison church tradition from the church. He came to bring it back to the surface after it got buried under a pile of post-Nicaea dogmas that had little (or no) evidence in the early church. And from what I've seen from channels like Scholastic Lutherans is that the things that Luther talked about (when one understands the solas properly) ARE in the church fathers...if close attention is given. I know that Catholics will inevitably run to some church father that talked about the importance of works. Yes. They are important. Luther affirmed this. In fact, he went on whole tirades about lukewarmness in the church at his time. How people thought the sacraments were "automatic" and that they could just take them and live how they wanted. What Luther was criticizing was what the Catholic Church was saying about HOW works worked within salvation...not if they could just NOT exist in our salvation. And if one pays close attention to the fathers, you can see what he was talking about.
I pray that our Protestant Churches push harder for unity. We seem to making good strides with that whole "sharing of the pulpit" between some Church denominations (like the Anglican Church, for instance). We very well could have a unified Protestant church if we push for it. I think there is too much that we agree on to stay separated like we are.
And maybe our churches could bring more monasticism into our churches. Heck, maybe bring on board the Messianic movement.
Luther really was a hero.
Except for his comments on Jews. That has given him and Lutheranism a bad name. But his take on most other things are unique and important.
Luther was a disturbed individual, poorly formed in the Faith, obsessed with his own sins, given to fits of rage, malicious and calling for the death of a group of many thousands of peasants. He was responsible for the loss of millions of souls which continues this to this day. Do your research. Satan is very happy with the labors of Martin Luther
Yes. Love luther❤
@@williamgunderson7365 How was he wrong?
@@doriesse824 he said that it was ok for Christians to burn down synagogues with the people left inside. Definitely some dark foreshadowing of some of the future events that would follow in Germany’s history. While it is acceptable to believe that the Jews rejected Christ it’s not good by any stretch to go down the blanketed violent route.
Didn't link the video referenced in the beginning, smh.
Which one is that again? Lol
@@javierperd2604 The one y'all talked about where someone in the church asked him about RC and then it ended up on facebook.
@jp326 Oh, gotcha! Yes, here is the original video that I found Pastor Andrew through, which led to this interview: th-cam.com/video/gs0l1UhT9P0/w-d-xo.html
Mary at Bayside New York also said if you are coming back into the true church you must accept the truths you protested against.. Christ is king..
May the Lord bring you back to the true Church with forgiving arms, he has not forgotten you
The RCC is not the only true church. If anything the RCC in grave error
@@adamguy33without apostolic succession, Lutheranism cannot be the true Church.
@@charlesjoyce982the true church of the 1st century never bowed down to dolls statues. Zero penance indulgences. Zero mary doctrines. Zero praying to anyone other than God. 🤡🤡
After a 40 year absence I am a returned Catholic. I was educated in the Post Vatican ll church and realize how malformed & uninformed I was. I suspect Pastor Andrew's journey through Catholicism was similar. I am attending an Eastern Catholic Church where the Priests can be married unlike Roman Catholic Priests. Most of this discussion was anecdotal, sharing opinions and situational experiences. It unfortunately did not accurately represent the actual Catholic teaching nor sound theologically/biblically. The priest who despaired he was going to Hell is not representative of most Catholic Priests I know. I am not tormented about my salvation but do know that I am not saved by faith alone. James 26 says, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead.” . I won't go into all the scripture that supports the Catholic view on Salvation, sin and sacraments but will say the bible was scarcely quoted here which is what Catholics base our faith upon in addition to the rich deposit of faith (remember all the books in all the libraries in the world cannot contain all the words of our Lord that he spoke while on earth. While not dogma and requirement to my faith, the many miracles associated with the Catholic faith help strengthen my faith. Example #1 our Lady of Guadalupe's appearance December 9, 1531 (almost 15 years before Martin Luther died) with the living miracle of the Tilma still on display in Mexico City. Example #2 Our Lady's appearance at Fatima and the miracle of the sun October 13, 1917 witnessed by 70,000 people, including atheists. Example #3 Our lady's appearance in Garabandal in the early 1960's. I could go on and on but think these are enough to support my point that no other faith has these confirmations. I'd love to have Dr Scot Hahn on your program to truly explain the bible and how Martin got so many things wrong.
Beautiful said, (my opinion). I am really enjoying speaking and dialogue with Lutheran brothers, Anglican, and of course Eastern Orthodox. I feel so much connection among each other.
Instead of a so called rapture (I don’t believe or think it’s accurate) in my life time I would like to see the unification of at least two of Gods churches.
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isaiah 64:6
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 . Ephesians 2:8-9
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28
It's clear that the book of James is talking about Good works as a result of salvation.
Now concerning the "Marian" apparitions. The scriptures tell us to test all things .
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light . Therefore it is no great thing if his Ministers also be transformed as the Ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works .
2 Corinthians 11:14-15
The Virgin of Guadalupe is actually tonantzin The Aztec goddess that was worshipped by all the tribes of Mexico .
The lady of Fatima , the original accounts describe the being as having large Black eyes & wearing a short skirt .
If anything Spiritual/Supernatural can convince you of being the truth, without having discernment that comes by the Word of God, than you'll believe anything .
@@miguelz8721 do you understand your filthy rags, Isiah 64.5-6
5 You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness,
Who remembers You in Your ways.
You are indeed angry, for we have sinned-
In these ways we continue;
And we need to be saved.
6 But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like [a]filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.
So if we do works, it’s just works since the Israelites hadn’t repented and continued to sin. Yes at that point good works are fruitless.
Romans 3:28
28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
( thanks to the Dead Sea scrolls we were able to get more information on work of the law.)
Work of the law = Mosaic law= Torah law
Of course we are no longer saved by circumcision
Matthew 16
Where Jesus goes to Caesarea Philippi
This was. Church for the God Pan( he was the God of Shepards). Jesus is often referred as the Good Shepard.
So if we think like an Atheist, Jesus just took Pans spot
Just like virgin of Guadalupe her church was built on top of the old temple of Tonantzin, to show who was the real venerable mother. Revelation 12 sounds just like the virgin of Guadalupe.
How can the virgin be satan, first I know you have heard a kingdom divided will fall, you sound just like the Pharisees who told Jesus his work was done by Beelzebub
You said it test, and you will know them by their fruits. Thanks to the virgin of Guadalupe 8 million converted to being Christian Catholics.
Her message is the same as any catholic or Protestant church. Turn away from sin ,and to turn to Jesus.
So let’s dig deep into the Hebrew word Satanas , diabulos, can you tell me what that means , (divider accuser) ; funny thing is that’s exactly what the Protestant deformation did. It divided, and since then you guys accuse of some of the stupidest stuff in the world.
You claim scripture only, ( fine print but our interpretation only ) so what is it scripture only , or your interpretation only.
You claim faith only ( fine print good works are a cause and effect of being saved). I agree with this but that kind of defeats Sola fide
Don’t you know thanks to baptism we are brothers in Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:26
And whenever one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or when one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
Same thing when you criticize you catholic Christian brothers, you criticize yourself, especially your arguments that come from Atheists
Careful. Satan also gives fake signs and wonders to make rebel against God or to distract from God and pray to mary😮😮
:(
exchanged one crock for another
Mary is in perfect agreement with Jesus Jesus directs mary.
Mary is not dead she is alive and well the Lord told me if anybody calls them dead the saints tell them I am the god of the living not the dead. The holy book called Mary the saint of All saints.
Where in scripture does it sa if y this.
@@carpediem5526John 3:16?
@@carpediem5526 Scripture does teach that the saints are alive (which includes Mary, probably the most famous of all the saints). Jesus teaches that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is “not God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32; see also 22:23-33). In addition, Moses and Elijah are alive to Jesus at the Transfiguration and converse with him, even though their earthly deaths had occurred many years before (see Matt. 17:1-8). Colossians 1 and Revelation 5 refer to ”the saints,” and it seems clear they both are referring to Christians who are presently “walk[ing] through the valley of the shadow of death,” as Psalm 23 says.
@@clivejames5058 I never said they were not alive. Clearly Paul addresses current Saints in his letters as in current state not future state.
So confused...
the only real reason he left RCC was because he wanted to get married and have a family.
Terrible reason to leave.
That's why he left the priesthood, NOT the Roman Catholic Church.
Loneliness warps the mind.. For him, it set him on a journey of self discovery, for others it can cause self harm. He found God in his own way, how else to serve God if one is unhappy with life oneself? He may be better off serving God in his ministry as a Lutheran Pastor, if anything, his Catholic background will serve him well to know traditions. At least he didn't sway to the modern liberalistic protestantism. Let him find peace and joy serving the Lord his own way, whether he swims back or not, it's not for us to force it upon him, but the holy spirit. As a RC, I will still give him my full blessing that he had found his way to serve the Lord. It is true that the Catholic church don't remunerate Church Priest like protestant churches do for their pastors( heaven forbids the lavish lifestyles of the prosperity megachurch preachers) for them to lead a decent family life if they are married. It's exactly the same worry than Steve Ray and Scott Hahn had when they left their ministry, even Keith Nester etc etc... But the Good Lord had provided for them. Let him serve God and his flock as he wishes for now. We can pray that he might one day decide to swim back and become an on-fire soldier of the church. I personally wish him the best in his ministry.
A carnivore diet will you gout.
I believe lots of Roman Catholics view Herr Dr. Luther very favorably even Pope Benedict 16th seem to view Luther as a Saint. True, Radical Traditionalist Roman Catholics don't like Herr. Dr. Luther. Yet, I would not be surprised if Herr Dr. Luther will not be a Canonized Saint in the Roman Catholic Church in the near future.
So true. With so many liberal Catholics including Pope Francis I wouldn’t be surprised.
It’s doubtful since Luther arguably went into unrepentant schism with the Catholic Church. I think the comments by Benedict suggested that had Luther NOT brought about the Protestant schism, his push to reform the many abuses in the church at the time would have been admirable and may have led to sainthood, just like many saints brought about reform in the church while remaining obedient to Rome.
@@killianmiller6107 Most Roman Catholic clergy, I come across have great admiration for Her Dr. Luther most Roman Catholic laypeople I come across don't like Luther. I believe there is a big disconnect between Roman Catholic clergy and laity on this issue or at least that is my experience. I took a class in Sacramental Theology at the University the professor was a Roman Catholic priest he openly regarded Luther as a Saint and even admired Luther's Teachings on the Sacrements.
@@adolphCat Luther was a disturbed individual, poorly formed in the Faith, obsessed with his own sins, given to fits of rage, malicious and calling for the death of a group of many thousands of peasants. He was responsible for the loss of millions of souls which continues this to this day. Do your research. Satan is very happy with the labors of Martin Luther
@@dougy6237 I assure you very few priests or Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church or educated lay people hold your view. Many Roman Catholic priests actually hold Luther to be a Saint. The priest who taught me Sacramental Theology at my University openly held Luther to be a Saint and hoped that he would be soon Canonized by the Pope. Traditionalist Roman Catholics have a habit of making things up out of thin air and are not taken seriously by educated Roman Catholics.
I myself believe that in the next 25 years Luther will be a Canonized Saint in the Roman Catholic Church. Lutherans bodies and Roman Catholics are quickly moving to full Communion with one another.
I have the utmost respect for the personal struggles this man went through from a human point of view, but I cannot help noticing how incredibly similar his life was to Luther’s himself. Given all the confusion he had as a Catholic priest, Lutheranism was his obvious destination.
Summarizing:
1. He was a failed Catholic priest that, as soon as he made celibacy vows (a solemn promise to Christ), he turned back and realized he couldn’t live without having relationships.
2. He saw celibacy as a prison of desperate loneliness. Imagine that: a priest that promised to dedicate his life to Christ realizes that spending his life with Christ alone is a dreadful prospect.
3. He changed his mind about Luther after he watched a movie. Say what?? If a movie that portrayed Luther as a good guy was enough for him to flip, just imagine how poor his formation was. How poor his understanding of the history of the Church. How poor his knowledge of the Church Fathers.
4. He felt his breaking the vows of celibacy was “liberating.” Same exact words as Luther’s. If you consider renouncing a whole life with Christ a liberation, you definitely shouldn’t have been a priest in the first place and got everything wrong about what an intimate relationship with Christ means and entails.
5. He is convinced that the Catholic Church had hidden the gospel from him. Again, this proves how poor his formation was in terms of doctrine and history of the church. If you believe that Luther in the 16th century discovered the “true” gospel that the wicked Catholic Church had tried to hide for centuries, you probably have no idea of what the gospel is about and of what the Church Fathers ever taught.
6. He complains about the Catholic Church promoting the fear of Purgatory. Obviously he has no idea about what the Catholic Church teaches about Purgatory, which is frankly shocking. Purgatory is not a place to be feared, but the greatest manifestation of God’s mercy. Without Purgatory most of us would all end up in hell (nothing impure can enter heaven).
7. He claims that the Catholic Church teaches that we must live a “perfectly saintly life to be liberated from sin.” Again, shocking to hear how wrong he got the whole Catholic theology. I seriously wonder what they are teaching in seminary these days.
8. He claims that in the Catholic tradition “we are not permitted to be sure about salvation.” This is totally false. The Catholic Church clearly teaches what you need to do to be able to go to heaven, which is very simple: not dying in mortal sin. Lutheran doctrine also teaches you can lose your salvation if you renounce your faith. So, unless you are omniscient, even in Lutheranism there’s no assurance of salvation.
9. He ends by claiming that he finally realized the true gospel: his salvation does not depend on how he lives his life. This is another shocking statement that nullifies Jesus’ words and perfectly show the Lutheran idea of “true” gospel. The “true” gospel is the one the “liberates” me from my human fears and obsessions. It’s the one that confirms me in my weaknesses. It’s a man-made gospel that conforms the Word of God to my high needs and to my low expectations about myself.
I’ll be praying for this confused ex Catholic priest deceived by a confused ex Catholic monk.
I would like to provide some point-by-point responses here:
1. It's very uncharitable to sum up all of the, I would argue, very valid struggles which Pastor Andrew had to him simply being a "failed priest." While the forced celibacy upon the pastorate was a big deal to Pastor Andrew and was the reason he left the priesthood -- that is not the reason he left Roman Catholicism. He states as much in the interview, even saying that, before encountering Lutheran thelogy, he fully planned on staying a part of the pope's flock for the rest of his life.
2. Adam had God in the Garden of Eden with him. And yet... God said it was not good for Man to be alone. Would you denigrate Adam due to his need for a wife despite of his having God to keep him company already? My guess is that you wouldn't -- and God was abiding in the midst of the garden eith Man! Forcing celibacy upon an individual who has not been gifted with the calling to celibacy and singleness *is* assigning him to a prison of despair and loneliness as it pertains to this life. And it is also contrary to Scripture as Paul commands those who burn with passion (who make up the vast majority of people) to be married. Pair that with all of the requirement for a Presbyter regarding his wife and family, and it really doesn't seem like Scripture supports forced celibacy for the pastorate.
3. Once again, this is a mischaracterization of Pastor Andrew's story. Watching the Luther movie is what piqued his interest into Luther -- but it was continually speaking with a Lutheran pastor friend as well as reading through Lutheran books like the one I linked in the description of this video which changed Pastor Andrew's theology over time and brought him from Roman Catholicism to Lutheranism. Regarding your comment on knowledge of the Fathers, I would like to point out that the word "patrology," the study of the Fathers of the Church, was coined by Johann Gerhard, a Lutheran Reformer. And even the term "patristics" stems from 17th century Lutherans who were fervently studying the Fathers' writings and copiously quoting and utilizing them in their argumentation against both Rome and the Reformed.
4. "Renouncing a whole life with Christ" -- tons of snuck premises in this sentence alone. Is being celibate the only significant way to have a life with Christ? That sounds like it would be a surprise to all of the original apostles -- all of whom were married. Same for the vast majority of all of the Old Testament prophets. If a vow is made when contravening the command of God, then that vow is invalid (see this principle in action with Christ's commentary on the Corban rule in Mark 7:9-13). If God commands those Christians who desire the intimacy of marriage to marry instead of burning with passion, then to say one must adhere to a vow made to God which contravenes His express command is to say something frankly contradictory and nonsensical.
5. We would argue that Luther recovered the gospel in its *greatest clarity* by removing accretions that were obscuring it. Like I've pointed out in other videos on my channel, nobody here is arguing that the Gospel was destroyed or absent throughout Church History. In fact, Luther claims the exact opposite all over his writings. After explaining that the Gospel is found wherever the Word of God exists and is read and taught, Luther says in his Galatians Commentary:
"Baptism, the Gospel, and other things do not become impure even though people are tainted and impure and have a wrong concept of them. They continue to be holy things regardless if found among the pious or the wicked, since they cannot be contaminated or sanctified. Through our good and bad words, although our life be good or bad, notwithstanding our lifestyle, they could be profane or sanctified before the world but not before God. Therefore, the Church is holy even where fanatic spirits rule, as long as they don't deny the word and the Sacraments. But if these are denied, it's not possible for the church to exist." - MLA CITATION: Luther, Martin. Martin Luther's Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (1535): Lecture Notes Transcribed by Students and Presented in Today's English. Translated by Haroldo Camacho, 1517 Publishing, 2018, p. 12.
Obscuring the Gospel is not the same thing as destroying the Gospel entirely. We would argue that Luther discovered the pure Gospel in its clearest, most Biblical sense by removing the accretions that were obscuring it -- accretions which came upon it by centuries of largely well-meaning, yet flawed human traditions and faulty reasoning.
6. The reason Purgatory is feared by many Roman Catholics is precisely because it is not just a place of cleansing in the abstract -- it is a place of retributive and punitive suffering. And one which lasts for a long time.
In his section on Purgatory in the Summa, Aquinas says in two different places:
"In Purgatory there will be a twofold loss, namely the delay of the divine vision, and the PAIN OF SENSE, namely the PUNISHMENT by bodily fire. With regard to both, the LEAST PAIN of Purgatory SURPASSES the GREATEST PAIN of this life." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement
"It is probable, however, and more in keeping with the statements of holy men and the revelations made to many, that there is a twofold place of Purgatory. One, according to the common law; and thus the place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hell, so that it is the SAME FIRE which torments the damned in hell and cleanses the just in Purgatory; although the damned being lower in merit, are to be consigned to a lower place. Another place of Purgatory is according to dispensation: and thus sometimes, as we read, some are PUNISHED in various places, either that the living may learn, or that the dead may be succored, seeing that their PUNISHMENT being made known to the living may be mitigated through the prayers of the Church." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement
Catherine of Genoa, a canonized Roman Catholic saint, said:
“It would seem better to suffer for a thousand years every woe possible to this body in this world, than to remain one hour in purgatory.” - Life and Doctrine of Saint Catherine of Genoa (The Christian Press Assoc. Publishing Co., New York, 1907), Chapter XVI; found at ccel.org/ccel/catherine_g/life
Regarding time in purgatory, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, Pope Clement VIII’s personal theologian and Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, said:
"There is no doubt that the pains of Purgatory are not limited to ten or twenty years, and that they last in some cases entire centuries." - Robert Bellarmine, De Genitu, lib. ii. c. 9; as found in Schouppe, Purgatory, 68.
Of course suffering in this way would be feared and make people anxious.
8. The Council of Trent states:
"If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema." - Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon 1.
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine also said,
"The greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance." - Robert Bellarmine, Tertiae Controversiae Generalis: Controversia Secunda Generalis Quae Est De Justificatione Impii, Book III. Chapter 3.
This is where a lot of Rome's apologists today draw a distinction between epistemic, cartesian certainty and moral certainty -- but who on the Protestant side of these debates is ever talking about cartesian certainty? Also, regarding mortal sin: Rome provides NO infallible list of mortal sins. The discernment of whether or not something falls under the category of mortla sin is a rather large part of serious, scrupulous Roman Catholics' day-to-day lives. The reason for this is, in large part, due to the vague definition of mortal sin by the Catholic Catechism, which says that:
"1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
And then as an example of the range of sin that can make up "grave matter," the following paragraph then cites the ten commandments and Jesus' conversation with the rich young ruler -- that's quite a wide range without immediately discernable boundaries. That's major cause for anxiety and scrupulosity issues for those who take sin very seriously.
9. As for Lutheranism as a whole, there is an incredibly robust doctrine and practice of the Third Use of the Law in instructing Christians how they ought to live out of thankfulness to Christ as well as preaching the First use of the Law toward Christians due to the fact that repeated, grave sin risks pushing one toward unbelief and apostasy -- Luther himself covers this in his treatises against the antinomians of his day. In fact, Luther is the first person to coin the word "Antinomian" in order to refer to those who deny the function of the Law in the Christian life. Lutherans believe that the point of the Law is to crush us by showing us our sinfulness and our inability to be perfectly holy... so that we run to Jesus. Pastor Andrew very clearly lays out in our interview the Great Exchange that happens between the sinner and Christ as we are run to Him and are wed to Him in faith, wherein Christ receives our brokenness and the penalty of our sin while we receive His perfect righteousness imputed unto us -- and it is that righteousness of Christ which saves.
In sum, with a lot of love and respect, my friend, I would humbly put forth that you unfortunately grossly misrepresented both Pastor Andrew as well as Lutheranism at large at several points throughout your long comment here. As such, I thought it warranted a response both for yourself as well as for anyone else reading it. It took me a while to sit down and write up this even longer response, so I likely won't respond past this point.
I do want to say one more thing, though. There was a part of your final point in the comment chain, which you presented in a mocking tone, that was actually dead right: the Gospel is for weak and vexed sinners in need of a mighty savior. Christ came for sinners who are evil, broken, and filled with all sorts of weakness and anxiety. And I am glad that He did, for I am chief among them.
Romans 7:14-25
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
The fact that Paul himself says that a pastor can be a husband and father tells us that he should not be bound in conscience to celibacy for him to be at one with Christ.
@javierperd2604 thank you for this long and well thought-out response you made. Your videos and your commentary has helped me considerably (I think) regarding my doubts, my fears, and my "ecclesial anxiety" [though I know I still have these to some degree]. I'm trying to get over fears of hell and being rejected by Christ about leaving and never again returning to the Roman Catholic church.
I think I'm somewhere between Episcopal, United Methodist, and Lutheran, though open to Presbyterianism. I don't think I can be able to definitely be in Roman Catholicism again either. But that being said, I still have worries about some Catholic apologists being able to overpower me or use "gotcha" questions or what have you. I'm just trying to trust what you and Pastor Andrew are saying, but I admittedly still have doubts, and am even scared. Like, what if Rome and it's apologists really are right? I was pretty upset when this priest (and a young one at that) told me that my scrupulousity itself was actually a sin.
@imherwerdio6852 I completely understand your struggle, friend -- more than you know. I would say: you're right, this is a very important decision with a lot on the line... so take your time. Take your time to study the Scriptures, to study church history, and to learn how to best argue and spot inconsistencies within polemics. And then pray with all faith and trust in the Lord to give you wisdom and guide you to the right place -- then take heart! For He promises to answer.
James 1:5 ESV "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him."
I on the other hand, am so very grateful to the Holy Spirit for keeping me in the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Jesus is the rock, and peters confession is what the church is built on.
@lifewasgiventous1614 Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus built His Church on Peter the rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
This is such a ridiculous stretch it's hilarious Catholics use that as their proof text.
@matthewbroderick6287
The entire context of Mathew 16 is Peter recognizing Christ as God, it was only after he said that, that he called him Peter and said on this rock I will build my church, he did NOT say on you Peter, he said on this rock, what is the rock? The rock of confession in faith of Christ. Christ has always been referred to as the cornerstone that the builders rejected, Christ is the rock, and in confessing Christ was Simon named Peter. God bless you as always
@lifewasgiventous1614 Yet, you are simply providing your own fallible opinion regarding Matthew 16, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all interpretations, FALLIBLE! As the theory goes anyway! Yet, even many Protestant scholars disagree with you, as many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church, as Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
The Orthodox Church came around the year 1000, so how can they be the first church.
That’s just not true. The Orthodox trace their roots back to the Apostles.
Yeah, what that's not even close. This is the most frustrating part of conversation with Roman cathloics, they think every split is someone leaving and creating a new church when every split is someone trying to return to proper church teaching in doctrine ( reformation) or not adopting new doctrine ( orthodox).
You don't leave the church that Jesus started for a man-made Protestant religion.......
Says who? Orthodox say they are the true church.
Hello. Sorry to see nice, well meaning people give credence to a bitter German cleric from 500years ago. This is not to disparage you guys personally put to maybe, just maybe, call you to salvation. Stop arguing with God's church and come home.
Let's be real
-No apostolic succession
-No real belief in communion
-No respect for the sacraments
-No respect to tradition and magisterium.
-No real importance to the blessed Mary
Christianity a la carte
Rome needs to return to Orthodoxy.
@@countryboyredthey can't they have gone to far off the rails with their unbiblical dogmas to ever return imo
Sounds like you did a lot of swimming but a real Catholic the faith is in their heart when it's in your heart you don't leave the true church.. mother Angelica said you will be a janitor in heaven..
Are you a troll? Seriously 😒 what are you trying to say?
Satan used judas, to try to destroy the true god.. and he used Martin Luther to try to destroy the true faith..
Haha Satan infiltrated the RCC long ago and its been spitting out doctrines of demons ever sense. The real true church is invisible within many visible institutions... The RCC is in error, to many to list here
Mary says anyone that leaves the Catholic faith and joins a c u l t could lose their soul. She also says anyone who leaves the Catholic faith and joins another Christian religion will have a lower place in heaven. Satan chose Martin Luther to destroy the Catholic faith!!! PS I only trust Jesus.
Source: trust me bro
@@PlantChrist I only trust Christ!!!
@@markp2023 may we have a source for this Mary quote?
I guess Catholicism's only way to defend the faith is by superstition and blatant falsehood.
If you only trusted Jesus, you wouldn’t be quoting dead Mary. You Roman Catholics are completely lost.
First of all God is listening and it's in the holy book. You Protestants always like saying show me in the Bible so I would like to say when you praying for your airplanes and Rolex watches show me where that is in the Bible I've never seen Rolex watch in the bible..
You know a lot of us Protestants reject that stuff.
"My soul doth magnify the Lord and my spirit rejoiceth in God, my SAVIOUR. " May, mother of our Lord, was in need of a Savior, just like us.