Martin Luther and Frank the Hippie Pope Talk James 2
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2025
- Marty and Frank would like to heal their sad divisions. Marty wants to do this by teaching Frank a proper understanding of James 2. Frank wants to achieve unity through the power of baby boomer campfire music.
"Here I *still* stand, Franky boi."
~Martin Luther, 2017 (Totally)
Didn't Lutheran doubt the book of James ?
@@austintucker394
The answer is complex and depends on what you mean by doubt. He didn't try to take James out of the bible like many people say, but he did say it shouldn't be taught in schools. He said this because compared to other epistles he found James lacking because it rarely mentions christ by name and on the surface would appear to be at odds with Paul's writings. "Therefore St James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it"
So he doubted its value and if it was really written by James but not that it shouldn't be in the bible.
“Dante’s disco inferno” the absolute best 🤣
"Lets pretend that instead of being an insufferable Vatican two era flower child, you are a relatively normal human person with moderately effectively communication skills." LOL
Trrrfttrfttttttttrttrttttfrfttttrttrftttrrtrfttttftrttftttrftttfrttttttttttttrtttttrrftttfttttrtttttftrtttttttttrttttttrtfrtttttrttttrtttttftfrttttttttttftrrttttftrftrtttrrttttrtftttttttrtrtttrttttttttttrrttrffrtftttrrtftttttftrtrtttt0ttrftf
🤭
The man is a #Jesuit, not a hippie.
Catholic here. “ Frank the insufferable vat 2 hippie Pope”. Awesome 😎
🎵 And there's a rose in a fisted glove... 🎶
"It would indeed be very dank, Frank"
-Martin Luther, 2017
"A pasta sea" Love it! I'm laughing so hard I can't breathe. Excellent video on such a divisive line in the sand between Catholics and Protestants.
Didn't Luther doubt the book of James ?
Yes, so decisive that we had a document some years ago about Catholics and Lutherans together on the joint declaration of the doctrine of justification!
@@husq48 a specific Lutheran congregation, which represents less than half of all Lutherans
And yet Luther is lots larger than the pope (no offense)
When you are saved the Holy Spirit dwells inside you. That new nature produces good works. The works don't save the already saved. Paul and James are in agreement. Faith alone saves, but saving faith is not alone. And faith can be seen, it is belief put into action Heb 11:1.
Amen to infinity. I had to scroll down WAY too far to find this comment.
Ian Vroon we know that when we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit everything doesn't become magically perfect or that we are immune from sin.(Gal5:17) but the biggest problem with christianity as I see it today is that half the teaching ignores sin, the other half is works based salvation. Rarely does the modern American church preach about submission to the will of the holy spirt! The idea of the Christian life is not to watch our p's and q's and "behave" right. Or sin whenever and claim any teaching on behavior is legalism! The holy spirt will not lead us to sin. The Holy Spirit produces good works/fruit though us if we allow! The idea of salvation is not to just "get to heaven" but to be a vessel for the Spirit.
Man, where are the preachers like you? We need more. Seriously, this balance needs to be taught more. It really is about the Holy Spirit restoring and sanctifying us, not our own efforts. And that Spirit is no slacker-he renovates and redecorates our lives from the inside out. It is his work, not ours, that stands. His change, not our efforts, is the good seen in our lives. All our own attempts at righteous acts are just filthy rags.
Sanctification is the result of salvation, not the requirement. It happens over time and is complete the day Jesus comes back (the "day of completion," cf. 1 The 5:23-24).
Ian Vroon I'm not a preacher, just a hillbilly that reads the Bible. But thanks brother!
Also Paul teaches chastisement and his role to bring a rod to his brethren which misbehaved. Nevertheless he never taught they lost their salvation. So a better sing of salvation rather than good works is God's scourges throughout the life of the believer.
2:44 "I'm going to beat you with your crozier if you do that again."
-Martin Luther
Before anyone else says anything, it’s important to note that Luther in the Large Catechism considered the book of James to be inspired Scripture.
I love Lutheran Satire. I'm a five point Calvinist so I obviously disagree on some points, but I love my Lutheran brothers and sisters, and I love the way Hans teaches theology with jest.
I’m a Baptist and disagree with both of you, but Lutheran Satire is still pretty good.
Wait and we will have an arminian that disagrees with all of us
Wait you are a 5 point heretical cultist calvinist but disagree with some of the heresys of the Lutherans? funny just as bad as both calling out the NAR
and I will openley debate the heretical cult of calvinism with anyone because Calvinism is sending people to hell
@@billgrumling6192 So I take it you're Catholic.
As a Protestant, I will admit that "Shine Jesus Shine" is rather simplistic as church songs go, if YOU will admit that the entire Lutheran Hymnal has arrangements that are designed to make trained choir members cry in frustration.
You obviously do not have faith.
lol we don't talk about LSB
@@Thkaal come on, Paadrick
Ah, the problems with the Founder being a Professor of Theology AND a composer/musician from the Baroque Era.
“Shine, Jesus Shine” is quite simplistic, but I like “Earth And All Stars” quite a lot, since my congregation used to have mainly B.S. or better.
Whaat! We have awesome hymns, even the ones we got from the Methodists and... gasp... Catholics. Love me some pre-Reformation Wipo of Burgundy. Victimae Paschali Laudes.(lsb #460 in English) To really get its full impact, listen to the nuns sing it in Latin. Ethereal. Sublime.
Sisters of Aquinas'@QAS Academy. It might be listed as Easter Sequence
"We Can Work It Out" was a perfect choice for the theme of this video.
What if I 've never responded before, what if I ' m protestant, what if I really like this series?
"a-Pasta-sea" had me rolling!!!
Rolling in pasta😂
I see some other remarks on this, but I want to respond as a Catholic theologian. Catholics agree that works are signs, not the essence, of justifying faith. The difference relevant to this video is that Catholics divide two kinds of faith: living and dead faith. As Catholics define faith, faith is merely belief in God's word, trusting Him. But this kind of trust is not sufficient for salvation, as one can trust God's word truly, but still be unjustified. This dead faith would be the kind described in St. James, where one really and truly believes God's word, but does not love Him or others. What is further necessary is not 'works' but the virtue of charity (love of God/others; charity naturally produces works). The Protestant way of thinking collapses the two and thinks of faith as necessarily 'living'. So when they would see someone who believes God, but does not act charitably, they would think the person lacks faith entirely. The Catholic would say their faith is real, but defective. But on both views, having living faith is both sufficient and necessary for justification.
You can look, for example, at the Catechism of the Catholic Church's section on justification (www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm). But, as I said, the Catholic Church understands faith to be distinct from love and holds that both are jointly necessary for salvation. Love is not 'works,' but the disposition to adhere to God, to desire Him. On the Catholic view, 'living faith' is faith that is motivated by love, not merely belief (i.e., dead faith). This is what is meant in rejecting that 'faith alone' is justificatory.
The Westminster Larger Catechism, Question #70-71 as well as the Heidelberg Catechism, Question #62 is a good place to start for the Bible's treatment of justification and works, but it is only a start, one might argue that the entire theme of these great works is justification.
As I’ve studied this over the last 4 years of my life I’ve grown more and more concerned/relieved (lol) at how much of these disagreements may simply be due to miscommunication
@@Gruenders it's not a miscommunication. There is actual disagreement. People in the 16th century weren't idiots, they split for a reason.
For Roman Catholics, you need to use the grace given to you in the sacraments in works of love in order to be justified.
For Protestants, the only works that justify us are those of Christ.
Or do you think that the RCC just anathematised us over nothing?
NinjaCell I know this, just a lot of the differences I think do come down to different definitions of terms.
I like how Martin Luther calls Pope Francis “Frank” 😂
Lol if I ever have a friend who cheats I'll just say "bro even Frank the Hippie Pope knows that's messed up!"
I legit really like the pope's cover of "love the one you're with". can we get a full version?
I love these Lutheran Satire snippets. A good way to teach Christianity with a sense of humor.
What makes this even funnier is that the real life Pope Francis came out with a statement that more or less agrees with everything Luther said, lol.
You did an excellent job of detailing the Catholic view of justification.
Ironically it came from the mouth of Luther and not Pope Francis.
So basically what you're saying is that in practice, Catholics and Lutherans are essentially the same on this subject.
Works and Faith are ultimately inseparable.
Yes, but (from a Lutheran perspective) they're not identical. Faith is the part that justifies us, not works. It's sort of a nerdy technical detail, but it clarifies some situations like deathbed conversions, where faith may be fully manifest but weakness prevents the dying from doing good works. Whereas a deathbed Catholic in such a situation, without deathbed theology classes at least, could have no right confidence in the efficacy of their faith, since they would believe they haven't had the opportunity to do a good work and thereby be "considered righteous" before God for this work, a deathbed Lutheran can immediately be absolutely confident in their salvation and rejoice in their adoption as heirs in Christ.
I agree with the comment above except the fact that it's a "nerdy technical detail," considering being saved through faith AND works as Catholics teach is much different than sola fide in the sense that the comfort of your salvation is there through your entire life and not necessarily just at the end if you accept sola fide.
I think you're confusing a lot of different things. The Catholic Church does not teach deathbed conversions are impossible; the opposite, in fact. Love justifies, on their view, not faith 'alone.' Love is a disposition of the will to adhere to God as the object of the will's desire, with God's grace as the cause of that desire. Love is a disposition, not a 'work.' One can love in an instant, without doing anything at all. When love is present, your faith is 'alive' and complete.
Similarly, confidence in salvation comes from the virtue of hope (not faith), and hope has little to do with confidence in my works. Rather, hope is looking to the God you love and knowing that He cares for you - our hope for salvation is in God, not ourselves. I don't know any Catholic saint or official Church document that would teach that someone should look at their good works for confidence in being saved. This confusion might stem from the Catholic Church teaching that one can merit grace from God. Merit is possible because God has given you gifts of grace and you can use them well or badly. But all this is intended to explain is the biblical use of terms like 'reward' (e.g., Matt. 25:21), not that we strictly earn anything from God or that we can do anything apart from His grace.
ironchancellor1
You are correct that both Protestants and Catholics agree that Works and Faith are necessary and inseparable.
But that is pretty much where the agreement ends, as both the Catholics and Lutherans say above.
Sola fide says that salvation is received BY faith alone. However an important co-belief is that a saving faith IS NEVER alone - meaning that a true faith is ALWAYS accompanied by works.
@@erc9468 Not a issue Roman Catholics have with Lutherans. Roman Catholics have a specific wording to reject monergism, the goal is to say that a response to God's Grace is important in the capacity one is able to express it. Where Sola fide tends towards monergism though I have seen it interpreted either way (synergism or monergism).
In the immortal words of Darth Vader:
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Thanks, I truly enjoy the humor that teaches me stuff. Keep up the good work. Peace
Ok, the pope's name is now Dank Frank. Edit: Dancc Francc
As devout Catholic myself, I want to tell you that you actually did a pretty good job of explaining the Catholic teaching on this matter, ironically from the mouth of Marten Luther. It isn't that we say that you need to earn your way into heaven like earning a boy scout badge, but that faith and works are so intertwined that you can't have one without the other. Most of the idea that we think you need to earn your way is simply due to misinformation and the fact that we sometimes use the same terms and words to mean slightly different things, creating confusion in dialogue.
As a side note, I would be offended by your irreverent and inaccurate portrayal of the pope, but you're so darn funny and the music is so good that I can't bring myself to get all worked up about it. :D
Daniel Charland no, that isn't what the Catholic church teach. The Catholic church do teach that one not only has to have faith, but do enough to maintain their justification (otherwise the consequence is purgatory or hell). This involves adherence to God's laws and the Catholic Church's sacraments, by which God administers grace. The mass, for example, is a propitiatory sacrifice.
So clearly, Luther and most of the reformers did not agree with these ideas (that's why the Reformation happened). They believed that man is justified by faith alone, by grace alone. They believed that faith is achieved in only the elect, and that faith is a persevering faith that will bear fruit because the believer is regenerated. Catholics don't believe these things (if they are consistent with the catechism).
SamOwenI "Do enough to maintain their justification"
No, this is not what Catholic Church teaches. We do not need to "maintain" our justification. If you get baptised and you don't sin for the rest of your life, you're going straight to heaven, no matter how much you do (assuming you don't commit the sin of sloth). However, if you do commit a mortal sin, you lose your justification AND your soul is... damaged in some way (of course it's not literally damaged, but I can't find a better word). So not only you need to confess and repent from your sin, you also need to do penance to repare or clean your soul spiritually. If you don't, then you die in the state of grace (you're saved), but nothing impure can enter heaven - therefore you need to go through purgatory.
And sure, you can do good works to build up yourself in God and be stronger againts temptation, but you can be saved without it.
Daniel Charland I think the Holy Spirit has taught you the truth IN SPITE OF what you have been hearing from your priest. Peace
letrewiarz no you misunderstand.
Do you understand what the word "propitiation" means?
As a broken man who is tired of hostility I don't know what to think of Pope Francis. I am not the judge here I need to know more before I can decide. I certainly have more respect for John Paul 2nd but that is only the impression since I am scared of communism and Islam and the impression this new pope has given is pretty pathetic. And Luther some of his statements toward Jews were awful. He was very angry. I am tired of anger but sometimes anger is good. I guess we just need to trust God so we don't become vicious bullies or fanatics since good anger can be distorted so easily.
I have precisely the same reaction to "Shine, Jesus, Shine".
Didn't Luther want the book of James taken out of the Bible? I'm not disagreeing with this video; I'm just wondering.
TheBlindMuysk Well it depends on when it was. In the new testament, there are two kinds of antilegomena and homoligomena. Homoligomena is the 20 books that everyone agreed on when composing the Canon. Antilegomena is the 7 disputed books that not everyone agreed was scripture in the ancient church. These books are James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter and 2 & 3 John. These books were questioned due to uncertainties about authorship. For example, no one knows who wrote Hebrews. Martin Luther questioned the authorship of the first 4, but kept them in the bible as scripture. Some Roman theologians shared these questions too, particularly Erasmus. The Canon of scripture is a very confusing and complex topic. It wasn't like it was decided at one council or something. I suggest these videos Ill add latee and maybe some independent research. I hope this gives you a good base of knowledge.
*two kinds of books
TheBlindMuysk Luther later wrote a commentary on james
He also wanted Revelation "removed".
But did he remove them? Another lie is that he removed the texts known as the Apocrypha, but he didn't do that either.
I think these Lutheran satire videos would great to use as part of confirmation classes
Your videos are always spot on, Reverend Fiene! This Halloween will be a blessed time!
Says a lot about Pope Francis that what Catholic commenters are objecting to in this video is NOT the depiction of the Pope.
redcatofdeath we're not Muslims; a caricature of the pope is far from the nastiest thing a Lutheran has done to us (and far from what we have done to Lutherans). It's satire. Where correction is deserved is on theology, so that's where it's addressed. Take care.
I love the harpsichord version of We can work it out
Vatican 2 era flower child love it. I'm a catholic my self, and I was laughing soo much. Apustasee, I'm going to beat you with your crozier.🤣🇺🇲🇻🇦🇩🇪
As a Catholic I must say
This is hilarious!
ALL WHO HAVE AN EAR LET HIM HEAR: IT'S FINALLY HERE
😂 So FUNNY! If seminary was this entertaining I would have an MDiv or something by now. Keep making the awesome!!!
We've waited so long.
Insufferable Vatican 2 Flower Child. Bwahahaha!
Didn't Lutheran doubt the book of James ?
I would love it if someone could address that whole "Martin Luther added the word 'Alone'" thing Catholics keep talking about.
Grant Hurst basically he was fully justified in using alone and in fact several Church fathers and Catholic translations of the bible had "sola" in them. An example is Basil of Caeserea who who quotes that passage using the word "sola" (Hom. de Humilitate 20.3)
For the Catholic Bible translations that use alone: Nuremburg 1483, Geneva 1476 and Venice 1538 use the word for alone (one in German and the other two in Italian)
That's the next episode in the series.
Glad to. Paul says over and over that we're saved by faith "without works," "not by works," "apart from works," and a whole lot of things that add up to "alone." So while he added the word "alone' to one verse by way of emphasis, he was only paraphrasing what Paul says over and over and over.
It all comes down to how you define faith. A quote from Luther: "Faith alone justifies- but not a faith that is alone."
For us, justifying faith by definiiton produces good works. Our problem with the Catholic formulation is that it treats faith as something to which works must be added rather than something which, again as Luther said, faith is already doing before the question of whether they are to be done is even asked.
Are y'all gonna do something about the fact that Martin Luther was obsessed with feces and talked to demons? Lol
Oh my goodness... this made me burst out with laughter on so many occasions. If you look up the definition of "Satire" in an online dictionary, there will be a link to this video.
"I'm going to beat you with your crozier if you do that again!" XD
So you're justified by faith alone, as long as that means you have the works? How is that different by being justified by faith along with the works?
If I may attempt to make a stab at it, what Luther was teaching is that salvation is attained purely through the grace of GOD by accepting the pardon bought by the blood of JESUS. However, GOD doesn't just want to save us, but remake us, "renewing our minds," (Roman's 12:2), that is defined by overcoming our worldly appetites and striving to live according to his righteousness. Through this renewal, we are inspired not only to have faith in GOD, but to do his work. Thus, faith alone is needed for salvation, but works and deeds are the outward signs that we have this faith and that this renewal is taking place, by which our brothers and sisters can see our progress or lack thereof.
As for the Catholic interpretation, I think the comment made by "Saint Michael," which from my view is right under your comment here, should provide clarification on what they think.
Hope this helps.
James is in fact talking about salvation and since the real Martin Luther couldn't make James fit with his ideas, he called James "an epistle of straw" showing a lot of respect for the Bible which is supposed to be the sole authority for doctrine according to Martin Luther.
Can’t spell Luther without the L
The book of concord, in the defense of the augsburg confession, actually addresses James 2:24 in paragraph 123-127:
"123] From James 2:24 they cite: Ye see, then, how by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone. Nor is any other passage supposed to be more contrary to our belief. But the reply is easy and plain. If the adversaries do not attach their own opinions concerning the merits of works, the words of James have in them nothing that is of disadvantage. But wherever there is mention of works, the adversaries add falsely their own godless opinions, that by means of good works we merit the remission of sins; that good works are a propitiation and price on account of which God is reconciled to us; that good works overcome the terrors of sin and of death, that good works are accepted in God's sight on account of their goodness; and that they do not need mercy and Christ as Propitiator. None of all these things came into the mind of James, which the adversaries nevertheless, defend under the pretext of this passage of James."
And it continues on from there.
I think this conversation would go much better if Catholics did not try to tell Protestants what they believe and Protestants did not do the same to Catholics. What's more, it would be even better if both Catholics and Protestants knew what their traditions actually taught, because there's a whole lot of misinformation going on here. That being said, we Catholics should have the humility to accept that we have over the centuries learned something from our Protestant brothers, which is to say--and I know this is anathema to some trad Catholics--we have changed for the better, through the Holy Spirit. Also, we're big enough to take the humor of LutheranSatire.
Nawww, who needs common sense!
Did anyone notice the intro and outro music is "We Can Work it Out" by the Beatles?
Yep I did
This video has inspired me to open a chain of pagan-only workout facilities. It will be called Wiccan Work It Out.
Admittedly a good name, but would have a very limited number of customers depending on location.
And as a rule for business, its never wise to limit potential customers.
Yiu didnt watch the Video, did you? You came here to mock Christians for no good Reason.
As an Orthodox Christian, I would be sorely tempted to go there, despite a lack of blessing to do so (educated guess!) from my spiritual father, just on humor grounds -- fabulous!
Okay. Glad to see Axl recovered from his... erm... Christmastime incident. Just had to check. :P ;)
Also, I love it when he sneaks up, and Frank opens his mouth preparing to do another song, and "Marty" just says nooooo, and continues talking. HILARIOUS!
As a Catholic in his 5th year of seminary, I am going to keep my critique simple.
I watched this video in the hope that it would be challenging so that I can understand more perspectives then my own. But, if anything, it only proved that you haven’t put even close to the amount of intellectual honesty in your making of this then I did in watching it. All I get out of this video is that the creator hasn’t got a clue about Catholic teaching on faith and works. If anything, this video makes Luther argue more of a Catholic position then the Pope. (Once you got past those hippie “jokes” which were more immature then they were funny)
You know, Catholic teaching is not a secret. We’re not like Scientology or Mormonism, everything we teach is right out there. You don’t have to agree with us. But please, if you are going to criticize us, leave out the straw man arguments and pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church. It will tell you what we teach and how we defend it. (Including scriptural resources)
How about you tell us the position then.
Works vs Faith: If there was anything that mankind could do to earn favor with God, the covenant promise with Israel would never need to be repaired, and the need for Jesus' sacrifice wouldn't exist.
Because God chose to intervene and restore the perfect relationship as only He could, through taking our punishment and suffering and dying for us, there is no work that we can do to claim the right to be called God's children; even in our sinfulness, God saved us.
Therefore, faith stands alone in receiving God's gift of grace and mercy. It is undeserved, unearned, and given to unclean and unworthy sinners that through the power of the Holy Spirit, we are continually made new and righteous, and being bound to both life and death in Jesus, we are raised with him to receive life everlasting.
Where in the cathechism where it talks about works
As intense and pointed as the saint himself. Bravo brother
Except that Luther would not have said this. What Luther said: "No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger"
Remember what Christ said to the woman caught in the act of adultery that was brought to Him?
He said to her, I Donot condemn you woman, Go And Sin NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was actually a really good explanation of James 2.
Hahaha a pasta sea? AHHHHHHHAHHHHHAHH
A Created Human I am going to beat you with your crozier if you do that again
Love it as usual
Who is the dude in sunglasses that is always singing? Never mind. I figured out it is Axl Rose.
This is so good. You're a genius.
This is the best example of a Straw Man argument I have ever seen.
What are you talking about? This is a 100% accurate depiction of the Pope, without any satirical or exaggerated aspects whatsoever.
Newly ordained Catholic priest here. Love your stuff, and have for a while.
Based on this video, I don't think we actually have any theological disagreements on this. Faith is the necessary foundation of salvation. Works can be done independent of Christ, but faith cannot, and Christ is the source of salvation, ergo...
The disagreement might be in the nature of faith. American evangelicals equate faith with one-time intellectual assent (I accept Jesus as Lord, therefore...). Current Catholic theologians take a more existentialist approach, seeing faith as a theological virtue, that is, a pattern of making a decision "for God" at every moment. Existentialist because that decision (or, more properly, each sequential decision) must be for God above all else, making the orientation toward God the defining orientation of one's existence. Acts are decisions just as much as intellectual opinions, so we would include them all under the banner of faith, which seems similar to what you have done and what we might agree James is doing. I would be surprised if you actually took the one-time intellectual assent approach, but I suppose the purpose of ecumenical dialogue is to find out.
Yes, works are the fruits of the spirit. They are a result of sanctification. Not required for justification, but if there are no fruits then we can tell your faith probably isn't genuine! Can't wait for the New Catholic Generation to react to this awesome video. Don't slip into the pasta sea!!! God bless!
P.s. SHINE JESUS SHINE!!!!
Most amusing, as usual. Now if you would put together a section on Luther's treatise to the German (Austrian? I forget) Prince regarding his question regarding works v. faith, it would really open up this discourse and not take more than 2 hours. A Conall and Donnall cameo is a must. You might skip the intro deference to the Prince, as it would seem rather odd to the modern reader, but the main body is brilliant. I'll check back in a week or so. Cheers.
Music is a plus.
It might have also helped to point out that James uses demons as an example of the kind of "faith" that DOESN'T justify. No demon ever trusted in the merits of Christ. James is using lip service, as you mentioned, but also head knowledge as his definition of faith rather than using the word in the Pauline sense.
what about james 2:24 where it explicitly states "you see, then, that it is by people's actions that they are put right with god and not by their faith alone"
Wow, the ghost of Luther totally blew the straw man cartoon not at all Catholic Church position out of the water.
Good job?
LutheranSatire, I know you are Lutheran, but could you please make a video about Frank the Hippie Pope meeting Saint Thomas Aquinas?
That would be epic! I was gonna post a TH-cam video from Pints With Aquinas on "Are we bound to correct Pope Francis", but I couldn't find it for some reason, and can only find it in podcast form on iTunes.
Does anybody know the practical difference between faith being demonstrated through good works (Protestant) and faith being accompanied by good works (Catholic)? If not, this is merely 'an argument about words'.
Frank the hippie pope is how I will refer to him from now on.
True, living faith necessarily results in good works, and a tree is judged by its fruit. I'm with you on that (although I have been told that actions/"works" are literally part of what the Greek word translated "faith" meant at the time, in which case "faith alone" not only necessarily *produced* works, but *consisted* in part of works). But James doesn't say "justified by true faith, which necessarily results in good works, but not justified by the works themselves", it says "justified *by* works." Also, Paul says we are justified "by faith [alone], apart from works *of the law*," which has a completely different meaning from just "apart from works."
Your guy's videos are well done!
I don't know, I'm not convinced. The dark-robed guy is not convincing, I think I'll stroll back to the Holy Mother Church because they've got bitchin' bubblegum rock!
I want a Pope Francis cover of "Love the One You're With".
Oh boy, NEW LUTHERAN SATIRE VIDEO!
I'm pretty sure we all agree on this. Catholic or Protestant. I don't understand why we're divided on this.
Actually Luther didn't have this interpretation . He believed that there was no way to reconcile James and Paul. He called James the epistle of straw and said it wasn't of apostolic authorship. He may have left it in his bible but that was only to pacify some of his followers
I'm sad cause no one sang shine Jesus shine.
Even though I'm reformed, I love these videos.
I love how Frank the hippie Pope looks baked!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!
This guy was wrong on at least four counts. James 2:24 says, "You are justified by works, and not by faith alone." St. Paul never says -- as does LutheranSatire -- "faith alone" in Romans 3. The only place in Scripture which says "Faith alone," is James 2:24 -- preceded by....."not" which means that Martin Luther was wrong, and why he famously said, "I feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove," because it made clear he was wrong. Everything from 2:00 isn't in the Bible. He contradicts himself when he says, "Faith produces works." Okay. So what if it doesn't? Than you're faith is dead and you're not saved. Translation: works justify the individual before God (not works alone, but works in accord with faith). That's what the RCC has taught for millennia. At least Martin Luther was honest about it: "I could commit adultery over 300 times and still my salvation would not be lost." Lutheran Satire is funny, but he's doing mental gymnastics here to try to avoid becoming Catholic. The Arians failed, and so will mainline Protestantism -- it's already so divided and lost so many of its congregation (sad, but true)
I think you need to take a look at your own mental gymnastics here.
Why, exactly, would "faith produces works" contradict Luther? A good tree produces fruit, and thus we may know if a tree is good if it produces fruit, but if that tree is chopped down before fruit may be formed does that therefore mean the tree was not itself good? Were fruit formed, is the tree healthy *because* it is bearing fruit? No; rather, we simply know that it is a good tree because it bears fruit. Just so with faith: it produces good works if God provides it the opportunity to do so, but it is not alive because of its works.
You can pluck one, isolated verse out of an entire chapter, and get it to say ANYTHING you want.
James is making an INCREDIBLY profound and complex argument throughout the entirety of chapter 2. The context here is incredibly powerful. Read it from the beginning - you'll se that he's talking about people who CLAIM faith, but who have ZERO fruit. They actually have NEGATIVE fruit - the fruit that Jesus said we are to judge people by.
James 2:14 - "Can THAT faith save him?" An empty, hollow faith that exists only on this man's lips, and not in his heart or actions.
Examine the context. It says nothing that the simplistic RCC apologists claim that it says.
Sadly, Arianism is still around in various forms. On the other hand, while there are plenty of strains of Protestantism that will hopefully be weeded out soon, there are others that are generally doing better than Catholicism. Catholicism has a strong institutional leadership, and the largest number of believers, but on general the average Catholic doesn't really know what they believe very well. The average Protestant (particularly in the healthy traditions) tends to be better informed and more active in practicing their faith. Then again, if Protestantism itself fails there's always the option of pursuing the Orthodox path of the Catechumenate.
Also, last I checked RCC teaches that faith justifies and works sanctify, not that works justify. Justification through works would be Pelagianism. There's a subtle but important difference. Eternal communion with God is a matter of justification. The length of time the soul spends in purgatory is a matter of sanctification. Calvin wrote (and this is in accordance with RCC teaching) that the believer concerned with the status of their justification was doing it wrong. The desire of the soul following justification is to pursue deepening sanctification, not to worry about the efficacy of their baptism.
The argument presented in the video isn't really the problem, and the cartoon Luther in the video and the Council of Trent agree in substance. Each side uses the terms differently--Catholic theology uses "faith" as intellectual assent, whereas Protestants mean more than that--and once you sort out what each side means by the terms, there is not much disagreement.
The biggest problem is what Luther--and Protestants--mean by "forensic", or "declarative" justification. If the sinner is not made intrinsically just, but only declared just, then they must do sanctification by their own power--something no Protestant would accept. Of course, Protestants--and Luther--will say that the interior change takes place in sanctification, not justification. But if there is an interior change--call it whatever word you like--why start a war by claiming that there isn't? How is this not inconsistent?
I remember the first time I heard this method of reading James 2. I was dumbstruck that someone would twist the passage in such a way.
Here's an actual Catholic reply: actsapologist.blogspot.com/2017/08/misreading-james-224.html
Love the beatles intro lol
So why protestants requested to the Holy Catholic Church to delete the ex communication which is upon the Martin Luther? Sorry, Too late. Nothing can be done upon a deatman.
I'm not even a religious Christian (raised Lutheran though; how did Google know?), but that is some fine work you guys did here. Francis is a hippie pope though. That, if anything, is true
Meanwhile, the real life Luther called James an "Epistle of straw" and tried to excise it from the Bible.
his opinion developed over time to the point where he heavily favored it
Fuckboi and Lavacunt Old comment I know. He “favoured” it in the sense that he said it was useful, but still said it was basically apocryphal.
@Ναζωραῖος Excise, meaning to cut out surgically. And yes he did, he stated
"St. James’
epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to the others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it." (Luther’s Works 35, 362)
"We should throw the epistle of James out of this school [i.e. Wittenburg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did." (Luther’s Works 54, 424)
and more clearly stating that he wanted to throw it "into the stove", i.e. burn it, i.e. remove the book from the canon in 1542
"That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest.
Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did." (Luther’s Works 34, 317)
Understand that Martin Luther had a preconceived interpretation of extrinsic / forensic justification before even looking at James in any depth and as such only relented to keeping it as he admits once he figured out a way to work in his interpretation into it which sounds awfully like how Arius came up with new interpretations for the scriptures and was rebuked for doing so and not having any basis in the works of the Church fathers at the Council of Nicaea.
This is not to say Luther was as bad as Arius or anything of the sort, but it's odd to me that he put so little stock into "Sola Scriptura" or even that it was divinely inspired that he was more willing to trust his own understanding of scripture than the scripture itself if he could not find a way to warp the interpretation of the scripture to fit to his view.
As did the Cardinal Cajetan before the Tridentine Council.
@@TristanHayes Luther was interpreting it as contradicting other books that make faith based salvation clear, and he didn't know if it was trustworthy because it doesn't reference the words of Jesus. However, Lutherans and Luther decided long ago that James is not talking about work based salvation, but the symptoms of true faith. He never advocated it be excised from the Bible, only questioned its teaching in the Wittenburg school, because at that time he thought it had little to do with Jesus and his word, and it was a major theological sticking point with the Catholic church of the time who used it to justify their position that both faith and works are necessary to receive justification through grace.
Extra points for the Darth Vader "no" sound byte!
Listening to Martin Luther’s hymns brought me here today. I really enjoyed it and had no idea there was such a thing. Is Axl Rose the hippie Pope’s back up singers!!?? 🤣🤣
The Epistle of St James IS the one that Luther wanted to remove from the canon as "an epistle of straw" exactly because he knew that the exegesis given by "Frank" here was untenable, right?
The problem with this debate, as far as I can see, is that people impose a Pelagian interpretation of works on Catholicism. The Catholic Church never says people are justified by their works. Both the Council of Trent(1) and the Catechism(2) confirmed that.
Aside from the reason that it's not used explicitly as such in Romans , Galatians and only negatively in James, the reason Catholics don't use the "faith alone" formula is because there are actually two uses of the word "faith" in the Bible. In James, faith is seen as separate from works, hence why the Bible says, "faith without works is dead." The "without" in that statement, means it's actually possible to separate the two. Hence it would be possible, with that definition of faith, to not be saved. Here, clearly, faith *alone* is not justified. St Paul also uses this understanding of faith in Corinthians, when he says "and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." Here he is admitting that it is possible to have "absolute faith" to move mountains without love, which is faith without the actions or work of love. This definition of faith, won't save us.
The explanation in the video when they're giving an example of someone who's works do not match his alleged faith, they are stating that it's not faith. This is true for the second definition of faith that Paul uses in Galations, but not for the definition St James uses or St Paul uses in Corinthians. In Galatians, however, he mentions faith that abides in charity. Now can you have charity without acting in charity? I would think no. But is acting, not a form of work? What this definition of faith means is that works are part of faith. A faith that expresses itself in actions, is enough to justify a person. This is also the type of Faith mentioned in Romans 3. Here, this definition of faith, though, is something that *NECESSARILY* causes works, hence it's different from James. Now before you suggest that I've suddenly changed topics to make it about works, not faith, note that in the Calvinist TULIP acronym the last letter, P, stands for the preservation of the saints, wich entails good works will flow from them. "You will know them by their fruits()."
Catholicism does not disagree with Calvinists on this. Where Catholics disagree with Calvinists is in regards to cooperation, since works are seen as a form of positive response to God's saving act, while in Calvinism, they necessarily flow from faith, but are not cooperation. The difference is there's essentially no free will in the Calvinist equation since God picks who he bestows grace upon(unconditional election) and with irresistible grace, works come from them as a result. If there was free will in the equation, then that would mean it's an action on the part of man, therefore a form of works. What Catholics teach regarding mortal and venial sin, though, is not that works earn us the right to Heaven. That was done by Christ and Christ alone, but by repenting of our sins, particularly mortal sins, we respond to Christ's salvation. You can't be sorry for sin while intending to do it again, so you have to work at trying to stop sinning. If you're not trying to improve, you're not really sorry. Its nota matter of justification, though, it's a matter of sincerity. Now repenting is a form of work, and loving your neighbor as Christ instructs us to do in Mathew 25, with the corporal works of mercy, are works, but they're the type of works that are part of faith abiding in charity.
This is what the Catholic Church actually says...
1.Council of Trent:The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God (Council of Trent Session VI, Chapter V) .
2.Catholic Catechism: With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit… 2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions (CCC 2006-2008, 2010).
those socks are pretty dank, marty and frank
I am a Catholic and I agree with the "Salvation by faith alone, but faith is proven to others by our works"... Am I not considered Cathloic now?
I'm not catholic, but I know enough about Catholic theology to see that you are now a heretic according to the Roman Catholic church and can no longer commune with them.
Thanks for this video. I see so many Catholics use James 2 against Justification by Faith Alone in such a manner as to make James 100% in contradiction to every epistle Paul ever wrote concerning justification and salvation.
You’re speaking of adulatory, Marty, my boy? Fidelity to one sacred oath means fidelity to ALL sacred oaths, Marty. You SWORE to Saint ANN, the blessed mother of the Mother of God, that YOU WOULD BECOME A MONK!!!!
No take-backsies, Marty. Not if you want to be taken seriously.
problem is that I don't think Frank can actually quote scripture!
Martin Luther himself would probably love these videos he could come off with some zingers.
I always find the lutheran debate interesting. Most of it boils down to the Catholic Church trying to save people with other things back in the day, which is mostly abandoned.
I'm still standing, that was so good.
I'm surprised Marty didn't just dismiss the entire Epistle of James as heresy. You know, like so many of his intellectual heirs today do.
"So then, when James says we're not justified by faith alone, but also by works, he's not really saying that we're not justified by faith alone, but also by works, because, ya know we want him to say something different which I'll now explain to you."
I just lost my drink when Francis said "dank" like a stoner...
This video is incorrect. "Works" in James 2:24 refers to "Works of the Law." Like Paul in Romeman's, James was addressing Jewish followers with a response stating that they do not need to follow the Mosaic Law in order to be Christain. To call it "Good Works" of charity and piety is to give it a modern interpretation because it's taken out of context. This error has been propagated far far too long.
I pray that the Lord God will strike me dead whilst I watch this video. It is that awesome.
I must be really old fashioned because I like a good Gregorian Chant.
I don't think Pope Francis is enough of a Biblical scholar or a theologian to be able to cite James 2.
I love how "Martin Luther" here had to take a bunch of time to twist a verse and explain it away to fit his theology, when the plain text itself obviously contradicted it. That's why he tried to remove James from his Bible.
The text means what it says. It's not complex. You don't need to twist it if you just read it straightforward.
The Holy Spirit Himself put the words "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" in the Bible, and the same Holy Spirit NEVER put the words "faith alone" anywhere else in the Bible, including Romans or Galatians.
If James were theologically Protestant he would have never written James 2:24. But if a Catholic were debating a rabbinical Jew, he would write Galatians and Romans.