Indulgences: Patristic to Medieval Changes
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- Indulgences represent an example of the Protestant concern about accretions in church history. In this video I highlight three ways indulgences change from the patristic to the medieval era.
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY BOOKS:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
00:00 - Introduction
0:58 - Indulgences as Representative of Accretions
3:13 - What is an Indulgence?
5:29 - The Anathema of Trent
7:32 - The Basic Protestant Position
8:47 - 1) Indulgences Get More Common
11:57 - 2) Indulgences Get More Transactional
15:11 - 3) Indulgences Get More Powerful
22:30 - The Underlying Pastoral Concern
![ทททททททท #27 [หลุยส์ เค โตมายังไง ณ สระบุรี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CaKoYw_Xmtg/mqdefault.jpg)
The transactional nature begins to sound very Islamic at a certain point. “If you miss your prayer times, you can give to the poor to make it up.”
Yea, It misses the point which is that we are incapable of saving ourselves.
What you said about Purgatory rings so true. My Catholic friends seem very concerned about being morally perfect and I see how destructive that thinking can become if it omits the grace of God.
I haven't ever known a Catholic who deals w/ it at all. They don't really seem to know much about it. If they are a regular church goer, they worry about confession and not much beyond that. No wonder though, I feel heavy just learning about it. I can't imagine having this insane burden placed on me. It's like Christ died for absolutely nothing for us.
@@saintejeannedarc9460
At all Masses there are prayers offered for those in Purgatory. Good Catholics do know about it and try to avoid purgatory. This is not an insane burden but a matter of justice coming from an infinitely just God.
@@bridgefin God is a just God and can be taken at his word, that when we approach him for forgiveness of sins, he forgives completely. The doctrine of purgatory does not portray a just God, but one that says he forgives sins, but still holds it against us even when forgiveness is asked for by confession. Apparently, even w/ acts of contrition or satisfaction given by the priest, the matter is still not settled and forgiveness isn't really obtained. Sins must still be paid for after death as well. This is not forgiveness.
@@saintejeannedarc9460
You: when we approach him for forgiveness of sins, he forgives completely.
Me: 2 Sam 12 says otherwise: “I have sinned against the LORD,” David said. Nathan replied, “The LORD forgives you; you will not die. But because you have shown such contempt for the LORD in doing this, your child will die.”
David is forgiven but there are consequences to sin which are not included in the forgiveness.
You: Apparently, even w/ acts of contrition or satisfaction given by the priest, the matter is still not settled and forgiveness isn't really obtained.
Me: Wrong. The sins are forgiven. Nor there is atonement for the sins just as there was for David.
Example: You steal a million dollars and the next day you realize you sinned. You get on your knees and beg God for forgiveness.
Protestants say it is finished.
Catholics say you have to return the money.
@@bridgefinI think a question I would ask is … in what ways are we capable of fulfilling that amount of justice. What price was required to remove and forgive sin? Do we believe that any act we perform will remove the burden of sin toward our infinitely perfect God. Friend Jesus had to do that because there is nothing you can do to reduce the penalty of your sin
"Building a castle on a foundation of tooth picks." What a great analogy! I am pinching that...
Pretty much sums up most of the Catholic belief structure. Keep up the great content. Peace and love in Jesus' mighty name 🙏
Wrong.
@@richyburnett perhaps you can elaborate on your concise comment?
Thank you for another helpful video. Your videos have inspired me, a Protestant, to really dig into church history and the writings of our ancestors in the faith. I just finished your book “Finding the Right Hills to Die on”, and have just begun “Theological Retrieval.” Keep up the great content!
Thanks Jon! Hope you enjoy reading!
Your channel has become a regular for me. I appreciate people like yourself who have done the homework and then deliver information in an understandable way. Ive been on the fence about whether to convert to Orthodoxy or not. I understand that this video is dealing more with Catholic and reformation issues, but it reaffirms scripture over tradition for me. Thanks.
If you want to see an orthodox TH-cam who is more based in scripture than the church fathers look up seraphim hamilton
Former Eastern Orthodox here. I would just caution you to not take the church father quotes touted by Eastern Orthodox apologists at face value. They are almost always taken out of the context in which they were written. Please, in your search, read the early church fathers yourself (the first 200 to 300 years or so). I was convinced to join the Eastern Orthodox institution primarily because I was convinced by Eastern Orthodox apologists throwing around church father quotes, claiming that they meant something that reaffirmed modern-day Eastern Orthodox dogma and practice. It was only upon reading the early church fathers myself, fully and in their proper contexts, that I realized that the early church fathers sound nothing like the bizarre modern-day dogmatic innovations within Eastern Orthodoxy-- and even speak in total opposition to modern-day Eastern Orthodox dogma.
Good luck, friend!
@@moiseybeliy5458 Agreed. I intend to do my own due diligence on reading the church fathers. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
There is no Scripture without Tradition.
@@moiseybeliy5458What about for Catholicism? I have heard some interesting arguments for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism
Your point about anxiety is exactly what lead me away from the catholic church. I was raised catholic, but never really had faith or belief in god while growing up. I spent a long time away from god, and when I truly found christ one of my first inclinations was to go confess my sins to a priest. The process of confession as prescribed by the catholic church provokes anxiety in and of itself, and once you leave the confession the moment you commit a sin your mind starts to scramble, wondering if its mortal, if you already have issues with anxiety or compulsive thinking this just inflames it even more. I found that after awhile any trust I had in god was essentially eroded, and I was just a ball of nerves. What tipped me over the edge was that I could not remember if I'd made a pact with god to go to confession on a certain day or not, I didn't think I had but also I wasn't sure if I'd done it hastily without much thought as I'd been dead set on going in that moment. Turns out a broken pact with god is not only a mortal sin, it's also only forgivable by your local bishop. This made no sense to me.
Learning about indulgences, treasury of merit and purgatory makes me angry. Christ died in vain, if this is the method we are told to go through. I can't imagine having this incredibly heavy yoke placed on me. I understand the constant insecurity a Catholic would go through if they are devout. Why on earth anyone would convert to this, I just can't understand. Jesus said, Come unto me, all who are burdened and heavy laden. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light, and you will find rest for your souls. There is nothing light or easy. This is grievous, heavy and arduous. What's more, it's incredibly convoluted and complicated.
Where are you w/ your faith now? I have a great deal of compassion for those that suffer w/ anxiety. I pray that you now know that your sins are forgiven when you confess them. God understands your frailties.
Imagine living under a system of fake forgiveness... where forgiveness isn't actual forgiveness... it's just some fictional probation... where actual release from sin comes, not through the Word of Christ as the Scriptures teach, but by suffering for all your sins in some god-awful way according to accumulated suppositions of the devil. Seekers of the Way, flee this!
I think that 75% or more of the concern by the Reformers toward indulgences and the 'ex opere operato' theology generally was not whether there was such a thing as "the sacramental system"... but rather, what remains of the inward realities of repentance and faith when you can go around them through money and _sheer_ external participation.
Faith, repentance AND full sacramental participation was the goal of the Reformers. To make the heart match the actions.
As a layman, thank you for sparking an interest in me in this.
I was so touched listening to this. Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund.
"Indulgences: Luther, Catholicism and the Imputation of Merit" by Mary C. Moorman
Currently reading this book and I find it helpful, maybe you will too. I'm on team Catholic but I always appreciate your work and Christian charity Dr. Ortlund.
Very kind of you.
Thank you again, Dr. Ortlund, for a well-researched explanation of indulgences. This was Martin Luther's starting point for demanding reform and the abuses of indulgences in his day were so outrageous that few disagreed with his initial objections. The historical reality was that the renaissance Popes often paid enormous bribes to secure votes among the college of cardinals and relied on the sale of indulgences to recuperate those funds. Pope Julius II then decided to double down on the profits of indulgence to complete his renovations to St. Peter's Basilica and hence John Tetzel. So yes, the sale of indulgences in medieval and renaissance times was not a historically valid theological progression of public penance in early Christianity. It was a profoundly evil money-making scheme, exploiting believers' moral consciences for crass profit.
I don't think, however, that Protestants are wholly innocent of this same behavior either. We see televangelists and prosperity gospel preachers doing the exact same thing with a different theological underpinning. The Renaissance Popes were saying, "You committed sin and now you have to pay me a one-time fee for an indulgence to feel right with God." Televangelists and prosperity preachers say, "You committed sin and now you have to pay a subscription fee by tithing into my church for my sufficiency theology to feel right with God."
The common denominator is guilt. People in their hearts know that committing serious sin is incompatible with Jesus' message. People will pay for indulgences or subscribe to a sufficiency theology that will fix it all in the snap of a finger. It just doesn't work. Sufficiency theology won't fix a marriage marred by adultery, won't restore trust broken by betrayal, won't restore a reputation slandered by lies.
Given the Catholic Church's horrible track record with abusing indulgences it's easy to jump to a contrary alternative. But any theology that proposes an effort-free solution to guilt and the damages caused by sin is simply untenable in light of the gospel and human experience. Zacchaeus gave half his money to the poor and paid back four-fold anyone whom he defrauded. The repentant thief (St. Dysmas) expiated his sins by accepting his sufferings on the cross. Mary of Bethany poured expensive oil on Jesus feet. Judas said she was wasting money that should have gone to the poor but Jesus said that her penance was appropriate and even prophetic. John the Baptist required his penitents to "bear fruits worthy of repentance" (Mt 3:8).
Agreed, let's knock down indulgence theology, mired as it is in such an ugly past. But please, let's knock down sufficiency theology. It is unbiblical and prone to the same abuses as indulgences. My prayer is that we can build a mutually intelligible understanding of Jesus' call to repentance, that genuinely brings grace, healing, and hope to those injured by sin.
Thanks again Gavin for speaking with clarity , grace and honesty - on these issues - you’re shedding a lot of light on some dark corners
I love your work Dr Ortlund, thank you. So helpful to have this information packaged so nicely and concisely.
I’m sure you don’t need to hear it, but your channel always makes me hungry for more. Always so well done.
Your channel is my new favorite. I’ve already started to recommend it to others 😄
Awesome, glad it has value for you!
Love you, Gavin! You’ve become one my favourite people to listen to!
Same ❤️🙏
Gonna need a library tour video! Also--Just got Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, and I'm excited to read
There’s a lot of misunderstanding on this issue, and this is why I’m very happy when you put out content like this. You may make criticisms, but at least there’s a guarantee that you’ll represent the other side fairly. I’m only watching now but I’m sure that will be the case as well here.
Thank you brother
Great!!! 👍🏼 Perfect. Thank you so much for exposing that system. And... concerning accretions, I just love this verse:
"Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints."
Jude 1:3
Thanks again Gavin. What you do is invaluable. God bless you in the Name above all names.
"... Once for all..." Yes!!!
I just love it. Once means once and all means all. There is no room for accretions in this statement directly from the source. God's Word.
Gavin, I just commented on one of your videos if you could discuss this topic not knowing that you already had! Prayers retroactively answered! I've done a decent amount of study, about 2 years on and off, on Roman Catholicism; Purgatory with Indulgences are one of my biggest barriers. I have no problem with the concept of purgatory if it was limited to "Jesus purifies after death, sometimes it's painful, but it's necessary to be in heaven." I do have a problem with indulgences and how it connects to purgatory. The recent debates on purgatory barely if ever touch on indulgences.
Indulgences sound like the Church had to give a reason to love your neighbor. The motivation to love was supposed to come from the understanding of the love that God did for us in Christ but I guess that wasn't a good enough reason.
Gavin, I so appreciate your ministry. One ethical issue I have been trying to study deeply is the issue of contraception. I'd love any recommendations for reading on this subject if you have it.
Read Humane Vitae by Pope Paul VI
So I'm a struggling Catholic. Been for a while. What you said at the end is very true for me. Fear over what happens if I leave the church. Fear of committing a mortal sin and not knowing. I've listened to alot of Catholic apologists and they explain things but none of it really takes away that worry. It also makes it hard to wrestle and make a truly honest decision. I struggle big time with the Marian stuff. But if I leave the church, am I leaving Christ (many would say yes). It's heavy stuff.
Thanks for sharing your story a bit. May Christ himself give you peace and guidance.
Hi Nicole! I am not Catholic but as best I understand, for a sin to actually be mortal in Catholic theology the person committing it has to KNOW that what they are doing is gravely wrong and still commit the sin with their eyes wide open. So wherever you land, please stop worrying that you will commit a mortal sin accidentally! Also, the more time we spend with Jesus in prayer the more our fear shifts from fear of punishment to the fear of disappointing the One we love most. When our motive is love, it changes everything, leads us to always confess any known sin, and brings so much joy.
@@evangelineclark223 yes you must know but what actually is a grave sin? Everyone has a different opinion on that. Everyone has different opinions on what people's levels of culpability. You literally have some priests or theologians saying certain things are mortal while others say no. There isnt a specific list. So it's not so much that I don't know that I am committing sin, the question is is this truly grave in the site of God?
But thank you for the kindness in your reply. I am trying to lean into God's love and mercy. I def don't want to be motivated by fear!
@@nicolentwiga7049 Thanks for sharing, Nicole! That’s so interesting because I have the opposite struggle… I have lost confidence in the doctrine of eternal security (or once saved, always saved), partly because I cannot find anyone in pre-reformation church history who interpreted Scripture this way. Now I’m having a hard time remaining in a tradition that does not acknowledge the possibility of falling from grace, much less take it seriously.
@@evangelineclark223 You don't need church fathers for that. Read the Bible. It doesn't support the idea that you can lose your salvation, except maybe by apostasy.
Thank you.
Excellent video!
where did you get your anti/post-Nicene church fathers set. thx
Thanks so much for sharing this! I am a protestant who is probably about to convert to Catholicism...but you are one of the few protestant sources that takes the time to understand the catholic position and then articulates a response. Thank you!
One suggestion, could you also post your content as a podcast? It would be great to be able to list on the go.
Thanks! It’s posted as a podcast. Let me know if you can’t find it. It’s available on Spotify and a bunch of other platforms
@@TruthUnites Great thanks! I've followed you on Spotify, but couldn't locate the podcast on apple's app.
I would suggest Ryan Reeves. He’s a historian. For a long time, I didn’t even know his theology - that’s how evenhanded he is. Ultimately, the study of church history led me away from Rome.
@@KristiLEvans1
You found sinners in the church?? You just needed to go back in history to 30ad where Jesus established his church on Peter. You don't leave that church without leaving Jesus.
@@bridgefin Christ established the church on *Himself* and Peters declaration of faith in Him as the Son of God. So, no, I didn’t leave the church
Good video. Do you think there is any place for a penitential process - stripped of all the indulgences etc - for someone who has committed serious sins, before a local congregation invites them back in? Just as a way to be sure of their actual repentance. Or is it too far outside the bounds of scripture?
Or do you think it is a good idea for Christians in their personal lives to individually undergo these penitential processes when they commit certain sins to teach themselves that they as Christians are not supposed to be having fellowship with the world?
I think there's a difference between trust and forgiveness.
@@he7230 Of course, but what I am talking about has nothing to do with forgiveness but protection of the flock. To invite someone back into the congregation you have to be sure that they are repentant and won't go on to corrupt the flock. If you get what I'm saying.
@@garyboulton2302 yes, I agree.
Cant wait to sink my teeth in this one ;). And it was delicious. Thank you.
Gavin, thanks for all you do.
I would love for you to address somewhere the Catholic/Orthodox argument of, “well if these things were accretions [whatever the issue in question is], there would’ve been a huge outcry against them and argument over them. Just look at the argument over the dating of Easter, etc. Because no one reacts to them they were always a part of the unwritten tradition, not accretions.”
I have some semi-intuitive replies to this but I imagine your thoughts would be a really helpful contribution to this issue.
th-cam.com/video/tRa4MhjDjF0/w-d-xo.html
Great video, Gavin! I would just comment on/correct a few small points you made:
1. You said that you were explaining the normal circumstances within Catholic theology on this point, so you were not wrong in saying this, but I just want to offer the Catholic answer to the problem: In Catholic theology one does not necessarily go to Hell if one does not avail themselves of the sacrament of Confession prior to death (if they are in a state of mortal sin). This is normally what would happen, but if one makes what is called a "perfect contrition" (see CCC paragraph 1452) prior to death, this contrition opens the person to Gods forgiveness without sacramental confession.
2. I agree that what the Church did to the Waldensians at various points through history was horrific. I think (especially in the 10th and 11th centuries) that the Church was more threatened by the "gnostic" Albigensians (Cathars), and that maybe the Waldensians received much punishment unjustly. I am not a historian, though, so i cannot evaluate the issue clearly. It is difficult to put ourselves in people's shoes (no matter what side they were on) after 1,000 years.
3. Your argument from anxiety: I think that arguments from anxiety are not the best route to take. I could argue that Calvinism would give me (and many people) anxiety, but it would not be a valid argument because people's thresholds of anxiety are totally different. I am personally very comfortable with Catholic moral theology, and entrust myself to the mercy of God -- but God is so good that even His justice is mercy. I do not think Catholics, Calvinists, or any Christians should be anxious about their sins unless that anxiety is truly moving them towards God by loving him and his children more.
Love this stuff, and the Irenic way! No need to respond to me. Just wanna offer my thoughts! I love you all, my brothers and sisters in Christ.
-Parker Zurbuch
The Waldensians held a dualistic idea of a vengeful OT God and Loving NT God who replaced Him. They were responsible for the Martyrdom of St. Peter Martyr among others and attempted to do the same to Reinerius of Saccho a Waldensian Bishop who returned to the Catholic Church and became a Dominican Friar.
In our modern eyes was the Catholic response to the Physical attacks and murder of the Waldensians on the newly founded Dominican missionaries who were sent to convert them back to a Trinitarian belief. But the reality is both sides tend to want to sanitize their own side and place the onus entirely on the opposition.
@@thomasfolio7931 Thanks Thomas! You might be more knowledgeable on this topic than myself, but I thought the Albigensians were the more gnostic, dualist types -- and that the Waldensians were more just preaching without authorization of their bishops, lived in extreme poverty, and had a proto-idea of sola scriptura (two of the three are not condoned by the Catholic Church). I may have some misunderstandings there, though, or maybe I just am equating Waldensianism with the thought and life of Peter Waldo/early Waldensians in particular? Anyway, thanks for your reply!
@Catholicism in the Car, I didn't understand what we heard from Gavin as an "argument from anxiety." Speaking for myself (only), what I heard was an argument that the Gospel can't be legitimately good news if it is rendered so fragile and uncertain a thing in contrast to the assurances of scripture for those who believe (Luke 23:43, Rom 8:16, Heb. 7:25). To my understanding, it was not an argument from the foibles of human emotion, but more a positive assertion that the Gospel is better than that, so that we devalue the great and precious promises of God whenever we make salvation contingent on being able to access particular rites of the Church in a particular order.
@@gracenotes5379 I really appreciate your comment. These discussions are so important. I think I really do understand your position, and I value the way in which you articulated it. I do think what you said is what Gavin probably meant, but it just was not what he said in the video -- I was just offering a slight criticism. I know how difficult it is to make videos and try to get all your points out there without leaving things out, so i dont fault him for that at all. It was just a friendly constructive criticism.
To your points in particular, I would just simply say that the Catholic Church (and the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Churches, some Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.) do not see the sacramental system as taking away from the Good News and what Jesus did on the cross. We see it as a necessity for our bodily natures. We are not angels. We do not normally receive grace (God's life) through purely spiritual means, thus a sacramental system is necessary for the normal conveyance of grace to us. Just as Christ's saving death on the cross was a physical event, the conveying of the graces of that event are also physical. This is just a very brief apologia of the Catholic Sacramental system. There is much more one could say.
But God bless you! I hope this furthers our mutual understandings of each other's traditions!
Hey Parker, thanks a lot for the comment! On 1, right, that is why I said in normal circumstances. On 3, that was not an “argument from anxiety,” but the conclusion and consequence from the earlier arguments. Hope that clarifies about that point. On 2, yeah the Waldensian stuff was bad. Thanks for not being defensive about that because a lot of people want to minimize it or deny that it happened, which furthers the pain. Thanks for your charitable engagement!
Good stuff!👍
Please do a video about how people can lose their salvation or get “excommunicated” in your baptist tradition. There’s a lot of confusion in protestantism in terms of where the line is drawn with which behaviors can get you kicked out of church and how that person is then reconciled and brought back
I would be surprised if baptists would come to an agreement
Generally speaking, most Baptists believe you can't lose your salvation. It's interesting what happened with John Piper's son. He was excommunicated from his (Piper's) Baptist Church for apostasy. Although denied membership, he was not cut off as people continued to minister to him. It appeared that he came to repentance and was restored to the church. Sadly, that did not last. But the point is, the elders and Piper followed church discipline procedure. Piper even offered to step aside per 1 Timothy 3:5. The elders opted not to pursue it.
*William Albrecht and Sam Shamoun see this video*
“Ok, time for an 8 part series.”
They are badly motivated and are not worthy listening!
@@aarongebreslasie7677 what do you mean?
Thanks for the video, it is helpful. I was wondering what would your answer be to the catholics who use 2 Samuel 12:13-14 to justify the doctrine of temporal punishment.
Suppose a man threw a stone that broke your glass window, either intentionally or unintentionally. He later apologized and you forgave him, but you still demanded him to pay/recompense the damage he made. The payment is punishment for sin (throwing stone that broke glass window) that was already forgiven. This is normal and nothing unfair - everybody will do the same, including you and Dr. Ortlund. What is written in 2 Sam. 12:13-14 is example.
Why Protestants have problem with indulgences comes from imputation concept introduced by the Reformers. Imputation concept implies that when you have faith in Christ you will get His righteousness imputed/credited to you while your sins, past and future, will be imputed/credited to Christ who bore them on the cross, both your sins and their punishment. This explains why Protestants have problem with indulgences and purgatory. Under imputation concept those two make what Christ did on the cross insufficient.
@@justfromcatholic Indulgences, purgatory, and constantly being on a treadmill of having to pay for your own sins is what makes what Christ's atonement far from sufficient.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 You believe that purgatory, indulgences make Christ' atonement insufficient. This comes from imputation concept taught by the Reformers, that is, all your sins (past, present, and even future) were already imputed to Christ through faith alone and He already paid in full the penalty of those sins. Does Scripture support imputation? Ezekiel 18:20 says (ESV) "The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." According to this verse you cannot impute/credit your sins or wickedness to others and neither righteousness. What God demands from us when we sin is stated in Ezekiel 33:14-16 (ESV): “Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is just and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he shall surely live.” Thus, whenever we sin, in order to get our righteous state back, we need (1) to turn ways from sin (repent) and (2) to do what is just and right.
Christ died on the cross to atone our sins. His atonement is prefigured in the Old Covenant in yearly atonement made by the High Priest. According to Leviticus 16 once a year the High Priest chose one of two goats as sin offering to atone the sins of all Israelites (Lev. 16:8-9). That goat will be sacrificed (Lev. 16:15) and its blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat. The sins of all Israelites were imputed on the second goat, which was NOT sacrificed but released to the wild (Lev. 16:21-22). Christ is both the High priest and the victim (the first goat) of the New Covenant (Heb. 4:14, 9:11-12). While He died to bear our sins on the cross, our sins are not imputed on Him, just like the sins of all Israelites are not imputed on the first goat in Lev. 16:8-9. Scripture says in Heb. 9:22 (ESV): “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”.
Temporal punishments = Deuteronomy 8:5 & Proverbs 3:12 & Hebrews 12:6 - = "For whom the Lord loves He disciplines\chastens\his sons\children" - so very much Biblical!
Can you explain the point you are trying to make?
@@davidbatten576he didn’t know he was just talking out of his butt
Gavin, can you elaborate on exactly WHEN in patristic history this talk of indulgence/merit gained from other christians/saints etc comes in to play for the lapse? 1st CE, 2nd CE, 3 CE etc?
The merit principally comes from Jesus.
@@bridgefinhow do I get merit from another person? How exactly would another saints merit be applied to me. I think I prefer all of the merit be Jesus’
@@user-xt6le2sb5l
Here what the Church teaches on the "Treasury of Merit"
#1475 In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things." In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.
#1476 We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church's treasury, which is "not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary the 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy."
#1477 "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission in the unity of the Mystical Body."
Matthew 6:19-20
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Amen!
Thanks for that Gavin, helpful for the Catholic lady I have in my Bible Study Group. Have you heard of an amulet that some Catholics wear around their necks to prevent having to stay in Purgatory? She wears this little bag type thing around her neck and believes that if she's wearing this when she dies Mary will come and get her out - is this a common practice?
It's called a brown scapular. It's not super common. It's not a fringe thing by any means, but the majority of people aren't wearing scapulars.
@@nicolentwiga7049 thanks for that
@@nicolentwiga7049 My ex had scapulars and his mother believed strongly in them, that's why he always had one. He didn't wear it though and I don't think he knew much about it. He wasn't well catechized. When I learned about purgatory, indulgences and treasury of merit, he didn't know about any of that. When I go to Catholic sources that teach about plenary indulgences and such, the faithful in the comments still seem pretty confused on it too.
@@saintejeannedarc9460
That’s some pretty weird stuff.
I think one of the dilemmas of these type of teachings is that the Church (their church) becomes the standard of the dogma, Instead of Christ being the standard. I can't help but wonder why people are constantly making theology complicated than it already is, when Jesus presented it as simple- not easy, but simple. For instance: Jesus said that anyone who believes in him shall be free from sins, and be granted eternal life. But some churches (catholics and others) say, 'eternal life is only applicable to those who do xyz'.
Indeed, the saying is true: "they profess to be wise, they became fools...''
Thank you for the information, Brother. God Bless
Are you free from sins?
@@jmanuel722 No one is free from sin. 1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He Himself is the atoning sacrificea for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:1,2
@@vazgl100 No, the scriptures are crystal clear, and couldn't be clearer, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". There are others like that, that emphatically state how we are all sinners. Yet Catholics insist that Mary didn't sin and was born sinless. No reason, no scripture to back it. Just the church said. It's like they are under a spell. You get these brilliant apologists, like Trent Horn, and they know the bible. They'll do back flips to try and prove these dogmas though.
@@vazgl100 I think I saw that one too. They seemed to carpet bomb about the DNA in lots of threads. It's true enough that Jesus would have half of Mary's DNA, but it sure isn't her DNA that would make him sinless. I have no idea if it has anything to do w/ DNA, but we know for sure he was also God, so that would do it, however the science of it is involved. That's if there is anything scientific involved w/ Jesus being sinless. I would guess not, because the flesh is what we war w/, and what drags us down to sin. The bible does say that Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are, becasue he was flesh.
Lemme rephrase that quote:
"To deep in history is to continue being a Protestant"😎✝️
"One must overcome history by dogma". Cardinal Manning
A bit rough to exclude the Lutheran reformers from the name protestant
dr. Gavin, "permanent peace with God" has to include regularly coming back to repentance from sin... - through faith in Jesus's sacrifice of course - ...otherwise we end up on the oposite side of extreme here. On one side we have Christians terrified if they're saved after breathing too loudly in a church, but on the other we have Christians living openly in sin and claiming they're saved because they've said the sinner's prayer this one time 20 years ago. This is something that is perhaps hard to understans for a Calvinist like yourself, but ALL Christians really do sin after they are born again, and you know this is true if you look into your own heart - and that includes most, if not all of them giving in to really serious sins from time to time. There has to be an attitude of regular repentance in our Churches strongly encouraged for new born Christians, because Scripture tells us that if we sin, "the sacrifice of the cross no longer remains". You can't just ignore countless verses like this one warning Christians from returning to sin under a chance of falling off from grace they've already received. And this is something many protestants really struggle to properly address and effectively fight in their communities because of the unbiblical "once saved, always saved" narrative that you're also endorsing. I don't support what Catholic Church did with the purgatory and punishments and stuff, but Calvinism definitely is not a solution here, rather an escape into the other unbiblical extreme.
@Daniel Smith Yes, exactly, I SHALL LOSE =/= I SHALL FORCE THEM TO STAY. Read your own verses. It's not Jesus's fault or him "failing" at anything, if we deliberately sin after receiving grace. There's a reason why only 0.03% of Christians are Calvinists. These verses really are not that hard.
I do agree that discipline and restoration can be lacking in Protestant churches but it really depends on the church. As a whole I think Protestants would agree that:
- We do continue to sin after coming to Christ.
- We repent and turn to Christ who advocates for us before the Father
- Christ’s advocacy cleanses us before the Father so we do not need work to earn back salvation
- Discipline may still be warranted as a tool of correction with the goal of restoring someone back to the church and Christ.
So there’s a tension between not wanting to sin any longer, but stumbling in sin along the way. You see this tension in 1 John 2, Romans 7, and elsewhere.
I’m no expert and would love to hear what you think of 1 John 2:1-2 and how it relates to the scripture you mentioned!
@Daniel Smith The only funny story here is that vast majority of the Churches you mentioned would NEVER sign under a full 5-point TULIP, especially the "L". Some of the theological influence of Calvinism is present in many traditions, I wouldn't deny that. But only a slight fraction of a single % of all Christians would actually accept the teaching as is, because like I've already noticed above, it's unbiblical, and everybody who reads Scripture with an open heart knows it. I've never met a single Christian in my life who became a 5-point Calvinist all on his own, by reading Scripture after hearing the Gospel. They've all been educated to look at the Scripture in a certain way, and disregard countless obvious passages that talk about the necessity of new repentance and forgiveness of sins AFTER receiving grace. Not to mention countless even more obvious passages that talking about falling away from grace AFTER receiving it. "You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." Galatians 5:4 How more plain can you get?
I mean for crying out loud. Do you even pray "Our Father", like ever? Can't you hear yourself say every time you pray "And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us"? What exactly do you mean by that? Why as a saved, born again Christian would you need to ask God for any more forgiveness, ever? It's not as if your salvation was dependent on the way you live as a Christian after receiving grace... or is it? ...]why would that be a part of the most basic prayer you're supposed to pray daily? And didn't you notice, the prayer doesn't even ask for forgiveness based on the cross of Christ? It literally pleads God to overlook our new sins based on our OWN faithfulness to Christ and his teachings of forgiveness to our neighbors. Oh dearest me, could it be that the Bible, not Calvinism, is actually true? "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
@@frankN326 Thanks for that, this is a very good summary that overlaps with my concerns perfectly. I couldn't agree more.
As for the beautiful verse from 1 John 2:1-2, I once again think that the verse is very plain. What's your confusion again? Yes, it is true that if we do sin as Christians, we can receive forgiveness from Christ, who is now in Heaven to be our advocate. However, the verse doesn't say, nor does it even imply, that the "advocating" is happening passively, without us needing to repent and turn away from sin to Christ once again. To the contrary, Bible seems very clear that we are supposed to daily CONFESS our repeating sins, pray for one another's repentance etc.
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." James 5:16
...ask God for continuing forgiveness. ("And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us", rings any bells?)
And that's because, like I mentioned, there are many passages that very plainly speak about falling away from grace AFTER receiving it:
"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." Galatians 5:4
I think by far the most plain and thorough chapter about this issue is Matthew chapter 18. Just study the Lord's teaching about dealing with sin in the Church at verse 15-17 (spoiler alert, the sinner who refuses to repent is thrown out of the Christ's Church - even though he was already a member and had grace - as he's called "brother" in Christ) and then look at the The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (21-35) which is told in the context of this exact verses. (another spoiler alert - the servant who was ALREADY FORGIVEN got thrown into hell because of great sin he committed after receiving grace) Teaching Christians that they're "once saved, always saved" isn't just unbiblical. It's destructive to the Gospel. It's giving a poisoned person the first dose of a cure only and telling them they never need another shot, even though there's "in case of another poisoning, take daily" written on the prescription.
@@mitromney I see what you are saying in your original post. I would put the once saved, always saved camp (the ones that live carnal lives and abuse grace), as those in the sower parable, where the seed scattered to them was quickly choked out by the cares of life. The seed never actually took.
The scripture you used in this second post: "You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." Galatians 5:4 is talking about trying to be justified by works. In that case it was works of the law like circumcision, and in Catholic Christianity, it is the endless working off of temporal sins, indulgences, etc.
13For you, brothers, were called to freedom; but do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh. Rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is fulfilled in a single decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
The NT does warn us we can fall away, but that's a process, not a few mere sins, or even falling into grievous sin for a time. We always have an advocate w/ God the Father, through his Son to cleanse us from All sin, and to lead us into all righteousness. It's a process, we are led. I comfort myself w/ Mathew 11:28, 29
I look for a continual regeneration by the word and by love, to be led and trained to good works. The works will happen if we are led of the Spirit and loving God. It doesn't have to be a whip of doctrine and constantly being afraid we are not under grace. We remove ourselves from grace when we enter into works. In our minds, we cause torment and anxiety. God still holds us fast, he knows our hearts.
We tend to focus on the past because the future is uncertain. Relying on ancient ceremonies and theological norms like the Eucharist dogma is their rock of assurance. The future gives them a insecure Frame of mind, and the age they live in they in some ways cant cope with the reality of this world.
Most of the criticisms of Gavin are truly worth considering and there is much to gain through a dialogue of the various Churches. I also see the Reformation as a chastisement of God to bring the Church of Christ back to its original fidelity and fervour.
However, even while we criticize and engage in fruitful dialogue, it is important to remember the will of Christ that his disciples should be united as one body. We find the universal symbol of unity in the Pope.
The Pope is not necessarily a perfect individual, but he is the assurance of Christ that the gates of hell would not prevail in the Church.
It is under the authority of the Pope as the successor of Peter, we have a gradual, organic and necessary development of doctrine that on the one hand, responds to the signs of the time while correcting abuses that may have crept in on account of sin and on the other hand, keeps us united as one visible body animated by the invisible Spirit of Christ.
Also, while i truly honour the honesty and open-mindedness of Gavin, and he has listed many of the historical Catholic malpractices, he has not got the true spirit in which this doctrine of indulgences ought to be taught.
Fundamentally, the premise for indulgence is that while Christ has saved us and brought us back to Life, we as free and responsible agents, do share in the temporal consequences of our sins. The Scriptures also testifies that the strong must bear the burden of the weak, and so we have the saints who through their merits help reduce the temporal punishments due to our sins. This is not because Christ's sacrifice wasnt enough but because we too are able to share in Christ's love by giving our life for one another.
I think the Catholic church had it very wrong about paying for temporal sins. It really does amount to Christ's atonement not being enough, and that disturbs me deeply. There often is temporal consequences to sin. If you lie, it can be very hard to regain someone's trust. You can hurt them deeply. If you steal from your work, you can be fired. it will sully your name and people will question your integrity. If you commit adultery, you can lose your spouse and your children. there are many monetary and long term consequences to infidelity. Those are temporal consequences of sin. You can still be instantly forgiven for all those terrible sins, but you will likely have to live out some consequences, because we truly do reap what we sow.
Has there been any Popes that were so obviously full of sin and why were they allowed to remain. Did that affect the office of Pope . If some of these teachings rely on Papal authority, what do you do with the Popes that were not Godly?
@@user-xt6le2sb5l I have heard, there are ways and means to initiate disciplinary actions against the Pope in various scenarios, though I have not studied this matter in any depth. But, one thing I know, that it doesn't affect his Office. This is because, he doesn't act in his own power and authority, but that which he has recieved from Christ, as the successor of St. Peter.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 The answer to your objection is within your own comment. Just as you have temporal punishments for the sinful acts you have committed, there are meritorious acts, by which these temporal punishments can be reduced. This is what indulgences do. You attach the good you do, to the treasury of good in the Church, and thus you make temporary satisfaction for the sinsyou have committed. This does not take away anything from theall sufficient Atonement that Christ makes on our behalf to put us on a right relationship with the Father.
@@melroycorrea7720 It may make sense to you, because you've been taught that as a Catholic tradition. It makes no sense from anything I've ever read in the bible. There is no system of indulgences, where the pope takes from the treasury of merit, from the good deeds of others, and deposits them into your account, because you've somehow earned them through your own penitent good works.
maaaaaan.... the way the catechisms are worded obscurely , then the councils go and do the same! I can't imagine being a priest/bishop/etc... and having to spend all my time trying to figure out what *those* say instead of studying the God-breathed word of God.
The part that I don't understand about the teachings of Rome on indulgences, is this: doesn't the granting of an indulgence undermine Rome's teaching that purgatory is necessary to lead people to contrition? If producing contrition is the reason for suffering in purgatory, how does getting someone out of purgatory EARLY via an indulgence really help the person become contrite?
Yes but how else is the Church going to make money from you?
It's not just about money though. For the most part, monetary indulgences have been abolished, or are supposed to be. There's still the large problem of using indulgences as a license to have a sin spree and pay for them after w/ plenary or alms giving indulgences. And this certainly isn't showing contrition. It's using the system as a mechanical workaround to indulge in sin. The choice of wording, "indulgence" is therefore apt. the church saw that they abuses were happening, either monetary or license to sin and instead of pulling the doctrines, they doubled down and imposed anathemas on them. Being able to dole out indulgences from the treasury of merit as well, gives them absolute control over even truly penitent people, as well as the ones who use this system for ill.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Well said, my friend!
@@jettoth3 When I went looking for information from Catholic sources on indulgences, I would run into priests that wouldn't even admit how much this had been abused. One looked into the camera and swore that it had never been the policy of the Catholic church to pay for them. The very pope used it to fund Saint Peter's Bascillica, and this is well known.
Purgatory doesn't lead to contrition. It is pure purification so that one can enter Heaven have already been saved and repented of one's sins. And earlies exit from purgatory means less suffering in the process by the grace of God.
Whom do we follow in order to avoid heresy?
We have three pillars of our faith:
1.the Apostles, the Saints, and the Holy Fathers,
2. the consensus of early ecumenical councils
3. the Word of God as revealed in the Scriptures
There is no need for innovation in Church Traditions after those seven Councils which the whole Church had agreed upon before the Great Schism of 1054. There are some things which should be rehashed, and allowed without any pronouncement of anathema, but nothing which evolved after that time should be considered so central and essential as to separate the Church, once those three pillars are accepted as both necessary and authoritative. Thereafter, if some things need to be modified or repealed, let us do so. And then, if any difference of opinion arises, let the final arbitration rest upon the Scriptures, as they are the repository of the Apostolic message. Indeed, the Fathers and Saints have said that we should rely upon Scripture as our only infallible source for discerning the truth of our doctrine.
The early church didn't unanimously agree on the first 7 ecumenical Councils.
Take for example the Oriental Orthodox Church
@@jenex5608 I was also thinking about the Oriental Orthodox before I read your comment.
@@jenex5608 - consensus and acceptance may not be unanimity, but it's still an agreement. The western Churches didn't like one of the leading bishops who spoke at the 7th council, but they came back later and accepted him. That's why we say the first seven are "agreed." They are authoritative.
Thank you Gavin. I am a Catholic and indulgences and all of the attendant baggage and superstitious practices, novenas etc. never made any sense to me.....for Catholics it seems the best we can hope for is a long stay in purgatory if we are lucky.
You are part of Christs Church. You should celebrate the Grace you have been given to be part of the Body of Christ. The Pillar and foundation of truth. 1 Tim 3:15
Outside the Church there is no truth.
Study what you don’t understand and you’ll be amazed the Catholic Church is the One true Church.
Also remember the Bible is a Catholic book. Every time a Protestant opens the Bible they are submitting to the authority of the Catholic Church and they do not realize it.
Bible was canonized by Pope Damasus in 382 ad at the Council of Rome. God Bless.
Is this really the kind of video for catholics to be popping in and dropping their "one true church" slogan? After watching the video I don't think any open minded person would become catholic any time soon.
@@Bbos2383 Not sure why you would call scripture a slogan. The Church being One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is Biblical.
Ephesians 4:4-6 - One body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
We should believe scripture. God Bless.
@@Bbos2383 indulgences are Biblical. "Give alms and all shall be clean within for you ", ( Luke 11:41). the abuse of indulgences are not! peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 So, the Pope and Pelosi?.... Vatican offers her the eucharist... your response?
One thing you can absolutely guarantee about people in the church - none of them is perfect. Not one. It doesn’t matter which denomination you talk about. Being a Christian of any denomination is first and foremost an admission of sin and a desire for repentance. You can argue till your blue in the face about this church or that church, there is one church and that is the one which responds to the call of grace, imperfectly. There are no Christian’s who don’t sin. The difference between Christian’s and non Christian’s is that they care about it way more. The arguments *begin* when people start talking about what is or isn’t holiness. There is not a single spotless denomination. There is one spotless bride of Christ, which is what he sees in all of them. His kingdom is not of this world. So if you’re Catholic fine, Presbyterian fine, Calvinist fine, “I preach Christ and *him* crucified so that NONE may boast”.
Amen.
As someone who has recently read Trent & Vatican One, the council fathers do address these oversteps. But combating the building up of superstition among the laity is an ongoing problem/effort throughout all forms of Christianity. For instance, Novenas are a real problem currently in Latin American/Hispanic Catholicism verging on Folk practice. Though they stem from the licit practice of reading of a life of a saint.
I fully agree!
@Daniel Smith yes, they are. but it cannot be denied that some people pray novenas in a superstitious manner. the Church has never taught that people be superstitious. Superstition cannot be avioded in any human community, and it can invade any practice whatsoever -- no matter how laudable. i think that is what alphacenturion is saying.
@Daniel Smith I have a full collection of all the major Novena publications and have read them, and even Scott Hahn agrees that the way they are structured and worded verges on superstition and in his words are “of the outer edge of acceptable Catholic practice.” Such as prayer directly to a saint for a miracle, or a curtain number of prayers to cure a disease (even one that is scientifically/medically chronic ie incurable), or planting a St Joseph statuette in your yard to sell a house. Licit but verging on superstition and easily misread or misunderstood by the lay practitioners who use the practice. Or, do you think someone who has never read the Bible in its completeness (outside of the Missal at Mass), whom may have lower reading comprehension, and has never read the Catechism understands that they are praying through the Saint, asking the saint to pray for them to our Lord, and that they (the person who does this as a folk practice) understands that the power or grace or miracle comes from God and not the Saint. And that they are not to make sacrifices or give gifts to the Saint for the granting of their prayer. Or, as I have seen personally, do they just chalk up the good fortune to their own actions and the power of the saint. Not the saints intersession.
@@alpha4IV i see where you are going with this now. thank you for the clarity. i misunderstood you. my response would be that:
An argument from the superstitious practices of members of a particular church does not negate the authenticity of said church -- you are making a type of ad-hominem attack (although it could be said to be "ad-practicum"). There are many things within other non-Catholic christian churches that could be said to be superstitious, but that alone does not negate the possible authenticity of those churches.
God bless you, brother. I love you in Christ Jesus. I just ask that you rethink your argument.
@@catholicisminthecar I am giving and repeating the same warning and concern that my Bishop, my Priest, and most Priests and local bishops give. The same warning and concern some of our most beloved Catholic apologists give. Gavin is correct in his concern, and in his problem with local custom and folk practices. He thinks it stems from Dogmatic issues, we, as Catholics, would disagree with that to an extent. As we ourselves may support an initiative to regulate Novenas more, or put a more rigorous set of qualifications to receive an indulgence as Trent did.
Some Protestants in Free Grace theology also hold to temporal judgements being a reality in the Christian life
7:10
What went wrong is Luther ignored the epistle of James and Calvin ignored saint Ignatius of antioch and now Catholics are still fighting the good fight and we Protestants are watching veggie tales and the Kardashians 👍
#faith alone
We don’t watch veggie tale anymore since the creator dude turned out to be a woke idiot.
What are you saying
@@user-xt6le2sb5l- for starters , James 2:24 refutes everything Luther stood for....
@@user-xt6le2sb5l- what I'm talking about?....my protestant church experience eventually culminated EXACTLY into a video I recommend called "CIRCUS OF POWER MEGA MEGA CHURCH WITH PASTOR RANDY BAWLZ aka biggest wildest church --- this church is insane, video...
GOD BLESS
The main reason why Protestants have problem with indulgences and purgatory is double imputation concept introduced by Luther. Luther wrote: "His [Christ] righteousness is yours; your sin is His". (Luther: Lectures on Galatians Chapter 1-4, Luther's Works, Vol. 26, page 233). If your sins, past and future ones, are transferred to Christ who bore them on the cross, then obviously there is no need of indulgences and purgatory. Those two will make what Christ did on the cross insufficient. In the video Dr. Ortlund did not mention that Catholic belief of existence of deadly (or mortal) sin and non-deadly (or venial) sin is based on 1 John 5:16-17. Following imputation concept such scriptural distinction is meaningless as both types are transferred to Christ. Christ obviously was able to bear all our sins, be they deadly or non deadly, on the cross.
Treasury of merits: NT does mention treasure in heaven that comes from doing good works (Mat. 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 12:33, 18:22). NT is silent on why we need to have treasure in heaven. Anybody is entitled to disagree on Catholic Church teaching on treasure of merits in heaven. Dr. Ortlund may interpret it according to him or Reformed teaching.
In the beginning Luther was not against indulgences but he was against the abuse of indulgences. In 1518 he wrote: "It is not that indulgences in themselves are evil and harmful, but that the perverted abuse of indulgences is harmful, since people would not do such a work of mercy if no indulgences were granted for it. So in this type of work the indulgence becomes the end pursued-indeed a man who looks out for his own interests becomes that end. Man ought rather to do a work of mercy freely and for the sake of God. And he ought to accept only those indulgences which are given to him freely, and not as the result of a financial contribution that he has made. Thus a man should not buy indulgences and the church should not sell them. " (Luther: Explanation of the dispute concerning the value of indulgences, Luther's Works, Vol. 31, page 201).
Nice a Catholic using Lutheran to defend there faith. The Roman church should acknowledge Luther as Catholic Saint and reformer. :).
Luther didn't invent imputation. Read 2 Cor. 5.
I stopped reading when u said Luther invented it.
The Double Imputation is directly taken from Paul.
1 Corinthians 5:22 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
So many verses in Scripture speaks about imputed righteousness.
There are over dozens of Verses where the Scripture says Jesus was made sin, and became sin.
I can't fathom how anyone who calls himself Chris doesn't at least believe that Jesus was imputed with our sin.
Secondly we can go to Church Fathers. And we see in some writings they believed in imputed righteousness.
Such as John Chrysostom, Jerome and Athanasius.
Consider the following quote from Athanasius
It is necessary therefore it is necessary to believe the Holy Scriptures to confess him who is the first fruit of us to celebrate the philanthropy of him who assumed our nature to be struck with wonder at the great dispensation to fear not the curse which is from the Law for Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law Hence the full accomplishment of the Law which was made through the first fruit must be imputed to the whole mass (Athan Synops Sacr Script lib vii in Epist ad Rom Oper vol ii p 125, see link here).
Many Church Fathers understood Justification as Forensics. Not just Luther alone.
And Luther was correct cause the New testament describes justification as forensic on God's part.
Like this is why i can never be a Catholic, Even if i want to. Cause the Council of Trent on response to the reformation basically espouses a different Gospel
The New Testament mentions treasures in heaven.
We agree.
But justification isn't about treasures. It's about getting to heaven. Then ur good works would merit u treasures.
Not Justification
Luther later realized indulgences is a a false notion. And the theology behind it isn't rooted in Scripture.
There was a practice in the early church for those who after baptism had fallen into sin to bar them from the Eucharistic banquet, they could be present at the services that preceded it with the congregation and the Catechumens, even today we see it retained in the admonition in the Byzantine Liturgy, "All Catechumens depart" after the Gospel is read and before the Creed, which would not be recited until after they left (to think that the Creed as defined at Nicaea and Constantinople were the first formulation of a creed is I think silly, as most of the faith was kept and transmitted orally before the Edict of Toleration.) We even see as one striking example Constanine himself who delays baptism until his deathbed, because it was believed among the Christians prior to his time that Baptism remitted original and actual sin prior to it's reception, but that there would be penalties and penances for sins committed after baptism. Perhaps not as articulated at Trent and by theologians who had the time and freedom to speculate on the issues, but during the times of persecution, and when much was orally transmitted, the evidence still is there, just as the giant Oak trees in an old friend of mine's property were once unrecognizable as acorns. But they carry the same genetic code, and one developed organically out of the other.
Thanks for your work. Forgive me, I think you did not address enough the issue of the basis of indulgences- the mingling of the merit of Jesus with the merit of his mother. I find this point impossibly irreconcilable between Prot/ Cath. Sproul has pointed out the connection of indulgences and imputed merit that I thought was interesting observation.
No criticism, love the content, just my view on the topic. Hopefully our camps keep talking. With respect.
The merit of his mother?!?!?
Catechism of the RCC , 1477-79. Included in the treasury are "the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary" and the saints.
Indulgences are acqired from the treasury by the church which "opens for them the treasury of merits of Christ and all the saints to obtain... remission of temporal punishments due to their sins"
Indulgentiarum Doctrina, Ch. 4
"It is known that the merits of the Blessed Mother of God and all the elect... add further to this treasury"
With respect, I mean no offense.
@@geordiewishart1683 Yes, indulgences are tied into the treasury of merit. @darewan gave a citation. It's unfortunately a real Catholic doctrine. Instead of "look out for your own salvation w/ fear and trembling" and,
1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He Himself is the atoning sacrificea for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
There is those unfortunate doctrines.
Wonder how Romans Catholic inteprets Hebrews 10??
Written by a Catholic and we fully agree. Sounds like you do not understand Catholicism and the ONE eternal sacrifice of Jesus.
Sheer human bondage.
"My burden for them is that they would rest in the sufficiency and the security of the finished work of Jesus Christ". AMEN! It is finished.
What's finished?
That's a great question! Christ's final words on the cross "It is finished", mean that his work to save all of humanity was completed, FINISHED! This is the good news, that Jesus' work is complete, and cannot be undone, nor does it require the sacrifice of anyone or anything else. It is our faith in Him that saves us, not our works in this life. At the same time we are called to do good works as they are a sign, or the fruit, of that faith. But what a peace it is to know you can trust in Christ, and never worry, because it IS finished. "For by Grace you have been saved, through Faith (in Christ), and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" Thank you for asking this @@bridgefin
@@JosephAlanMeador
You said: Christ's final words on the cross "It is finished", mean that his work to save all of humanity was completed, FINISHED!
Me: But Scripture says that it was NOT finished on the cross. 1 Cor 15:17 "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."
So, that brings me back to the original question. Since Jesus work of salvation was NOT finished until the resurrection, what WAS finished on the cross?
That's it's a good correction. thanks! Resurrection is the completion, no doubt. However, for me I see that distinction as irrelevant to God, Christ meant what He said, it is finished. God doesn't live in time like we do, humanity of course had to wait 3 days to see the resurrected Christ. But help me understand where you're coming from. Are you arguing against salvation in Christ, or for it? The important part is that He died for you. @@bridgefin
@@JosephAlanMeador
No, I am trying to get Scripture to consistently carry a message.
You: Christ meant what He said, it is finished
Me: Too bad that he didn't live long enough to read Corinthians! Or else your interpretation is wrong.
You: God doesn't live in time like we do, humanity of course had to wait 3 days to see the resurrected Christ.
Me: Jesus, on the cross, was absolutely IN time!
You: Are you arguing against salvation in Christ, or for it?
Me: Neither. This discussion is whether all was finished on the cross and whether that precluded the need for atonement for sins. "It is finished" is always brought up as an argument although it cannot mean what it is claimed to mean as you have shown. What you claim yo be the "it" Scripture says is NOT the "it".
Here’s another take:
th-cam.com/video/nViPK9EWn_k/w-d-xo.html
Dr. Gavin, I noticed you like to make videos about the Catholic Church. I also noticed you very frequently fall short on your understanding of Catholic teaching. For example you say mortal sin and then in stead of listing the prerequisite of what will constitute a mortal sin you talk about the sins that are serious in nature undermining the true teaching.
I have a few suggestions if you care for them. I maybe interview an educated Catholic before you post a video to see if your truly representing the teaching. Another one is, I’m more interested in hearing what your teaching on matters are and then site the Bible so that we can check what you say and verify if your teaching is truly biblical. Last thing is you mention the fathers of the church very often. Can you site them in teachings that your church teaches so that we can compare and contrast to if what you say is truly ancient or a new teaching miles and miles away from what they thought?
@YAJUN YUAN sorry I’m not sure what you mean with this reply.
Luther did not object to indulgences. He said they were being misused.
Indulgences are a lie from Satan.
So what's your point?
The analogy at 2:50 doesn’t work. A better analogy would be when the Confederacy broke away, it was no longer the same United States that was founded in 1789. The United States of 2022 is the same continuing country with the same Constitution.
Similarly, the Catholic Church is the same catholic church that was founded in the First Century. It didn’t appear later. It has institutional continuity that your church simply does not. I’d embrace that and say “nevertheless…” rather than make the analogy you make at this time stamp.
Your analogy doesn’t work. Protestants did not “break away” from the Catholic Church. They chose to reform the one Church according to the gospel. If institutional continuity is more important to you than the gospel, just own it. No need for bad analogies.
Hello Matthew,
Please consider that some people define “the church” as a collective body of believers of the promises of God….which formed before the Gospel reached Rome.
I suspect Dr. Ortlund would agree with you that “the church” was founded in the first century.
The Apostles creed includes, "I confess ONE Baptism for the remission of my sins." This is in the Bible. Which means, according to 1John you are purified and charged to walk JUST as Christ has walked
And if not? Its a sin and you are therefore unclean. You cannot receive another baptism. How do you get forgiven? Every actions has a conseuence or a reward. Paul says to the ones who are baptised, "Everyone will give an account for what has been done in their body, and receive punishment or reward." Christ is perfect, and cannot walk with darkness. Read Jude, 1John, and Revelation 3.
Something about your mouth and teeth reminds me of Dr. Taylor Marshall. I know it’s weird and I can’t explain it but you are the Protestant Taylor Marshall.
@Truth Unites, it is good that you have pastoral burden to see people free in Christ from fear, sin, and hell. As you analyze various dogmas of the Faith (e.g. Assumption of Mary) and doctrines that conflict with the general Protestant thought, you will continually return to the fact that Jesus’ Church has a magisterium that is necessary. Indulgences are part of the Faith, but pastoral application has developed. The Body of Christ has this authority from Jesus her Head, and the Spirit of Truth leads her. While abuses are wrong and poor Gospel-preaching (or the lack thereof!) is a tragedy, these do not invalidate the doctrine of indulgences or the identity of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Think of how many churches struggled even with Paul as their catechist! You might reference various church fathers and mothers and the Scripture. This is good. However, Christ gave the Church a magisterial authority, ordained leaders who can bind/loose and teach definitively for our Lord and Savior. For example, When the Apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to discuss the judaizer issue, the leaders of the Church, led by the Spirit of Truth, consulted the scripture (OT), fruit of kerygma (Gentiles converting), heard Peter’s unique role as first to go to Gentiles and conclusion, and then Stephen suggested the pastoral solution. The point is the Church, the only Body of Jesus Christ, rejected the Judaizer heresy and bound the relevant churches. She alone can do this. They sent the letter with the dogmas to be observed (Acts 16:4). This is same Church living through history that offered indulgences for those rightly disposed. One has be a Christian, in Christ, properly disposed to receive that indulgence. Also, by the grace of God I am sure many people go to heaven without consciously receiving indulgences in this life. The patristic sources one might wield for or against indulgences are all found in the one Church with bishops, the Pope, binding canons, councils, universal binding/loosing, relics, etc. The Church will need to speak of Jesus and for Him.
I understand the concern of accretions, but you have to consider the infallibility and presence of Jesus to His Church. There is no command in Scripture to primitivism, to start over the Church. Obviously reform is needed for abuses, pastoral problems, etc but not dogma! The Church is the pillar and buttress of Truth, the city on a hill, the light in THE LIGHT, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. Take another doctrine. You implied a belief that a believer united to Jesus could not fall away. There are nuances to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints but the fundamental problem is that Jesus, Apostles, and the Church have always taught the possibility of a real apostasy from grace. The variegated opinions on key doctrines displays the need for the magisterium.
This is the crux of the Protestant/Roman Catholic divide. You argue that the Magisterium is infallible. Protestants argue, in the words of Luther, that “Popes and Councils can err”. This is why Protestants turn to Holy Scripture, the word of God, for sure and trustworthy guidance on disputed matters. Clergy and doctors of the Church are a blessing and have much to teach us, but they are not infallible. So Protestants refuse to bind the consciences of the faithful by requiring belief in doctrine that is not supported in Holy Writ.
Also, historic Protestant churches are not trying to "start over" the church. Though there are groups such as those in the "Restoration Movement" (Stone/Campbell) that do have that mindset.
@@mj6493 Catholics turn to Scripture as well as part of what has been delivered (traditio/apodosis), but we have also the living witness of the Holy Spirit in the Church. No one singular person is infallible except the Pope and only under rare occurrences. The Scripture reveals clearly the infallibility of the Church, the authority of its leadership, the unity of the Church’s dogma-one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
The Scriptures do not delimit the contents, give the authoritative interpretation of dogmas, state that every practice/doctrine is explicit in them, speak about a closing of the canon, talk about Christians marrying in Church, etc. They do reveal that the Church is the pillar and buttress of Truth, the Body/Bride of Christ, the fullness of Him who fills all in all, led by the Spirit of Truth into all Truth, the light of the world, the city on a hill, having leadership who can bind and loose for the entire Church in Christ’s authority, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against her because Jesus is with her.
@@lhinton281 Protestants can embrace most of what you describe, but we can’t accept the infallibility of the Church. There are times when the Church falls into error and needs reform. Protestants believe in one Lord, one faith, one baptism too, but we won’t trouble the consciences of the faithful by requiring belief in doctrines that are historically suspect or later accretions, as Dr. Ortlund points out. Surely the Spirit guides the Church into all truth, but that’s a process that takes place within the Church for however long it takes. Paul corrected Peter at Antioch - problem solved. But how long did it take orthodox teaching to overcome Arianism, even after the First Council of Nicaea? Centuries. Protestants urge the Church to look to Holy Scripture as the only infallible source of doctrine. The traditions of the Church, good or bad, are under the authority of Holy Scripture.
@@mj6493 I understand your point of view, but the Church does not fall into error regarding her teaching of dogma and morals for the people of God. Immoral leaders, personal heresies, laxity, no Gospel-preaching? Yes. All wrong and need reform. Those are not part of the Faith as taught and handed on, but are failures of members of the Church (Popes included). In other words, the betraying Judas, insubordinate Diotrophes, immoral Corinthians, and heretical Arians do not mean the Church is not the pillar and buttress of Truth who teaches the faith definitively. The Church was infallible when She defined the Faith at Nicea and Constantinople because Jesus her Savior and Head gave her the Spirit of Truth for this purpose. Glory to Jesus Christ! Do you think the Church of Jesus, His Body in the world, can infallibly teach the Faith, the Gospel, the canon of Scripture, correct Worship, and morality?
You have used the phrase “the Church” in your answer, but the only church is the one with Christ as Head, built on the foundation of the Apostles, who ordained men in succession, has had the power from Jesus to bind and loose, offered the Eucharist, and have handed on the divinely revealed Faith and Worship throughout the centuries. May the Father bless you in our Lord Jesus Christ!
One thing I’m learning is that simply being a non-catholic, “Protestant by default” Christian isn’t a valid option in the end . One’s objections to or affirmations of catholic doctrine will entail certain underlying foundations that one has to reconcile and clarify. For instance, If you reject, say, Marion bodily ascension or indulgences because they “aren’t biblical,” that presupposes something either identical to or very similar to sola scriptura. This is a fair criticism that many Catholics have to this sort of non denominational Christianity. You’re going to run head first into these issues sooner or later. I think I’m going to have to delve into more study of the Protestant reformation. “Protestant by default” just isn’t going to cut it.
Hey David,
I’ve pondered this as well
My current conclusion:
I refer to myself as simply “Christian”
I don’t need any label beyond that, despite the fact that many friends want to label me as Protestant….which is their prerogative I suppose.
God bless
I believe one Catholic position would be that Marian dogmas, indulgences etc are in Scripture, just depends on how it is interpreted. I think this is referred to as the "material sufficiency of Scripture". I recently finished reading my third book about the Assumption, and while it might not convince everyone of the dogma, I will say that I think most folks would find information in these books that would surprise them. Scriptural support, theological support and so on. The most recent book was by Matthew Levering. Mary C. Moorman who wrote a book about indulgences that I'm currently reading that helps to position it within the framework of the Old testament jubilee year, covenantal theology, and a nuptial interpretation of Christ and His Church/Bride who distributes His infinite merits. I am far from a scholar, but I find these books to be helpful in my journey of making sense of Catholic teaching. Maybe they will help you as well. I'm glad you found this channel. I think Dr. Ortlund is one of the best and most charitable Protestant commentators / teachers on TH-cam.
People SHOULD have a dread of committing mortal sin, for that is a serious offence against the love of God and puts one out of fellowship with God. The Council of Trent says that true contrition and confession to God before one is able to confess to a priest, ensures forgiveness as long as one has the intention to confess it to a priest when possible. The Apostolic Church practiced discipline of offenders, and then lifting of the punishment, as St Paul wrote in Corinthians. Hebrews tells us that God chastises those whom he receives as His children. Sin does have consequences and punishments, and the Lord Jesus Himself taught to make amends. If you don't want to face the consequences of sin and discipline from God, then obey the Lord's command to "Go and sin no more". You conceded that there is a place for church disciplining of offenders. How is that practiced in your church?
Does the Catholic Church have a infallible list of all possible mortal sins? Does the Catholic Church say if breaking the greatest commandment is a mortal sin?
@@Wgaither1 I think the basic answer is that a mortal sin is one which is a deliberate choice to transgress in a grave matter, the 10 commandments being the basic guide, involving the destruction within one of charity, love for God and neighbour. Venial sins are the expression of faults but which do not involve the destruction of charity in their commission. The great commandment to love God and our neighbour perfectly is something we should all endeavour to do, as it is possible. The falling short of perfect love is not something to be complacent about, and we should always be honest before God about our falling short and seeking His help to achieve perfection. Venial sins are the outcome of faults which are described as capital sins, such as pride, sloth, anger, when these co-exist with an imperfect love for God and neighbour. Any recurring fault or venial sin is something that can lead to mortal sin, the actual destruction of charity in the commission. I think the best course of action is always to confess any venial sin which you are conscious of. There can be no complacency about any sin, and the spiritual life requires mortification of all faults and capital sins. The importance of the distinction of mortal from venial sins is to highlight the nature of mortal sin as the extinguishing of charity within one, which any transgression of the 10 commandments necessarily involves, and any indulgence of a fault may make one in danger of. That's my basic understanding of it. There may be more satisfactory answers available.
I would encourage people to check out actual Catholic explanations of indulgences (there are some great videos by Father Mike Schmitz, Pints with Aquinas, etc). Dr. Ortlund sounds great on the surface but he tends to misrepresent the Catholic Church’s teaching.
How so? I strive rigorously to be fair, so if you could give an example of what you’re talking about that is more helpful than a vague critique of misrepresentation
@@TruthUnites You did not misinterpret Catholic teaching by reading one clause of the Catechism. I believe you should explain why Protestants have problem with indulgences and purgatory.
The main reason why Protestants have problem with indulgences and purgatory is double imputation concept introduced by Luther. Luther wrote: "His [Christ] righteousness is yours; your sin is His". (Luther: Lectures on Galatians Chapter 1-4, Luther's Works, Vol. 26, page 233). If your sins, past and future ones, are transferred to Christ who bore them on the cross, then obviously there is no need of indulgences and purgatory. Those two will make what Christ did on the cross insufficient. In the video you mentioned Catholic belief of deadly (or mortal) sin and non-deadly (or venial) sin, but did not tell your listeners that it is based on 1 John 5:16-17. Following imputation concept such scriptural distinction is meaningless as both types are transferred to Christ. Christ obviously was able to bear all our sins, be they deadly or non deadly, on the cross.
@@justfromcatholic I doubt that most Protestants are even aware of this quotation from Martin Luther that you cited (I know I wasn't). Most Protestants don't accept the teaching on purgatory and indulgences because they believe it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the sufficiency of Christ's atoning sacrifice for sins.
@@TruthUnites I agree that there were vast differences between the relaxations of the penitential process in the early church and the indulgences of the Middle Ages but there were many many societal, cultural and ecclesial reasons for this. Not to excuse the latter. We’re so horrifically embarrassed by that part of history. The penitential process itself was part of the “temporal punishment”. There were indulgences that existed in the early Church where the penitents could get a certificate of indulgence from their bishop based on a voucher from a martyr to lesson their penance. Indulgences eventually became more connected with the idea of “almsgiving” as the Church,which was no longer a persecuted Church, grew in size. That, along with pilgrimages, was something that could be monitored more easily by a bishop instead of monitoring the individuals’ penitential process. Then certain popes said only they could grant indulgences, and yes, all of the abuses you mentioned. It’s fine if you’d like to talk about the history of indulgences. The problem arises when you stop at Trent ( we do have doctrines on indulgences since then) and go on to describe the Church’s whole theology on this and other topics as ominous.
First of all, I can probably speak for many Catholics when I say we don’t really talk about indulgences anymore. Not that we don’t believe them to be true but they are kind of just built in to the idea of penance. The modern day indulgences are things a faithful Catholic is doing anyway (praying, reading Scripture, going to Mass) and it’s just intuitive that they would lesson our time in purgatory since they lessen our attachment to sin and help us to grow more in love with Christ. This, by the way, is also the idea of purgatory. It’s not to experience torturous punishment but to prepare our souls to be able to WANT to gaze upon our Lord and sing his unending praises. And we have temporal punishment not because Christ’s sacrifice on the cross wasn’t enough but because we still sin and have the consequences of those sins and the attachment to sin. So although it’s called “temporal punishment” it could more aptly be described as “disordered attachment to sin”. I totally agree that the language used in the past was grim. But it was the Middle Ages.
I think it might be difficult to understand the treasury of merit and Mary and the Saints as an outsider because for whatever reason they come across as obstacles, somehow competing with the sovereignty of God. But if that were true we Catholics would be idolators, right? We see the Church more as a family, including those on earth and in heaven. The Saints are our siblings gone before us in the faith who we can look to for inspiration and ask for prayers from (as we do with faithful friends on earth). Mary is simply our mother whom we love as Jesus instructed John(hence the Church) to do. Anyway, I did not intend to sound uncharitable but that is what I meant by “misrepresent.”
I believe it was Protestantism that has obscured the Gospel, especially Calvinism.
Indulgences are Biblical, "Give alms and all shall be clean within for you ", ( Luke 11:41). "Love one another, for love covers a multitude of sins ", ( 1 Peter 4:8).
The early Church Fathers never taught the man made tradition of faith alone, nor Scripture ALONE! The early Church Fathers prayed for the dead and gave alms and offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the dead! Martin Luther affirmed the Biblical basis for indulgences, just not the abuse of them, as many other Catholic clergy sought to fight as well! Dr. Ortlund has a bad habit of leaving out the complete writings of the Church Fathers, and Holy Scripture as well, to fit his Theology! Holy Scripture teaches we shall each be judged as we have judged others and we shall each be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered! Dr. Ortlund is in my prayers as he journeys toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
What is the correct interpretation of CCC 841?.... Which is infallibly correct: capital punishment is okay or it's not?
@@Golfinthefamilyyou have not read all the documents of the council I see. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 you didn't answer either of my questions.
@@Golfinthefamily I did, as I told you Pope Francis did not give Holy Communion to Nancy Pelosi, and I affirmed that Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body "
Again, please provide any evidence where Pope Francis teaches anything contrary to Church teaching or Canon Law or Holy Scripture, including the death penalty? You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Hey Matthew,
Where can I find the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on those 2 verses you cited: Luke 11:41 and 1 Peter 4:8?
I would prefer the infallible interpretation of Rome of these verses please.
If you are able to provide this,
Thank you in advance
Reformation had taken place in the church long before Luther. Indulgences were something that was abused by some of the clergy it was never church doctrine that you can buy your way into heaven or one of your lost family members out of purgatory these were priest and I say that loosely abusing their role as a spiritual leader. The problem was Luther took it too far. The fact that 40,000 different denominations arose from the reformation not unity is the fruits of their actions.
Nobody said it was doctrine that you could buy your way into heaven.
Instead we say: You could buy indulgences. That's a fact of history.
If the pope and the church were against it, why use the money to build beautiful churches? Was he really against selling indulgences?
@@georgwagner937 I think you missed the point. If perfect moral leadership is your litmus test then if you lived under the Old Testament you would’ve missed the true religion. Davidic kings have committed child sacrifice,murder, adultery, etc were those not the leaders of isreal the nation God established because they were corrupt? There are members of the clergy that do things your not suppose to. Jesus’s own disciple turned on him. Don’t expect the church he established to be any different
@@forgivemylaughterihaveacon2556 isn't it God's litmus test for his people to be good and follow his commands? Am I of God if I indulge (pun intended) in immoral behavior?
If I follow a davidic king that does immoral things, I'm a heathen, because I follow not God, but the will of men.
The Augsburg confession summerizes as follows:
Article XVI. Of Civil Affairs.
[...]
Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men.
@@georgwagner937 Of coarse God is the ultimate litmus test. You still haven’t addressed the fact that God set up a kingdom and appointed men who were far from God like to rule. King David a man after Gods own heart was a murderer and adulterer. You will accept the authority of scripture Written by MEN moved by the Holy Spirit But you refuse to acknowledge that God uses men to establish his church. When you have Bible alone protestants interpreting the word for themselves you have 40,000 different denominations not unity. Peter himself in 2 Peter 3:16 States that his letters are hard to understand that the unstable may twist to their own destruction. If the Bible can be misinterpreted to the point of one’s own damnation then that cannot be your sole source of authority you need a magisterium and authority to interpret the word. the Catholic Church is the only church with apostolic succession. Google the founder of the first five denominations that comes to your mind then google the founder of the Catholic Church the answer might surprise you
@@forgivemylaughterihaveacon2556 "But you refuse to acknowledge that God used men to establish his church."
Church is not established by men, church is, where there is a relationship between God and men. Abram and God? That's church. Established by God.
I think purgatory is a thing. But it's a process of working through, with Christ's help, all ones issues with sin. It's s continual relief, a walk into freedom, though of course at times if feels heavy, as growth always does. The idea of there being possibilities to short circuit any of it by transactions is a total disaster, a worse legalism than the Pharisees could have come up with.
It's so obvious to me, that hell is simply the state one is in when not willingly going through purgatory, and the kingdom of heaven is always with you, no matter where and when you are, when you willingly and without a thought of escape go into the purgatorial space of being with a trust that Jesus has your back.
These are eternal truths, and can't be given temporal understandings. We're not "going" anywhere. We're staying right where we are, just continuing without our current bodies and invisible to those that remain in theirs. Dying is an intensification of the reality we already are in, in some way. Heaven is always there, where we exist, intimately the invisible and most real side of everything. The imagining of these realities as places is often useful, but also leads us to wild ideas if we run away with that.
Except there is no evidence anywhere in Jewish thought, scripture, or the early fathers that there is any way of working off your debt of sin after death. The idea was made up out of whole cloth.
@@erc9468
There was and that's why Luther removed Maccabees from your canon. It was good to pray for the dead, and that could only be true if there was a place other than Heaven and Hell.
Even Jesus speaks of a place in the afterlife where sins are forgiven in Matt 12: 31:And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32:Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
I was a little disappointed by this presentation. Patristic indulgences are not even a little bit like medieval Roman Catholic ones. They are not a development. They are literally the opposite of patristic approaches to almsgiving and penance, which were self-purifying and local in nature.
Indulgences cannot be conflated with penance in principle neither almsgiving. There were no certificates of indulgences in the early church. Tertullian, Cyprian, and many ecumenical canons make reference to "letters or recommendation" which were given from living confessors of the faith on behalf of those they can personally vouch for during an apostasy, and the bishop may or may not "indulge" the request for penitential leniency. There is no Treasury of merits, no financial or works based way of attaining such letters. For more info I recommend "selling salvation the origins of indulgences".
I recommend Dr. Robert shafferns research on indulgences which pretty conclusively proves that they are a theological mutation from almsgiving which not coincidentally were pushed by the pro papal faction of the Latin West vis a vis the conciliarists. In short, the centralization of ecclesiastical power under the pope made it so the Pope was the sole means of granting an indulgence worth anything, and such indulgences bypassed local penitential practices so that the local priest and bishop, the two people who were actually supposed to be able to see contrition before permitting a pentitent back in communion, were replaced by a Pope miles away selling permission slips to absolve people who were not actually under their pastoral care.
It is a racket and theological innovation, and bears not even the least similarity with patristic practice. Any discussion of indulgences must be framed as such or it's wholly ignorant of the facts at hand. I know this is not the OPs intent so take this as a gentle, historical rebuke. The truth about indulgences is that they are 100 times worse and innovative than the OP portrays. The OP is too charitable, to the point of being unintentionally misleading.
Yeah, the point of the video was to show how different they are. I said the same word "indulgence" shouldn't be used for both practices because they are not the same thing (see at 11:45), and that the treasury of merit, etc. came in during the medieval era (see at 13:54). So I'm not really sure what specifically you object to.
@@TruthUnites I'd suppose not making it clearer that they are not mostly different things but totally different things with literally no continuity between the two whatsoever!
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I couldn't agree to the "literally the opposite" or "literally no continuity" but I would agree to a discontinuity that is qualitative.
@@TruthUnites You are certainly entitled to your opinion but this is why your analysis fails in my honest opinion. The fact you see continuity whatsoever indicates to me you do not understand the Patristics or Scriptures that were misused in medieval times to contrive indulgences. The Patristic doctrines pertaining to alms and penance are in a whole different universe from indulgences and RC indulgence theology literally contradicts them in almost every way.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Good to get clarity on where we disagree. Also, I am heartened to hear you have a category for a kind of blatant intrusion within church history like this, as it will help you understand my concern with many aspects of eastern orthodoxy. For example, I would also maintain an absolute and qualitative distinction between apostolic practice and venerating icons, as you know.
Zero credibility. This man teaches WORKS salvation. He lies - he has been told the truth and still lies.
Gavin, with love and respect, you can read about Indulgences in 2 Maccabees 12:38-46. This is why Luther removed this book from the bible including the book of James, and other New Testament books.
Can you show us with scripture alone that Christ would come back in the 1500's and start the true Church on Luther? You cannot because it is unbiblical yet you follow it to the fullest. No Pastor in the world can show it because it does not exist.
Christ and the Apostles used the 7 books (Septuagint), Luther removed them. Who do you follow regarding these books, Christ or Luther? You put Luther over Christ. God Bless.
No protestant thinks the church started in the 1500s lol
@@zirrah5122 Protestantism was founded in the 1500's. Different church with different distinct doctrine than the Church founded by Christ in the Bible. God Bless.
@Christian Catholic Media Does the 2 Maccabees passage infer that idolatry is not a mortal sin?
@@ChristianCatholicMedia You strawman the protestant position because you think in different categories to that which protestants think, then impose those categories on the protestant position. Two points you seem to be confused about:
1) We believe the Church is not limited to one church institution. We do not believe that all who came before Protestantism are false believers
2) The Protestant movement was an attempt to *reform* the church to the doctrines and practices of its first few centuries, while discarding those viewed as unhelpful or harmful accretions. Whether you agree this is what actually took place, no Protestant believes the true church was founded by the reformers, so it is not on us to show from Scripture that " Christ would come back in the 1500's and start the true Church on Luther".
Granted Luther was no fan of James, but he did not remove it from the bible, nor did subsequent Protestants. He WAS a fan of the Deuterocanonical books, but he did not equate them with Holy Scripture. He included the Deuterocanonical books, or Apocrypha, in his translation of the bible but in a section apart from the texts of the Hebrew bible (OT). There were no "other New Testament books" that Luther removed. All Christians share the same New Testament.
And to be clear, Lutherans and other Protestants follow Christ.