Roman Catholic View of Justification (Part 2): Luther and the Reformation with R.C. Sproul

Would it surprise you to learn that current Roman Catholic doctrine declares all Protestants accursed? Remarkably, if probed, most Protestants would respond in disbelief to this proposition. Yet, it holds true, and the Roman church maintains the same stance today as it took in the sixteenth century at the Council of Trent. The major area of dispute at the council regarded the doctrine of justification, notably the role of faith in it. A thorough, clear understanding of justification remains imperative for a proper understanding of the differences between historic Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and Dr. Sproul provides this clarification in today’s lesson.
This message is from R.C. Sproul's 10-part teaching series Luther and the Reformation. Learn more: www.ligonier.org/learn/series...

[@ligonier]

This message is from R.C. Sproul's 10-part teaching series Luther and the Reformation. Watch the entire series:www.ligonier.org/learn/series/luther-and-the-reformation/

[@denonjoka8848]

Thanks Lingoiner Ministries & God With Yu Always.

[@rivereuphrates8103]

Catholic here, exploring Reformed theology, really trying to grasp its content in good faith. Dr. Sproul's What Is Reformed Theology and talks have proven invaluable resources. I was very saddened by his passing a while back. Thank you for posting these talks.

[@Parks179-h]

I know that Roman Catholicism is no monolithic thing. How have you enjoy how talks about trentian Roman Catholicism?

[@Pilgrim182]

this is of massive importance. Eternity is at stake. Thank you pastor Sproul.

[@burningheartsministriesmis1488]

Love it ❤ God help us get it straight Thy Word is Truth

[@denonjoka8848]

Thanks R. C. Sproul *4 Yur Powerful, Blessed Sermon on "The Catholic Church View on Justification 4 I Disagree With The Roman Catholic Church on Justification of Our Sins Where I Say That We Have Been Saved By Grace Thru Faith & Not of Our Own That We Should Boast 4 Salvation Is The Gift of God 4 Commandeth His Love Towards Us That While We Were Yet Still Sinners, Christ Died 4 Us Written In Ephesians 2:8 & Romans 5:8* & Yu are Very Missed R. C. Sproul & May God Be With Yu Always.🙏🌧🙏🙏🙌🙌🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊

[@MZONE991]

The church does not teach that we are saved by our own works This is a prime example how this man above is deceiving you and lying to you either on purpose or maybe he is just that ignorant

[@peterj6740]

@@MZONE991 - You are mistaken on both accounts ! In 1647---Westminster Confession of Faith ; chapter XI Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His Righteousness, is the ALONE INSTRUMENT of justification; yet it is NOT ALONE in the person justified , but it is ever accompanied with all other saving graces , and is NO DEAD FAITH, but works by Love. R, C Sproul most certainly believed that clause-- Who is showing his own ignorance now ? Faith is the alone instrumental clause subjectively , but God the sole clause objectively. Faith is never alone and how does faith work ----BY love

[@malcolmkirk3343]

You and Sproul do not really understand Catholicism well. You also seem unaware that those verses are in the Catholic Bibles, and are taught in the Catholic Church. Further you seem unaware that some key teachings Sproul held to are contrary to scripture in his spin on soteoriology, ecclesiology, etc.. He had good intentions. But he was even out of step with Luther on some key points (such as the meaning and work of baptism, and the nature of holy communion). The fact is Reformed theology sought to overturn the history of many aspects of Christian theology which had been taught in Christendom for centuries, and distorted the teachings of men like Augustine to do it.

[@malcolmkirk3343]

....However, like most Protestant pastors, Sproul can did preach many good sermons with good content. As I have pointed out elsewhere, Sproul was wrong about Iustitia dei, partly due to Alistair McGrath incorrectly perceiving it's meaning in his research. Not until his 4th edition did he discover the truth of it's meaning for Augustine and the early fathers. ...And by that time, it was, sadly, to late for Sproul. I hope God has mercy on him, and all of us. For we all have made errors a plenty.

[@Jackie.2025]

Regarding the veneration of icons to be deep in history necessitates being Protestant, is to cease to be Roman Catholic or to cease to be Eastern Orthodox. - Dr. Gavin Ortlund

[@dahelmang]

You can't change Scripture. So if Catholics are going to say the councils are as important as Scripture then they must agree with everything that every council has said.

[@dahelmang]

@@irishhomedeemob677 hey man if you've got a conspiracy theory I could use the excitement, but you aren't making any sense.

[@irishhomedeemob677]

@@dahelmang No problem ! I just hate to see the great project based on seperation of powers (religion and politics) in America dying ! Sorry totally of topic ! 🙏

[@godsdozer]

23:0 hasn't been resolved ? Really ? ok................we are in a mess if that is true .

[@Erick-zp8vm]

I am Roman Catholic. I heard nothing that makes me want to change. The Council of Trent affirmed Catholic Christianity that was believed for centuries. The only thing the Council of Trent admitted to were abuses about indulgences and better training of the clergy (Better training of the clergy is something the Roman Catholic Church still needs to do.)

[@douglasmcnay644]

And the Catholic Church is infallible because...? Any system with men in control is corrupt. Only the true invisible church of Jesus Christ, who actually reads and implements the word of God, follows an infallible leader.

[@buzztrucker]

@@douglasmcnay644 There is no invisible church. The church is visible. A city of light on a hill. Yes you can do works and not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing and pray to your Father in private but a visible body of Christ has existed since Christ established his church.

[@mariosangermano5709]

How about leave the RCC because they teach a false gospel of works? They deny the sufficiently of Christs atonement? They believe in purgatory to cleanse you after death? How about the mass that recrucifies Jesus on a bloodless sacrifice? How about the fact the bible is not their main source of authority? How about the fact that ALL sin will condemn you ? So you want to stay in a religion that cannot save you? That will damn you? I grew up RC. They also distort what being born again is. And you cannot be saved unless you are born again which is totally a work of God, nothing we can do. Read John 3:3-12, also Ezekiel 36:21-27. They believe you are born again when you get baptized as an infant. That is false teaching. And an essential.

[@noahgaming8833]

@@rockycomet4587 In concert with His redemptive act, Jesus did three things that established the framework of His Church. First, He chose humans to carry out His work. He appointed Peter to be the visible head of the Church. Jesus said to Peter, "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church." (Matthew 16: 18) Jesus said "build," as in to create a structure. Jesus built His structure on specifically chosen human beings Peter and the apostles. Second, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power and authority to carry out His work. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."(Matthew 16:19; 18:18) "Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained."(John 20:23) Third, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles commands as to what that work should be. At the last supper, He commanded, "Do this in memory of Me." (Luke 22:19) He commanded them to "Make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19), and to "Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15) The early Church was structured in a hierarchical manner as it is today. We see in Acts, chapter 15 how the apostles and the elders came together under the leadership of St. Peter to decide the question of what was required of Gentiles. We also see how St. Peter was regarded as the head of the Church when St. Paul, "Went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with him fifteen days." (Galatians 1:18) There is no Scriptural evidence of independent local churches. The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally. Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years. God rules, instructs and sanctifies His people through His Church. Under her teaching office, the Catholic Church preserves the Word of God. She is the custodian, keeper, dispenser and interpreter of teachings of Christ. And she accomplishes this under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

[@mikekayanderson408]

The invisible church does exist. Not everybody suiting inside all the visible churches and congregations are actually saved. We do not necessarily know how many may be saved. They are invisible to us but to God each and every one is known. That’s what invisible means. Also we do not know how many millions are saved and have already died but are still called the church. In a room with 50 so-called Christians maybe only one or two are actually saved. They are the invisible church. @@buzztrucker

[@peacemercyandgrace6413]

Matthew 24:32-35 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. December 17, 2016 plus (280) days ( normal length of human gestation) =September 23, 2017= (1) year. September 23, 2017 plus (3)years=2020=Total of (4) years. December 17, 2020=End of (4) years. 2020 was a year of dung. Hanukkah=Same as passover=14,15,16-17=Risen

[@malcolmkirk3343]

....And doctrinally, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, et al did the same regarding Catholics,....as does Sproul! He might as well do so with the early church counsels, as he disagrees with key aspects of them.

[@eddiesblacksmithingkjv9185]

Abraham was counted righteous because he believed God. His faith made him righteous

[@malcolmkirk3343]

Yes. But that is not the whole of the story, is it? No. It is a particular instance. And if Abraham had turned away thereafter (as we find with some in the O.T.), what was their end? You believe that Christ founded the church; but then, in spite of His promise, the Church fell away until the "reformation" came along? You believe the whole of Christendom got it wrong, perishing from the earth, until Luther and Calvin came along (even though they disagreed with each other on very significant points of the faith - such as the canon of scripture, the nature/work/effect of baptism, the nature and work of the Holy Communion)? ...Or do you believe in the Church perished from the earth until Calvin and his monarchy in Geneva came along?

[@rockycomet4587]

@@malcolmkirk3343 The church continued in secret until the Reformation.

[@Jus4kiks]

@@malcolmkirk3343 deal with What RC said in the 2 lectures, would help.

[@sly8926]

@@malcolmkirk3343The true church never fell away. Luther didn’t invent the Protestant reformation. For millennium, the Roman Catholic Church persecuted ANY and ALL true members of the church. Luther may have started a movement but the true church was always there, always being persecuted, just like Christ said it would be.

[@malcolmkirk3343]

Problem is HE WAS WRONG. The fourth edition of McGrath's "Iustatia Dei", he shows that his own earlier assessments were wrong; and the Catholic position was, in point of fact, the doctrine of the early Church throughout Christian history. Additionally, the Lutheran position on infant baptism runs entirely against the Calvinist view (the speakers' view is wrong). Faith is not necessary for the baptized infant to be saved/transformed/adopted/justified before God. So, Lutheranism disagrees with Calvinists.

[@JohnMoog-dn9dt]

Did Dr. Sproul ever debate a Catholic thinker like Dr. Scott Hahn? Doesn’t yhe issue of purgatory turn on whether some of the apocrypha are canonical? Is there Sproulian analysis of that?

[@irishhomedeemob677]

Salvation is based on 3 parts... Justification, Santification and glorification! What are we *justified for* by faith in 2 Words ? Hint ..Galations 3:2-3

[@irishhomedeemob677]

@R Plant 👍🏻

[@markd6202]

@R Plant Amen.... it is the Church of Rome though which has allowed Satan to corrupt the gospel by incorporating the teachings of demons into its deadly doctrine...

[@eddiesblacksmithingkjv9185]

Yes we are

[@wibisonohartono]

This is a repeated (with slight modification) comment posted in Part 1. Robert Charles Sproul was my favourite Reformed author. His books about Reformed teaching are easy to understand. The questions I would like to ask Liguonier Ministries: 1. According to Sproul the use of Latin in the Catholic Church is the reason why the Catholic Church ended up with wrong meaning of Greek verb "to justify" while Luther who worked on Greek New Testament got it correctly. However, the Eastern Orthodox Church who continued using Greek to this day, does not teach the same justification as that of the Reformers. The phrase "justified by faith" in New Testament appears four times (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). In Greek three of them (Rom. 5:1, Gal.2:16, 3:24) appear in passive aorist tense while that of Rom. 3:28 is in passive present tense. Those two tenses do not indicate a completed action in the past. If justification is meant to be one time event and is by faith alone, then Paul would write those verses in passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English, Greek perfect tense indicates the action described by the verb (to be justified) is completed in the past with continuing result to the present (from speaker/writer point of view). Did Luther get the meaning of justification correctly? 2. According to Reformers through (one time) justification by faith alone we are counted or declared as righteous based on righteousness of Christ imputed on us. The reason is we can never be able to become righteous that meets God's standard and therefore the only solution is we use righteousness Christ to cover our unrighteousness. When God looks at us, instead of seeing our sins and unrighteousness, he will see the perfect righteousness of Christ. How do you reconcile this concept of external/alien righteousness of Christ with Ezekiel 18:20 that says "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself", which means we cannot use righteousness that is not our own? 3. Imputed righteousness concept of the Reformers implies that we are both justified (counted as righteous) and sinners at the same time, which in Latin is "simul iustus et peccator". How do you reconcile it with Ezekiel 33:12 that says "the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins", which means we cannot become righteous and sinner at the same time?

[@andreww5214]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe questions 2 and 3 can be answered by looking at the bible historically. In the time of Ezekiel and the time of the Old Testament, Jesus wasn't born and he never died for our sins which means that the people living in that day had to rely on their own righteousness to be righteous in the eyes of God. We know that no one can be righteous in the eyes of God because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). For this reason, the Israelite people made sacrifices and burnt offerings to God to cleanse themselves of sin. Once Jesus died on the cross, there was no more need to rely on our own failing righteousness because Jesus payed the penalty. Jesus righteousness is imputed on us when we accept the free gift of salvation and are born again. In the Old Testament times they couldn't rely on the righteousness of Jesus and therefore had to rely on their own failing righteousness (unrighteousness) which is why it says that righteousness is on one's self.

[@wibisonohartono]

@@andreww5214 You are saying that God changed his standard or rule of justification in the Old and New Covenant? Both Old and New Testaments mentions the existence of righteous persons like Noah, Daniel, Job (Ezekiel 14:14), Joseph (Mat. 1:19), Elizabeth and Zechariah (Luke 1:6), Abel (Heb. 11:4), even Lot (2 Peter 2:7) and without naming them (Mat. 5:45, 1 Peter 3:12 etc.). Thanks for your response.

[@andreww5214]

@@wibisonohartono I do believe that it changed because when Jesus died on the cross, He became the justification for our sins since He is perfect in righteousness. I think a good place to study how men in the old testament could have been righteous is Romans 4. Paul addresses a question similar to yours regarding how abraham could have been righteous. I'd try and explain more but I'm still personally trying to understand what Paul means myself lol. I think the answer can be found there if you study it though and there's probably many scholars and theologians who could explain it. Sorry if this doesn't entirely answer your response.

[@wibisonohartono]

@@andreww5214 As I mentioned in my earlier response Scripture testifies the existence of righteous persons. I do not deny that righteousness of Christ is perfect but why we need to use His, if Scripture says by grace through Him we are made righteous (Rom. 5:19). Scripture does not say by grace through Him we are counted as righteous.

[@andreww5214]

@@wibisonohartono Thinking about it more I think the answer to the question lies in the fact that we are all descendants of Adam. Although the men of the old testament that you mentioned were righteous, they were still born of Adam and therefore are sinners by blood, just like the rest of us. Therefore we need the righteousness of Jesus to be saved, and not the righteousness of ourselves. If I'm wrong in any way, please feel free to correct me

[@wibisonohartono]

Why Catholics believe in infused righteousness through in justification which we are made righteous? Scripture says through Christ we are made righteous (Rom. 5:19). According to 1 John 3:7 a righteous person is the one who does what is right. We can do what is right only by grace through Christ as apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:5). Does Scripture teach we have to be righteous continuously through out our life? According to Ezekiel 33:12 we lose our righteousness when we sin. Scripture also says there are deadly (mortal) and non-deadly sins (venial) in 1 John 5:16-17 but Sproul for reason best known to himself made mortal sin a teaching of the Catholic Church. Ezekiel 18:24 says when a righteous person sins, then he shall not live and all his past righteous deeds will not be remembered. But when a wicked person turned away from his sins and does what is right then he will live and his past wicked deeds will not be remembered (Ezekiel 18:221-22). Thus Scripture does not teach that God demands us to be righteous through out our life - we do fail from being righteous through sinning (Ezekiel 33:12) from time to time. That is why Catholics believe in Baptism for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) and Jesus instituted sacrament of penance (John 20:21-23) through which sins after Baptism are forgiven and return our righteous state. When we die still with non-deadly or venial sins then they will be cleansed through purgatory. Following imputed concept of righteousness taught by the Reformers, washing away our sins through Baptism, Penance and Purgatory are not required as our sins are covered by Christ' perfect righteousness - they become invincible to God.

[@kevinrtres]

This is why people in the rcc can study their verbal traditions their whole lifesand never come to a knowledge of the truth.....just saying. EDIT - you used the word *_"invincible",_* I think you meant INVISIBLE.

[@wibisonohartono]

@@kevinrtres Maybe you are not aware that you also rely on Reformed Tradition, i.e. you believe that all teachings of Reformed Church are correct. In my post I quoted only from Scripture and none from Tradition. Thanks for the spelling correction.

[@kevinrtres]

@@wibisonohartono : *_"you believe that all teachings of Reformed Church are correct"_* And of course you believe that all the verbal tradition teachings of the *_ROMAN_* catholic church are correct. Let us take two points here. One directly from your comment and the other directly from the same book of Acts you used. 1. You claim that Acts 2:38 indicates that Baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins: *_38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit._* However, I read it that *_REPENTANCE_* (in the name of Jesus) is what is required for the forgiveness of sins! So now, who is mistaken here? 2. The whole *_ROMAN_* catholic institute is based on the false assumption of apostolic succession. There is no such thing and hence the *_ROMAN_* catholic church is found on false premises and is teaching falsehood. It seems almost as if the Lord knew in advance that people would abrogate the authority of the apostles to themselves so they could twist the word and bring forth an abomination, so he had words put into the bible so we could be guided by it. Acts1:21-26 clearly shows the requirement for anyone to become an apostle - such a person has to have been present from Jesus' baptism until his ascension in order to be an EYEWITNESS about Jesus' resurrection. Furthermore, such a person would have to be appointed by JESUS on a personal basis. Matthias was not appointed by the apostles but by the Lord via the fall of the lot. Paul has a slight twist to his appointment but it was nevertheless still directly by Jesus AND in meeting Jesus, Paul was an eyewitness to the fact that Jesus was indeed resurrected! There can be no apostolic succession given those requirements. Once the first apostles had died out no one else could be appointed an apostle because no on else met the criteria or was appointed directly by Jesus. So - I strongly contend, from biblical text, that the ROMAN Catholic church is an institute based on false assumptions and it goes around teaching false things. You adhere to its verbal traditions and teachings at your own peril. EDIT: Acts 1: 21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

[@wibisonohartono]

@@kevinrtres Tell me where did you get the idea of VERBAL teaching of the Catholic Church? The official teaching of the Catholic Church is written in Catechism of the Catholic Church. In Acts 2:38 both repentance and Baptism are required for forgiveness of sins as the verse itself says. Even John Calvin still taught Baptism for forgiveness of sins, including even FUTURE sins (Institutes of Christian Religion 4.15.3). However Calvin denied that Baptism erases Original Sin (ibid, 4.15.10). Jesus promised to be with His Church to the end of age (Mat. 28:20) and promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide them in truth (John 16:13). Are His promises valid only when the apostles were still alive and not after their death? Are they valid only in the first three hundred years or only until Roman emperor Constantine legalized Christianity? All popes and bishops did not (and never) claim to be apostles. The Catholic Church does teach apostolic succession but never teaches their successors are entitled to be called apostles. The video from Liguonier talks about justification. Do not change the topic to apostolic succession!

[@kevinrtres]

@@wibisonohartono It might be helpful to go read your church's catechisms regarding the ORALLY transmitted traditions....Oral does mean VERBAL, does it not? vatican dot va /archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2 dot htm I am not allowed to post links anymore. In that catechism they assume the authority that is on the same level as that of the God-breathed scriptures. Now, you can decide for yourself whether that is the right thing to do for people who are NOT apostles. As someone else said - the RCC has a fine tradition of writing beautiful dogma which they break by doing something else entirely in real life. You want to adhere to it, go ahead, knock yourself out. I'm just pointing out that praying to Mary is idolatry. You can disagree with it all you want.

[@Solideogloria00]

Lutheran also believe that baptism is what bring a person to Christ, because they see baptism as Gods work (like Rome). So, are Lutherans apostate too? Arminians believe that a person who has saving faith can become an apostate and don’t be saved. Does that mean Pentacostals and other nonCalvinist evangelicals are apostates too? Are only Calvinists saved?

[@bhalarusa]

The word "alone" is what distinguishes Christians from non-Christians. If anyone added anything to Grace, Faith, Christ, Scriptures and God's Glory, they are wrong ang should repent.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

It is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@jackmichaels9504]

When you have faith you love. Works are compelled when you are given God’s grace. ❤

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@jackmichaels9504 If that were the case, Paul would not have to had written, "even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS ". ( 13:2). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@jackmichaels9504]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Interesting point. I think Paul in 1Cor13 is talking more of spiritual gifts rather than the works that we do. I am no bible scholar, just trying to please God and seek His truth. How would you tangle with Gal 2:16? To me it seems very clear and contextual with the rest of the chapter. Let me know how your thoughts. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@jackmichaels9504 the works of the Law that Paul speaks of is circumcision and the 613 Mosaic laws of purification! These do not justify us before God, but works of mercy do..(Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 5:7, John 5:29, Matthew 25:35-42,, 1 Peter 1:17). God's grace and peace to you always!

[@jackmichaels9504]

@@matthewbroderick6287 can someone think they are justified by faith alone. Do good works (thinking they are not by his choice but because God’s grace has changed his heart) and be saved?

[@linosuficiencia8806]

Why complicate the gospel of God and of Cbrist tbrouvgh religious argument. No one can be save by making things from the gospel difficult for ordinary believers. May i remind you that it not any religion tbat bring salvation to men but tbrough faith in Christ Both religions were twisting tbe gospel of God

[@henrytucker7189]

Sproul admits that the issue of justification is very serious and that someone is under an anathema for professing a false gospel. So what Sproul is admitting - while not saying directly- is that the vast majority of Christians for the majority of church history believed a false gospel until Luther showed up… because justification by faith alone is wholly absent in church history and the most I could do as a Protestant was quote farm from a few patristics (which was a disaster when reading the broader context). This is why reformed theologians must embrace some form of the great apostasy theory of the Mormons and landmark baptists. This was a deal-breaker for me. If God cannot preserve the gospel for 1400 years after the death of the last apostle, then Christianity is a fraud

[@jpsatre]

😂 thank you for that. I had a hearty laugh. 😆 Also, your logic is so fallacious i can only laugh. 😆😆😆 try again. Think it through again. 😂

[@beadoll8025]

Bible believing Christians have been here since Christ ascension. Those who defected from the faith and accepted a false gospel, were foolish or are foolish because the Bible is and was readily available. This a another reason why Scripture should be elevated over man-made traditions and rituals.

[@henrytucker7189]

@@beadoll8025 there was no NT for decades after Christ’s ascent. If I recall, the first time the gospels are even mentioned together is late second century. Moreover, most people could not read the Bible if they were fortunate enough to afford one… which cost as much as my first home. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Early Christians didn’t have “the Bible” but they did have the Church Jesus established and called the pillar and ground of truth (I Timothy 3:15).

[@jpsatre]

@@henrytucker7189 thats like saying that there were was no hebrew language before moses wrote the torah. 😂 so damn stupid. Please read the church history. 🤣

[@malcolmkirk3343]

Sad. R.C. Sproul. He hung so much on "Iustitia Dei" (McGrath's amazing research on the the doctrine of justification) as proof against the Catholic doctrine of justification. But after three successive reviews of the doctrine, each going further in depth and discovery, McGrath unexpectedly made substantial new discoveries he had previously missed! In his 4th edition of research on the subject, McGrath (having discovered substantive evidence he had previously missed) reversed his former position. Indeed, he found that the understanding of Justification in Christendom was, indeed, in keeping with the Catholic view. This should have been no surprise, for it reflected early church teaching, and was reflected, not only in Rome, but also in Eastern Christendom. Other Protestants also recognized many such aspects, as recorded by the early church fathers. Similarly, Luther's view of baptism ran directly against Sproul's teachings; so, too the early church fathers, the eastern rites, early Anglicanism, Wesleyan-ism, etc.. The same was also largely true of the Eucharist. Historically, Reformed theology was an outlier; an outlier from ancient Christian teaching; an innovation; revisionism against historic Christian teaching. It was an overthrow of many key aspects of the faith, which had been taught since the early days of Christendom.

[@Scott111188]

Romans 4:4-8 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” See, God justifies the Ungodly; not those who have works of satisfaction.

[@nathanoppy]

@@Scott111188 amen

[@MillionthUsername]

@@Scott111188 "See, God justifies the Ungodly; not those who have works of satisfaction." False dichotomy. Jesus declared that salvation had come to the house of Zacchaeus when the tax collector stood up and proclaimed his works of satisfaction. Was Jesus wrong?

[@rhwinner]

You can be justified until the cows come home; if you don't follow that up, if you don't _ respond_ to that with a lot of love, and mercy and forgiveness, you will be tossed out of the Kingdom faster than you can say Martin Luther or John Calvin....

[@rhwinner]

@Christos Kyrios It's a command, that we love; It's not optional.

[@maggietalemwa9493]

So how to does the thief on the cross fit into that theology? For he had no good works?

[@WC3isBetterThanReforged]

​maggie talemwa he was only initially justified. Since he had no time to fall out of grace, his, only justification was his initial justification.

[@MillionthUsername]

"And Rome suffers from a kind of theological hemophilia. If you scratch her, she bleeds to death," the heretic says at 2:20, and so we see him reveal his true self that he kept hidden in part 1 when he pretended to be fair minded! I'm not sure what this liar means by this, but he sure seems pleased with himself in mocking the Church and her authority.

[@koosvanderkolk2223]

I think RC means that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) teaches that the RCC is infallible. So if the 16th century RCC had X as its official doctrine, it must hold up X now as there is no self-correction possible. Hence, if one where to proof that X is against Scripture ('scratch open'), one would proof that the RCC is in fact fallible, which would undermine all of the RCC's teachings ('bleed to death').

[@DM-xy9gd]

I think what he meant by that is explained in his following words. In Rome's efforts to repeal something that was stated in the Council of Trent, they dismantle the very foundations of which Roman Catholicism has established. "By scratching oneself (repealing/taking back what has once been said in an official Council) then she bleeds to death (it results in a dismantling of a foundational doctrine on which Roman Catholicism stands).

[@MillionthUsername]

@@DM-xy9gd The Council of Trent is not repealed. That's not even possible.

[@MillionthUsername]

What Sproul misses about Trent's teaching on faith is that when the Council uses 'faith' it means the Catholic Faith. It is theological faith, dogmatic faith, not a vague 'faith' in Jesus. It cannot be otherwise. The Council also says at the end of the section on justification that if you reject the Catholic teaching on justification you CANNOT be justified! Sproul earlier referred to the Church as 'triumphant', and this is a criticism leveled at the Church that she claims to preach the full truth which cannot be altered in any way and that those who preach or teach or believe something else (even in one point) are anathematized. Now, scoffers can scoff at this insistence that the Church believes she was given the Faith by Christ and the Apostles to hand down to all people in all times in places, and that she alone can judge what is true and what is false teaching with divine authority, but this indeed has been the claim of the Church since the beginning, and it is unalterable. A Catholic must firmly hold to all that the Church teaches in order to be saved, and so must every other person who wishes to be saved. This is the meaning of the dogma Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus (outside the Church there is no salvation). So it's even worse for Sproul and for all heretics than he even thinks.

[@Jus4kiks]

That’s scary, the institution is in effect the savior as well. Impossible to get around that.

[@MillionthUsername]

@@Jus4kiks No, the Church is not the savior, but was instituted by Him for our salvation. The truth of the Church's formal teaching is guaranteed by Heaven. That should be comforting, not scary.

[@Jus4kiks]

@@MillionthUsername so we do not need the institution to be saved then? Guaranteed by heaven, you saying the Council of Trent snd the 1990s Catechism are guaranteed? If not, do Catholics not hold to these?

[@MillionthUsername]

@@Jus4kiks Yes, you need the Church in order to be saved. The Church is the body of Christ. When you are baptized a Catholic, you are incorporated into that body. Yes, the formal teaching of the Church is guaranteed free from error. A particular book may not be, but the teachings of the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium are since Christ gave teaching authority to His Church saying among other things, "He who hears you, hears Me; he who rejects you, rejects Me." and the promise of being with us until the consummation of the world.

[@MillionthUsername]

The whole problem with Sproul's approach is that in claiming to be a 'reformer' he must claim that the Church is not the Church and has never taught his 'gospel' which anyone looking at history can tell right away did not appear until Luther. So Sproul must not only deny historical Christianity, but also claim that Christ's promises were null and void since Christ allowed His one Church to anathematize the very 'gospel' they were supposed to preach to all nations, with divine assistance and guidance, for 1500 years. This means that Sproul thinks God is a liar, or is too weak to protect His Church. It also means that there was no 'true church' in history until Luther. But is Sproul a Lutheran? Was Luther also wrong? Well, he must be, otherwise all Protestants would be Lutheran. So if this 'reformer' is wrong as well, then who is right? Another 'reformer'? Which one? You see the problem? Are there people who disagree with Sproul today? Yes! Are they then the true 'reformers'? Ad infinitum.

[@markbrow4776]

You say that the 'Sproul' gospel appeared with Luther. Not corrrect. Actually it reappeared with Luther. Reformed theology is basically original, first-Century Christianity, at least a movement in that direction.

[@MillionthUsername]

@@markbrow4776 These doctrines are foreign to Christianity. They were invented in the 16th century precisely to reject and discard Christianity and replace it with a whole variety of counterfeits which are 'Christian' in name only. None of the distinctively new doctrines were taught or believed before these men showed up claiming to have a new revelation. "Faith Alone," for example, has no provenance because it was brand new. Luther claimed to have received it as a revelation while sitting on the toilet! He could not deal with his sin, and so he came up with an entirely new and false theology whereby he didn't have to! But of course this idea is actually the inverse of Christianity - which, by the way, is one way to tell that it's source is the devil. It tells people that sin doesn't matter, only 'faith', and that God gives you a pass as long as you 'believe'. It's a little word play mixed with a demonic inversion of truth causing the victims of this ideology to think that they are 'saved' no matter what they do. It makes a joke of the Christian teaching on sin and grace. Luther even denied free will in an effort to show that there was nothing anyone had to do to get this free pass from God which ignores the problem of sin. In order to prop up this insane do-nothingism, he then perverted the notion of God's grace saying that it wasn't transformative and something we had to cooperate with but rather juridical in a top-down, one-sided way. God merely declares someone just as by decree on account of 'faith'. This false view of faith leaves out a number of essential things. First, it denies that the faith required for salvation is confessional faith and not merely a vague 'trust' in Christ divorced from the entirety of truth contained in the revelation He gave the Church. Second, it leaves out obedience to the truth, conformity to Christ through the cooperation of the will with God's transformative grace to change a person from the inside. It leaves out the Church, her authority to teach all nations, her sacraments which were instituted by Christ as means of grace, etc. It doesn't even resemble Christianity except by way of mimicry as many of the doctrines have been gutted and thus stripped of their meaning. This is what any heresy does, and this is why heresy has always been understood as a serious sin, because as soon as you start messing with the truth you create an entryway for Satan to create confusion and division and to lead vast numbers of people astray into all sorts of binds and contradictions.

[@markbrow4776]

@@MillionthUsername I really wonder who is, as you put, messing around with the truth. If you can prove to me that the Catholic church has any resemblance to first-century Christianity, I might believe you. If you can prove to me that the Pope, originally the bishop of Rome, is head of the Church and not Jesus Christ; if you can prove to me that the Catholic church via the Inquisition has not murdered more faithful Christians than any other organization; If you can tell me Christ's death on the cross was NOT a once-for-all accomplished work; If you can tell me WHY Christ would NEED any of our own righteousness (Catholic doctrine of faith plus works) if all our righteousness has been provided by Christ--see 1 Cor. 5:21; If you can prove to me that our works can provide one ounce of justification part from Christ's righteousness ("For by the deeds of the law no one will be justified..."Rom 1:20), or if you can tell me why the Council of Trent has declared that a "believers assurance of the pardon of his sins is a vain and ungodly confidence" (which, by the way, coincides nicely with the invention of Purgatory and the sacramental system in which a person is not once-for-all save, i.e., justified, but justified until that person commits a venial or mortal sin), if you are so carnal as to believe that a person justified would really want to do something to sin against the precious Savior Christ and His righteousness (as Paul was accused of the enemies of Christ--that it may never be), then I might believe you. Until then, I consider the Church of Rome, the Catholic church, an apostate church who, as Luther stated, vex and distress the consciences of the faithful. Luther got the doctrine of 'Sola Fide' from reading Rom. 1:17, "...the righteous shall live by faith", by the way.

[@jeanjacket4238]

Let me pray to the pope and see if this is right…. Hold up

[@theloniouscoltrane3778]

The pope is not our Father. The priest is not our Father. Stop addressing them as "Father."

[@MZONE991]

This is a horrible explanation of Catholic Soteriology

[@dahelmang]

Could you be more specific please?

[@MZONE991]

@@dahelmang Go to the justification section in this discussion kzbin.info/www/bejne/eanbh3yCjdhmj6c

[@MZONE991]

I forgive you since I only know you say this because you are ignorant of the gospel

[@dahelmang]

@Unconditional Love wow unconditional love doesn't mean much these days. You know it's not his fault the Catholic leadership is bad right?

[@begelston]

I've been studying this for some time now because of how important it is. His explanation is spot on. Can you cite where you disagree?