Sola Fide's Absence in the Early Church

[@BradleyFear]

I'm in the process of leaving my old protestant church, to begin attending mass at my local Catholic church from December onwards. I've been getting so many queries on issues like this, so this video has been incredibly helpful! Really looking forward to finally becoming Catholic. My family didn't raise me in any particular faith and yet, somehow, it feels like a homecoming ❤

[@DEUS_VULT_CROATIA]

Deus Vult, God bless and guide you brother

[@blakewolford8903]

Welcome home brother! I converted earlier this year, never been closer to Christ! Ave Maria

[@dynamicloveministries334]

Go love the poor, get the man on the street into your home. Don't lie, be generous. That is good works, not just going to a catholic meeting. Drill waterfalls for the poor go to Israel and Muslim countries and preach the Gospel.

[@dynamicloveministries334]

This is a good video but missed the definition of Justification. What is justification?

[@brutus896]

​@@dynamicloveministries334Catholic religion will give you a false definition of justification. The biblical definition is free from the penalty of sin by faith in Jesus.

[@thegreypilgrim2849]

I was just watching a video by a Lutheran on why one should be Lutheran, and he was talking about salvation through faith alone. So, I was thinking how absurd it is to be saved through faith alone, and he claimed that Lutheranism was like the early Church, when then I got the notification of Trent's new video. I needed this!

[@Harbinger290]

Sola fide was absent early because all the churches in Asia fell away from Paul and his grace (alone, Eph 2:5) message. The Didache had no understanding of the gospel Paul preached and pointed to in Gal 1:8-9 and Gal 1:11-12. The mystery of the gospel that Paul taught is still a mystery to cathokics. Still hid - Ephesians 3:9 (KJV) And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been 👉hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

[@markmeyer4532]

How many examples would you like of Sola Fide (Faith alone)?. Here's a small collection: John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever [believes] in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Romans 10:9-10. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and [believe in your heart] that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who [believes in him] receives forgiveness of sins through his name. 1 John 5:13. I write these things to you who [believe in the name of the Son of God] so that you may know that you have eternal life. Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been [saved through faith], and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.. Romans 3:28. We conclude that a person has God’s [approval by faith], not by his own efforts. John 6:40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and [believes in him] shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:47 Very truly I tell you, the one who [believes] has eternal life. Acts 13:39 Through him everyone who [believes is set free from every sin], a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. Luke 7:50 Jesus said to the woman, “Your [faith has saved] you; go in peace.”... Mark 16:16 [Whoever believes] and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Good enough, or do you want more?

[@theKingsJester88]

A video from Dr. Jordan B. Cooper about this topic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qpyncohngaibjposi=PGR99U7cQptVM_F6

[@onlylove556]

​@@Harbinger290 funny it's like u didn't even watch the video. Unless you're just trolling. If so that's funny. But for some reason I think u are a prot who believes in sola fide. So are you saying that the early Apostolic Post-nicene church fathers, that Trent read, where it actually false Christians. Even though all theologians agree, that every single one of those Church fathers were true trinitarian Christians. Both sides from Protestants, and Catholics teach that, bc its historical. So who are you to come in here, and say their false Christians, since you said the church fell away. But the Bible alone refutes u my friend, considering Jesus promised that the spirit of Truth was going to guide the church to all truth, not some truth, but all truth, John 16:12-13; Jesus will be with his church until the end of time Matthew 28:20; that it's the church that is the pillar & ground of truth 1 Timothy 3:15. And don't forget about the biggest one, the Gates of Hell will never ever Prevail over the very 1st church Matthew 16:18. So u can't say the church fell away, when the Bible literally says it's never going to fall away. Besides you still have to figure out where that Bible came from, that you're quoting from..

[@mx_moi1964]

@@Harbinger290and it just happened to be rediscovered in the 16 century right? How convenient. Stop pushing ahistorical ecclesiastical theories. Just admit that isn’t a historically Christian doctrine. How can something so important such as “free grace” salvation, which is core to Christianity not be there since the beginning??

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

My favorite Catholic apologist. Looking forward to this one! ☦️🔥🔥

[@andys3035]

Hey brother, love your channel ☦️

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

@@andys3035 Thanks Andy, I appreciate that my brother! ☦️🔥

[@remonstrant]

Coming across Trent Horns channel has been one of the best things to happen to me in 2024. Amen

[@lawnchair6997]

Hey Trent, I remember a year ago when I had so much open hate in my heart for Catholics, and now a year later I’m praying the rosary daily. Funny how that works. Your videos have really helped to open my eyes and leave my Protestant roots, thank you.

[@joecastillo8798]

@lawnchair6997 Welcome home, Catholic brother. Many blessings in your journey.

[@MythwrightWorkshop]

Interesting. Far from funny, I would call it providential.

[@adelbertleblanc1846]

Helo dear friend, please continue in the discovery of the person of JESUS-CHRIST, of the GOSPEL with the teachings of the Holy church. step by step. Each day, a little step to JESUS-CHRIST and the TRUTH. Mind the Sacrements of the Church too. I wish You good luck and good by !

[@Ruthenian_Catholic]

I have pretty much the exact same story

[@jediv3381]

*You cannot love God and His Words yet embrace Roman Catholicism. R Catholicism has nothing to do with God and His Words. R Catholic Church contradicts Scriptures in every possible ways!* 1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. But BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. She was a sinner. Bible says Mary needed a Saviour. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10. 2. Catholics say clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter (supposed R Church first leader) had mother in law. Bible says celibacy is not a qualification for clergies. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39. 3. Catholics say Mary was forever virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was not perpetually virgin. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47. 4. Catholics say confess to R priests in a box. BIBLE says nothing about confessing to priests in a box. Bible says confess to GOD only. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10. 5. Catholics say drink of the physical blood of Jesus. Yet OT and NT both say do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26. 6. Catholics say pray to passed on Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. NT Church did not record a single case of NT believers asking passed on saints to pray for them. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19. 7. Catholics make and bow down to statues. BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5. 8. Catholics sprinkles “holy water”. But NT Church of the Bible mentioned nothing about “holy water”. There was no record of any Apostles sprinkling “holy water” on believers. Catholics claimed “holy water” came from OT. Yet Num 5:17 says “holy water” was water used to test adulterous women in OT temple. Hardly the same. Those were for Old Covenant Jews. Not New Testament Christians. 9. Catholics say Peter was pope - bishop of all bishops. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Bible says nothing of the office of bishop of bishops. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18. 10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. Jesus said “not to lord over others”. 11. Catholics has clergy priesthood. Bible says clergy priesthood was done away with in New Testament. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10. 12. Catholics preaches Works Salvation (faith + good works + partake R sacraments + submit to R pontiff + be in R Church + devote to Mary = to be saved). Yet Bible says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Bible says Works Salvation is cursed. Gal 1:8-9. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10. 13. Catholics says they must do Penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. Catholic Bible changes the word “repentance” in NT into “penance”. Original Greek NT does not use or mean the word penance. Penance = work to atone for sins. Repentance = change of heart. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6. 14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it. 15. Catholics say Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.

[@vdetommaso]

Protestants using 1st Clement to defend Sola Fide is ironic considering it's one of the strongest defenses of Apostolic Succession and the Papcy in the Early Fathers. Clement goes so far as to say that rejection of the authority of the Bishops of the Church is equivalent to rejecting Christ.

[@JW_______]

Bishops at Clement's time were more akin to head pastors with headship over local congregations. They were also appointed by the congregation, not via appointment of apostolic sucessors. While Clement attributes significant authority to bishops, that is the only extent to which his views are compatible with apostolic succession as the term is understood today.

[@Jay-bp1yx]

@@JW_______where is that written?

[@tonyl3762]

@@JW_______ " not via appointment of apostolic sucessors" Let me quote Clement himself to prove you wrong: ""The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ..... And thus preaching through countries and cities, they *appointed* the first fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, *to be bishops and deacons* of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith” (Isa 60:17)…. Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they *appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry* ." What do you have to say to that?

[@JD-xz1mx]

@@JW_______ Further, Protestants also preach submission to the authority of the pastor of your church, precisely mirroring the practice as described here. Catholics have always and only have misrepresented the nature of the dispute for centuries now.

[@vdetommaso]

@@JW_______ not sure where you got that idea. Bishops at that time were ordained by the laying on of hands by another bishop in line to the Apostles (Clement for example was ordained directly by Peter) 1st Clement was a response by Clement to the Corinthians, who wished to depose their Bishop, but didn't know if that was something they were allowed to do. So they wrote to Peter's successor Clement in Rome to ask him (Note that they did not write to any of the closer Sees, or to John the Apostle, who was still alive and right next door in Esphesus at the time, because of the Primacy of Peter's successor). 1st Clement is an incredibly powerful defense of Apostolic succession and the authority of the Church. It was considered such an important document that it even appears in many early Church canon lists (not that they thought it was divinely inspired, but that they considered it important enough to be read in the liturgy)

[@josh39684]

Appreciate this. I'm protestant considering catholicism. This has been hard for me to understand

[@DEUS_VULT_CROATIA]

God bless you dear

[@josh39684]

@@butter__boi703thanks I need all the prayers I can get. Currently living with my anti Catholic parents. agreed authority is needed. I have read the church fathers. Ignatius of Antioch is my favorite. The more I look into it I see catholicism (correct if I am wrong) that gives us ways to live out our faith while Protestantism just says basically figure it out. I've wrote a 300 plus page paper with church history and Catholic doctrines but this one was hard one for to write about not that I disagree with it (I don't disagree with the Catholic view) it just have difficulty explaining it

[@trudyfriedrich7416]

​@@josh39684 See...WHAT YOU NEED TO BE SAVED FR MIKE KZbin. easy to understand Catholic teaching on this subject.

[@blakewolford8903]

Wow that’s quite the paper! Praying for you friend that you can come home peacefully. Happy to help w any questions, etc. if I can!

[@sly8926]

I would caution you against the apostate Roman Catholic Church. It’s a satanic deception that is used to move people away from Christ and towards the traditions of men. The Roman Catholic Church CANNOT save you. Only Christ can do that. The Roman Catholic Church CANNOT give you salvation. Only God can do that.

[@joshuabenes]

What a fantastic video! Much of your content has been pivotal on my journey into the Catholic Church, and it's content like this that continues to be affirming and reassuring to me. I'm looking forward to continuing with O.C.I.A. and coming into full communion with the Catholic Church next spring.

[@IdiotaDaniel]

You have my 'suscribes and likes' other than that all I can offer is my prayers. Thank you for service to our Lord, amen.

[@rodrigofernandes5242]

Well done, Trent.

[@notavailable4891]

In a way protestant apologetics has been a blessing to me. I have been following White, Ortlund, MacArthur and others and seeing how poor the arguments against the Church are has only reinforced the wisdom of my decision to join her a few years ago.

[@brutus896]

I'm sorry for your lack of understanding Ortlund and Macarthur. 😢

[@notavailable4891]

@@brutus896 Was that supposed to be persuasive or did you intend to only be condescending and insulting?

[@brutus896]

@notavailable4891 There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end, it leads to death. Proverbs 14:12

[@tobspinn]

⁠@@brutus896 I’m afraid you are mistakenly misinterpreting this verse, my friend. The verse you are referring is found within a broader context that tells us to be prudent in our discernment, I.e., evaluating all the evidence we have. This is exactly what Trent is doing my friend. Using proof passages like Ephesians 2:8 out of the broader biblical context however, is being imprudent. The passage also praises people who do good works. “The wisdom of the prudent is to discern his way, but the folly of fools is deceiving. Fools mock at the guilt offering, but the upright enjoy acceptance. The heart knows its own bitterness, and no stranger shares its joy. The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish. There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. Even in laughter the heart may ache, and the end of joy may be grief. The backslider in heart will be filled with the fruit of his ways, and a good man will be filled with the fruit of his ways. The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps. One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil, but a fool is reckless and careless. A man of quick temper acts foolishly, and a man of evil devices is hated. The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.” ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭14‬:‭8‬-‭18‬

[@userJohnSmith]

This had been my experience. My handful of years at Catholic School should not make me an equal sparing partner to my Baptist sort-of father in law who's a head pastor with a theological PhD. Every time I listen to grown up Protestant apologists I'm around by the straw men and weak "single verse in isolation" arguments they make. Like when you quote something 5-10 words long but the entire passage literally makes those words mean the opposite and then you base your entire theology on that phrase...and expect people to not point that out. It's very hard to take seriously.

[@ninjason57]

Trent I'm not sure if you'll see my comment but I appreciate the work you do as a Catholic apologist. You're the only Catholic apologist I subscribe to and listen to regularly. I grew up as a first generation Iranian American. My parents converted to Christianity through their local Baptist church which is the church I grew up in. As I've personally grown in my faith I couldn't ignore the wisdom of the entire church history, including Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Sometimes you frustrate me and I have a hard time agreeing with every Catholic doctrine but videos like these make me realize that true Christians regardless of background have more similarities than differences. With God's love and grace I believe we can all be united in Christ.

[@samarmakhoul8417]

If you want you can also check Sam Shamoun...

[@ninjason57]

@@samarmakhoul8417 I've watched a lot of Sam. His biblical knowledge is superb and his arguments are sound but his harsh attitude and ADD make him difficult to listen to. He's not for the faint of heart or the new believer imo.

[@ST-ov8cm]

I also like Jimmy Akin and my new favorite, Joe Heschmeyer (Shameless Popery)

[@Sola_Scriptura_1.618]

I suggest you read the Word of God directly for yourself. Do not offload the responsibility of your salvation to man that has ulterior motivation. As a former Roman Catholic, my life changed when I read the Bible for myself. My personal relationship with God is nothing but miraculous. Christ is King!

[@ninjason57]

@@Sola_Scriptura_1.618 You assume I dont read the bible for myself :P

[@RealTaylorRoss]

Great video as always, so glad i converted from being a fundamentalist baptist earlier this year

[@jackieo8693]

The Catholic Church gets the best Protestants!

[@TrixRN]

I converted 9 years ago from Baptist my self. Best decision I’ve ever made. I now work in RCIA/OCIA as a sponsor. God bless you.🙏❤️

[@nibs1989]

It really is Sola Fide when you really think about it. Why do we do what we do as Christians? What is faith, anyway? If we cannot please God without it, does one expect salvation without it? At the foundation of the Christian life is faith. We come to faith, and so come to the new birth. Faith is individual, which is why we are judged based on our faith life before God. The things done in our bodies, whether they be good or bad is a measure of faith. Faith relies on God, His person, His promises, and His power to do. If salvation is the work of God, I must trust Him for that. If he commands me to do good works, I must trust that there will be a reward for that. So then, is it not by faith alone? For faith alone is that from which all things flow. It has a beginning in the life of a believer, when he believes the Gospel. He is then sealed by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1), and new life begins. It all begins in faith, and the just live by faith. Furthermore, we rely on the faithfulness of God to keep his promises, "faithful is he that promised who also will do it," and "faithful is he who has begun a good work in you who will also accomplish it until the day of Christ." "But without faith it is Impssible to please him, for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." It is all of faith, from faith, and to faith. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. We are justified by faith, we are sanctified by faith, we live by faith. We have access to grace by faith (Romans 5). How could be anything but faith alone if faith is the seed of the Word that grew in a receptive heart? For it to be anything other than faith, one would have to have an authority other than the Word of God. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Trust in something else cannot be called faith, in the divine sense.

[@gbnessdot96]

Not by faith alone, because scriptures show it. And because Luther was so desperate for scriptures to conform to him that he admittedly added the word “alone” to faith in his bible version. And if not for the rebuke of fellow reformers, he would’ve removed the book of James from the schools. James wrote that we are not saved by faith alone. Faith saves as in baptism. Hope also saves because of the resurrection of Christ. Love saves because God is love. And all of these are found in scriptures, clear and perspicuous.

[@nibs1989]

@gbnessdot96 that leads to a few questions. And, if we were to apply some ad absurdum logic, it becomes evident that it truly is by faith alone. First, what did Abraham offer Isaac by? What was the motive and basis for his action? Did it not start with faith? Many will quote James 2, but forget that the passage that completes the truth of this passage is Hebrews 11:17-19 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. How did Abraham get here in the first place? He was justified when he believed God and had received the promise. The message of James is not that works save, but that saving faith works. Abraham exercised the faith he began with at Moriah. It was one and the same. When God promised, he believed. When God commanded, he obeyed. The starting point and that which worked were the same in both instances. So, what faith are we speaking of? The faith described in Romans 4. Paul describes saving faith here: Romans 4:20-22 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. In Hebrews 11, hebelieved God was able to raise Isaac from the dead, thus keeping his promise. His work was evidence that he really, truly believed God. It was a justification of his faith. It was fulfilled that God had said he was righteous. In Abraham's action it became evident he was already righteous. Abraham acted from righteousness, justification and faith. He did not operate to gain it. Faith had to be there already for Abraham to work. Otherwise, it would not be a good work. We could consider it this way, when Abraham believed, it was the planting of the seed. When Abraham offered up Isaac, it was the fruit from the tree of faith. The argument is this, the root of all things related to the Christian life is faith. The kind of faith is justifying faith. It is faith in God's capacity to keep His word, and it is trust that His promise is true. Justifying faith, then, can only be found in one place: faith in the Christ of the Gospel. Believing the Gospel is the beginning of someone's life of faith. It is the moment of justification and the commencing of spiritual life. At the moment of faith in the Gospel we receive the Spirit. That faith that is exercised is the same faith that grows and works and it continues on through the life of a believer. Therefore, it is by faith alone, because the only thing left when all things are reduced and removed, and all capacities to work are taken away is faith. Because it is possible for one to stand alone on faith for salvation, and because all other works could be eliminated and a person could still be saved, it remains that the only logical conclusion is that salvation is through faith alone in Christ alone. It all starts and ends there.

[@gbnessdot96]

@@nibs1989 faith alone was Luther-breathed and will not find any scriptural backing (unless the hand of god forces it).

[@nibs1989]

@gbnessdot96 it's not Luther breathed, but God implied. It's like the term "Trinity" which also finds no Scripturaly explicit mention, but is altogether true. Also, that's a genetic fallacy, just because Luther may have said it does not make it automatically false.

[@gbnessdot96]

@@nibs1989 you stand on that “God implied” belief and we’ll stand on our “God reveals” belief. So, God revealed to his church that if a person is only concerned with his own salvation alone, that is all he’ll ever preach. Nothing bad about it except we always go for best alternative.

[@rexlion4510]

Like Clement, Paul wrote extensive exhortations in his letters regarding blameless living; yet Paul also wrote Romans 4, which unequivocally explains justification by imputation apart from works. The question underlying the justification 'debate' is this: what is our authority? Protestants believe that the Bible is God's word written, so the Bible's teachings are paramount and early church commentaries are secondary. Roman Catholics give lip service to the Bible, but when push comes to shove they allow the early church commentaries to overrule the Bible's teachings in this area (and in some others). That is why we see this video examining the early fathers and making their words authoritative, rather than relying on the Bible's clear language. Jesus never said (John 3) that he who believes in Him and also does many pleasing works will have eternal life. He simply said, "whoever believes in him may have eternal life," and, "whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life," and, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already." Do you really need to crack open early churchmen's opinions in order to figure out what Jesus meant? Why can't you let the words of _God the Son_ rule your doctrine, instead of countermanding His words with those of fallible human beings? Of course it is implicit that when we believe in Jesus Christ, it means we believe that Jesus made full propitiation for every one of our sins while He was on the cross. For if we do not believe that we are lost in sin and need a Savior from sin's penalty, we will not believe that Jesus paid our sin-bill in full and be grateful to Him for it! A true Christian will want to please God through proper behavior; however, he will not try to self-justify by his deeds or try to help pay his own debt of sin, because God's grace is a gift (Eph. 2:8-9) and trying to pay someone for the gift they gave you is insulting and futile! Need more proof? Look at what is recorded in Ch. 6 of John's Gospel: Joh 6:28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that *everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”* Joh 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. What part of 'everyone who believes in Jesus will have eternal life' don't you understand? Do you doubt the veracity of our Lord?

[@bernardoemerick5362]

@rexlion4510 You are butchering Sacred Scripture. You quoted Saint John. Great! So, let's take a look at chapters 14 and 15, shall we? Chapter 14: "15“If you love me, keep my commands. [...] 21Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” [...] Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me." Chapter 15: "1“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. 9“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command. [...] 17This is my command: Love each other." So, is Jesus saying that you just need to believe? Not at all! He says that one must keep his commands; that they must bear fruits. Read carefully: "He CUTS OFF every branch IN ME that bears no fruit". This pressuposes that one WAS IN CHRIST, but, because he doesn't bear fruits, he is severed from Christ. The Gospel of St. Matthew, on the other hand, is even more explicit (as if it could be). Take the escathological sermon of Jesus, which is all about the judgement. Let's take a look at Chapter 25: First, you have the parable of the ten virgins. What is the oil of the lamps? You would probably say: "it's clear faith". But if read the Fathers, they usually refer to "good works" - which include faith. Then, you get the parable of the bags of gold. God gives the bags of gold (talents). The one who doesn't put it to use, that doesn't multiply is cast off: "29For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’" Then comes the judgement of nations: verses 31 to 46. What is striking is that the judgement IN NO WAY mentions faith: "34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’" The passage follows with perfect simmetry in regards to the goats. It's all about works - in particular, it's strictly about works towards men! Does that mean that faith is unnecessary?! If we read in the way protestants usually read, that would be the conclusion. But that would be totally wrong. Because Jesus ALSO says you need faith. But he also says that you need to be baptized: see John 3:5 (universally interpreted by the Fathers as refering to baptism), Mark 16:15-16 ("15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."), and Matthew 28:19-20 ("19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.") And Jesus also said that one must receive the Eucharist, his divine flesh and blood (John 6): "47Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”" So, do the math. Is Jesus talking ONLY of faith? Of course not! It's a whole system of salvation: faith, works, sacraments...

[@rexlion4510]

@@bernardoemerick5362 Take another look at John 14 & 15, because you are reading your assumptions into Jesus' words. Well, we all have assumptions of one kind or another. So let us compare assumptions! Notice for example that Jesus said, those who love Him will keep His commandments. The Catholic's mindset turns this into, those who love Him *must* keep all of the commandments, and the thought carries an implied threat: _or else._ This is how obedience gets transformed into a fleshly work, an accomplishment designed to show one to be *self-righteous enough to deserve* eternal life. _Whereas I read Jesus' words and see this: I desire to keep His commandments because I am in Christ and He is in me, and because I love Him. God has promised me eternal life, and by His grace He has also placed this love and desire in me. I have been given victory over bondage to sin and have been granted liberty to obey._ Consider the lesson about bearing good fruit. The Catholic thinks: I am required to bear fruit. If I don't, I am afraid that I will be cut off and thrown into the fire. I must prove myself worthy of eternal life! _I read it and think: Jesus stresses the importance of remaining in Him, because He is the vine which supplies the life of God; the life of God in me (the Holy Spirit) leads me to perceive what good works to do, and He provides the enablement (the grace) to do them. I am bearing good fruit, and I will bear much more, glory to God! I am God's humble servant, cooperating in love and obedience. He has already shown me that I belong to Him, and I trust Him to take me all the way through this life and into His Presence._ The Catholic reads the parable of the talents and thinks: my salvation hinges on how well I perform, or I might be a cast-out goat! _I read it and think: this is good counsel, and as one of Christ's sheep I should pay attention to how well I cooperate with Him in doing good, because I am grateful for God's gifts. However, I feel no performance anxiety._ How does the Catholic arrive at his interpretation? From what the Magisterium teaches. They teach their members to doubt God's promise of eternal life, to think that their eternal outcome is very much uncertain, and to let fear be the motivator. They heap all of these requirements upon people: you must ingest Jesus, or else. You must be baptized, or else. You must do enough good works, or else (but then, you never can know how many good works are "enough"). _How do I arrive at my interpretation? From a harmonized view of the entirety of Holy Scripture. It shows me that God is faithful, that the Greater One lives in me, and that Christ Himself is advocating for me at the Father's right hand. The Bible teaches me to let unconditional love and humble obedience be my motivators. I don't _*_have_*_ to do good works; I _*_get_*_ to do good works! I don't have to take communion; I get to take communion. My salvation didn't hinge on my baptism, but Jesus expressed His firm desire that we be baptized, so I was (and got to be) baptized._ I want to ask you to consider the tremendous truths stated about followers of Jesus Christ like me and (hopefully) you in Ephesians 1: Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you know, deep down, that you have God's grace and peace? Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who *has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,* Do you realize how blessed by God you are, right this very moment? Every spiritual blessing in heaven is already as good as yours, it says here. Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love I know, we don't feel holy or blameless. But it says that *before Him* (in His point of view) we are totally forgiven! Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Eph 1:6 to the praise of *his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us* in the Beloved. You and I have been blessed with God's grace. We have His saving grace right now. Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, Notice, it doesn't say you 'will have redemption.' It says *you **_have_** redemption!* And forgiveness! By grace: favor we could never, ever deserve! Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. Eph 1:11 *In him we have obtained an inheritance,* having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, This is using past tense again: you *have obtained* the inheritance. Eph 1:12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. Eph 1:13 *In him you also, when you heard* the word of truth, *the gospel* of your salvation, *and believed* in him, *were sealed* with the promised Holy Spirit, Eph 1:14 who is *the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,* to the praise of his glory. When are people sealed with the Holy Spirit? When they hear *and believe* the Good News of Jesus' full, complete atonement for all of our sins. When the Holy Spirit lives in a true follower of Christ, that believing Christian contains a promise of what is to come, if he perseveres in faith (in belief and trust in Christ as his Savior). Eph 1:15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, Eph 1:16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, Eph 1:17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, Eph 1:18 *having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know* what is *the hope* to which he has called you, what are *the riches of his glorious inheritance* in the saints, Eph 1:19 and what is *the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe,* according to the working of his great might God is doing for you far beyond what you can ask or think.

[@rexlion4510]

@@bernardoemerick5362 Your mention John 6:53 deserves a post all its own. Understanding the import of this one verse really is crucial. For *if Jesus literally intends that our salvation hinge upon the actual ingestion of His physical flesh, blood, soul, and divinity (the fullness of Jesus),* then all of the Protestant followers of Jesus Christ are going straight to hell just for that one failure. Anyone who receives communion as a memorial and symbol of Christ, certainly. And probably the same for those who believe they partake of Christ in the Eucharist in a spiritual sense only. If this is the case, then faith in Jesus Christ is really nothing without the eating of Christ; trusting in Jesus' propitiation, water baptism, and living an incredibly sanctified life all would be for naught if there is no reception of the transubstantiated, Roman Catholic communion. This is a very serious matter! We dare not treat it lightly. I know this is hard for a Catholic to hear (as it was for me at first), but the context of John 6 *in its entirety* does not support a literal interpretation of verse 53. Plain and simple, it doesn't. I suggest that you read the full chapter every day for the next month and meditate upon it each day. Let the written word of God speak to you. As you read, I hope you will ask yourself some questions: 1. If physical ingestion of God the Son is really the key to eternal life, why is this one sentence the only time we read of it in the entire Bible? 2. Why does Jesus say these people followed him across the lake? Are they disciples, or are they hard-hearted skeptics? 3. What is the main point Jesus tries to convince them of? What is the thing Jesus keeps repeating, starting with verse 29? 4. Was Jesus conducting a teaching session on the subject of the Eucharist? (Note: this was a full year before the Last Supper took place.) 5. When Jesus said, "I am bread," was this meant to be literal or was He likening HImself to the O.T. manna? If the former, did Jesus transform Himself into a loaf of baked bread? Isn't "I am bread" the exact opposite of turning bread into flesh? If verse 53 is to be read in a literal sense, shouldn't "I am bread" also be read in a literal sense? 6. Why is verse 63 trivialized by Catholics or even disregarded as irrelevant? Why is it not a key to understanding the meaning of Jesus' most difficult statements?

[@yvannaa.1102]

@@rexlion4510you haven’t understood scriptures . To be honest your interpretation is too emotional . Have a good day .

[@DaveundseineGitarre]

I'm a pentecostal. Walking with Jesus for just five years. Just abandoned sola scriptura and sola fide. The doctrine sola fide makes you anxious and makes you hide your sin or worse, explain it away. Or even worse, it makes you ignorant to the point that you don't even bother obeying Jesus. Been there, done that, basically turning right now. Don't talk the faith, walk the faith. That's the pill to swallow for all my Protestant brothers out there. I'm too scared to hear the words "I never knew you, depart from me", to not put my own efforts into walking like Jesus. The Holy Spirit is a counsellor, but you're the one responsible. That's why it says that those who endure until the end will be saved. And who wins a race but the one who finishes it?

[@thomasjefferson6]

This is a wonderful analysis. When Luther rejected the authority of the pope, he then appealed to a general council and the Church Fathers. However, he soon rejected even that, and would not be persuaded by anything other than his own understanding of Scripture. Ironically, the Lutheran church itself rejected the doctrine of eternal security, although it seems to be a logical deduction from the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Perhaps there is more hope for a Lutheran/Catholic reunion that is popularly believed. If so, Trent will have played a wonderful role in this event.

[@joseortegabeede8233]

we cannot have unity until you guys actually come back to the gospel hehe

[@LloydDeJongh]

THE DISPUTATION CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION, 1536 (Translated by Lewis W. Spitz), INTRODUCTION: Though Luther was not a theological systematizer in the manner of Melanchthon or Calvin, he recognized that all aspects of evangelical theology were related to the one article of faith by which the church stands or falls. That is why he said in the preface to this disputation, “As you have often heard, most excellent brothers, because that one article concerning justification even by itself creates true theologians, therefore it is indispensable in the church and just as we must often recall it, so we must frequently work on it.” Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 34: Career of the Reformer IV, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 34 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 145-147.

[@franciscorafael2582]

Lloyd. I have to say you have an excellent channel. I was wondering if you could provide a link to reference about Luther's approval of lying for convenience. Do you have this in your coffee shop?

[@sotem3608]

Interesting quote!

[@alonzoharris326]

The trinity is three gods.

[@LloydDeJongh]

@@franciscorafael2582 While I do not necessarily trust this author, since he interprets with his particular bias, have a look at : beggarsallreformation. blogspot. com/2013/05/luther-to-lie-in-case-of-necessity-or.html

[@zacharynelson5731]

@@alonzoharris326 "The trinity is three gods." Nope; it's one God.

[@gregorybarrett4998]

Thanks, Trent. Your video provides occasion for people to encounter both material and lines of thought which both might not have occurred to them and can help them revisit meaningful questions. Here is an instance of five talents making five more | one talent making ten, as others go on both to pursue and to share further insights.

[@Emmitt_Summers_3]

My confirmation name was Polycarp. Rare sighting and reference! Thank you. Great perspective as always. My favorite sermon/apology so far!

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

Thank you for helping so many Protestants, Atheists, Muslims and LGBT leave their errors and become Christian ✝️ 🎉

[@A-gor]

Eesh. Protestants aren't Christians?

[@kevinhodges7704]

⁠@@A-goryes and no. They’re close, but ultimately only God knows our hearts, but your fellow man knows your works. Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 236: The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). “Theology” refers to the mystery of God’s inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and “economy” to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oik­onomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God’s works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions. - I. “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, CCC 236

[@jhoughjr1]

@@A-gor I kinda feel protestants are protestors first. They are ignorant of the true church.

[@vdetommaso]

​@@kevinhodges7704 CCC 838, The Church views any protestant with a valid baptism as Christian.

[@Crucian1]

@@kevinhodges7704 Not sure how your reply answers the question - are Protestants Christians or not?

[@llla_german_ewoklll6413]

Awesome video Trent! Please make more early church history videos!

[@zacharyboudreau9127]

By faith alone - the 5 bridesmaids who didn’t bother to fill their lamps so were locked out of the wedding feast. If only they had worked to fill their lamps.

[@viqala9159]

​@@user-cw3ox2nn5tthat's all well and good, but if you're not "prepared and dilligent" as you say, you're LOCKED OUT. How is faith alone enough to get to heaven and nothing cant change it, but then simply not being prepared and dilligent "locks you out"

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

​@@user-cw3ox2nn5tIs there any way to achieve that without works that you can imagine?

[@andys3035]

​@@user-cw3ox2nn5tbut they just believed, so they should be good to go.

[@Obilisk18]

Yes, it obviously teaches the importance of "preparedness" and "watchfulness". But what does preparedness involve? This is where these attempts to elide the clear implications of all the Gospel parables that trend in this direction (the wedding feast and the wedding garments, the faithful and wicked servants, etc)- they have to turn every command into a passive verb. You can't be passively prepared. Preparation involves steps. It's literally in the word- pre (beforehand) and pare (to bring forth). I.e, the Act of bringing forth something before some other something. A prepared watchmen stalks the walls. He doesn't just stand there, staring blankly. But of course, "except the Lord build the city, he labors in vain that builds it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain". And thus is all harmonized. "It is not I who live but Christ who lives within me". For some reason, this obvious harmony is resisted and convoluted theories of clear passages are proffered instead.@@user-cw3ox2nn5t

[@razoredge6130]

Nah. The king invites everyone regardless of how prepared they are.

[@az694]

As a Protestant I really appreciate these kind of videos. Now I will bombard other Protestants with this information to look for refutations / explanations. Well done Trent! All love from a Dutch Reformed Christian!

[@jediv3381]

@az694 *Why don't you do that now? I am a Christian.* you said Now I will bombard other Protestants with this information to look for refutations / explanations.

[@1.3m.7]

@az694 You don’t even understand the meaning of "Protestant “ Common sense . If the law of Moses could not justify you because of your corrupt heart, the law demanded perfection of the commandments. For that reason Jesus came to save. Because if Jesus only came to die for you, then you would have to fulfill the law to be justified by your works, then they would operate together. But if Jesus came to live the perfection of life that you could never fulfill, and came to die for you in your place, so that you would not pay in hell in eternity, what is the reason why God, after justifying you by Faith , now ask you to live a life of obedience to enter heaven? Remember that a sin takes you out of the presence of God just as it did to Adam and Eve. A single sin. And now you think that you are going to achieve perfection of obedience to enter heaven? That is offering God your imperfect sinful life and may God let you pass into glory! That would be the most serious offense to God because Christ is your substitute on the cross. For that reason Paul writes that perfection is through the work of Christ on the cross. That is why Christ had to come. If you do not recognize how detestable our good works are to God, you will never achieve the justification that God in Christ had to pay for. Galatians 2:16 American Standard Version yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. If you do not believe Paul. You have a different Gospel. Galatians 1:6- I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; 7 [b]which is not another gospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should [d]preach unto you any gospel [f]other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. 9 As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.

[@KingPoseidon02]

Bishop Robert Barron also proved that Paul did not teach Faith Alone the way the Protestants argue.

[@adelbertleblanc1846]

Yeah, very true ! and it is comprehensible to everyone when reading the letter to Romans : In this letter SAINT-PAUL criticise the Works to respect the LAW of the OLD alliance, that is become useless since JESUS-CHRIST ! But of course, Saint-Paul, again, defend strongly the Works for the charity and the love of JESUS-CHRIST !

[@stevenwall1964]

Thank you Trent for doing this video. I see some Protestants responding in the comments that Catholics miss the point because good works are just the fruit of salvation; but they don't cause salvation. I am relatively new to religion and by that, I mean I am in my 60's and only came from atheism the last 10 years. I had no background in the Bible at all. I eventually became to believe that it could not have been written by just mere men. And so I believed in the Bible. But reading with no background and with no one telling me what it meant growing up. I don't remotely see that the Bible teaches what some of the Protestant's are responding with, which is the idea that love is the result of salvation and has nothing to do with either receiving initial salvation or with ongoing salvation. I don't see that view anywhere in Scripture that love or good works is just the fruit of salvation that comes from "faith alone." Where does it say that we are saved by Christ's righteousness being imputed to us as an alien righteousness while inside of us we are just "dung" and can never be more than dung? That was Luther's view, but it does not say that anywhere in the Bible. The Bible says that through Christ we can become righteous in ourselves through God's grace. Where does Paul say "Faith alone saves you" and then faith works itself out in love? Paul never says that anywhere. The Bible never says that love is just the "fruit of salvation" but that love is completely meaningless when it comes to salvation. The Bible is clear that one has to "repent" and turn away from sin. That is something you do. You can't say that you are saved by "faith alone" and then say that it is also necessary to repent and turn away from sin. The only reason that one can repent and turn away from sin is because of God's grace working in their soul. And Luther denies that! Paul says the most important thing one can do is to have "faith working through love." That does not say, nor does it mean that "faith alone" saves you and then as the result of being saved one can love. If faith works itself out in love; it is because of God's grace working in the person's soul to transform the believer's character. And if that is what one means that faith works itself out in love then that is exactly the Catholic doctrine and not Luther's doctrine. I cannot find where Luther ever said that love is the result of a person's salvation because of "faith alone." Luther believed that the human soul was like "dung" and could never be repaired or improved. These are Luther's words: "Conceived in sorrow and corruption, the child sins in his mother’s womb. As he grows older, the innate element of corruption develops. Man has said to sin: ‘Thou art my father’-and every act he performs is an offense against God; and to the worms: ‘You are my brothers’-and he crawls like them in mire and corruption. He is a bad tree and CANNOT PRODUCE GOOD FRUITS. Man is a dunghill, and can only exhale foul odors. He is so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it. Man may do his best to be good, still his every action is unavoidably bad; he commits a sin as often as he draws his breath. (Werke, (Wittenberg Edition), Vol. III, p. 518.) This concept that love, is just a result of salvation is more Catholic than Protestant because a person can love because the person's nature is transformed by grace. That is the Catholic doctrine and nothing remotely close to what Luther taught. That is exactly what Luther rejected. Paul directly contradicts Luther's words. Paul states that faith and hope and love are all crucial but the most important is LOVE. Paul says that a man can have ALL FAITH but if he does not have love then he is nothing. The Bible also point-blank asks: If a man has faith but he does not have works can that faith save him? It is a rhetorical question, and the answer is "no." The Bible states at one point Abraham was justified by his faith and at another point he was justified by his works. Rehab was justified by her works and the Bible says nothing about her faith. Jesus said: "If you forgive the sins of others God will forgive you; but if you don't forgive others their sins then God will not forgive you." He doesn't give any way around that statement. If you don't forgive you won't be forgiven. There is no hint that a person would be saved by "faith alone" if he fails to forgive others. Can you possibly read this statement and believe that even if a person failed to obey that passage and took revenge on his enemies that he will be able stand before Christ and express how he really did have "faith alone" and that for some reason he thought the Bible said we are saved by "faith alone?" If I HAVE TO FORGIVE OTHERS in order to be forgiven by God; then that verse alone completely contradicts salvation by "faith alone." At the very least you would have to say that a person is saved by faith and they must forgive others. Forgiving other is "work" that has to be done to be forgiven by God. The Catholic view is that we can forgive others because God's grace change our moral character so that we can. That is the whole point of this video that Protestants just seem to completely ignore. No one in the first 1500 years of Christianity believed what Martin Luther came up with. Trent Horn mentions most of these scholars who make this clear but even Trent misses some of the greatest Church Historians who have confirmed that this doctrine was new with Luther. Protestant Scholar Philip Schaff in extensive 8 Volume History of the Christian Church writes: If anyone expects to find in any of the church fathers, including Augustine himself, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone … will be greatly disappointed. And the church history scholar Alister MacGrath states that the Luther’s view of salvation was a complete “theological novum.” Protestant Scholar Norman Giesler confronts the question of whether Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity could be saved because Luther himself said that if someone does not agree with his (Luther’s) doctrine he cannot be saved! But Giesler has to admit that he does not agree with Luther on this issue because if Luther is right; then almost no one was saved for the first 1500 years of Christianity!!! Giesler writes: “One can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period!” Hartmann Grisar a Lutheran scholar writes: It is not surprising that at a later date Luther hesitated to appeal to St. Augustine in support of his doctrine [of imputed righteousness] … AUGUSTINE AND ALL THE DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH ARE DECIDEDLY AGAINST HIM. For 1500 years there was the view that salvation came by faith and then once a person had faith then the grace of God transformed the person's moral character. But when Luther came along with his new doctrine it changed everything. His view of faith alone and sola scriptura were new doctrines and it fractured a section of Christianity but fortunately the original church survived. Hieko Oberman who is a Protestant Luther historian wrote in his book Luther: Man Between God and the Devil "Application of the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty [Luther] anticipated. It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretations that seem to render ABSURD any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures (Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, 220). Trying to be as objective as I can as someone who did not grow up in faith and just reading the Bible and the history of the Church I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would believe what Luther had to say. He admits that what he believed was different than 1500 years of Christianity. Why would Christ say that he is going to build his church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it" but then let HIS church turn right around and have the wrong doctrine of salvation for 1500 years? How is that not just incoherent? I am not asking that to be belligerent. I am trying to understand. Does it make any sense that Christ would establish a church and then have all of Christianity be in error for 1500 years? And if it was in error for 1500 years then whose version of "faith alone" and "sola scriptura" should one believe? Because Luther's view of "faith alone" and "sola scriptura" was different than Zwingli's view. And both Luther and Zwingli were different than John Calvin's view. And then Menno Simons and John Smyth and a whole host of other's came along and they all had a different twist on "faith alone" and "sola scriptura." If the church was wrong for 1500 years then which of the many versions of "sola fide" and "sola scriptura" should one follow? How would one decide? God bless all of you and hopefully one day we can all be united in one church.

[@ritav89]

Wow, yours is a fresh, mature, well-studied view. I appreciated it.

[@daliborbenes5025]

Sounds like you misinterpret Luther. I fully agree Sola Scriptura absolutely divides Protestants and Catholics. However, Luther's quote does not comment on the state of a faithful person. It is a comment against Pelagianism. Luther would absolutely agree that faith given by God's grace starts the regeneration and transformation of the human heart and the moral character. In every single historical Protestant tradition, faith is fiduciary - it includes trust and obedience. Now Luther does teach that the sinful "old Adam" still remains in the regenerate man. It can be said that without faith in Christ, every sin is "mortal". However, once we have faith but fail due to this remnant of our damaged nature, it is merely a venial sin. This is why Luther uses the phrase that we are just "snow-covered dunghills". Not because there is no transformation going on, but because our remaining imperfections are forgiven through our union with Christ. Our union with Christ is attained by faith, and includes obedience, good works, etc. To actively reject good works means to reject this union, and the "faith" is no longer a union with Christ, but a mere mental assent, a "faith of the deamons", as St. James puts it. A cursory glance at some Lutheran doctrinal documents proves, that while Lutheran language concerning justification is different, and perhaps irreconciable with the Catholic doctrine, it is certainly not antinomian, nor does it claim there is no transformational element in Salvation. I recommend reading through the Augsburg confession article XX. Now this does not mean you have to agree Luther is correct on Sola Fide, but if you paint him as a raging maniac who thought you can live in unrepentant sin and be saved only by mental assent, you deeply misrepresent him.

[@stevenwall1964]

​@@daliborbenes5025 Did I say anywhere in my response that Luther was a raging maniac who thought you can live in unrepentant sin and be saved only by mental assent? I did not say anything like that. I gave you some Bible verses that the early Fathers point to so as to show that one is not saved by faith alone and I asked you to respond to them which you did not. Here they are again if you would like to respond to any of them and explain why they don't contradict the idea that one is saved by "faith alone" and that ones actions have nothing to do with their salvation. 1 Corinthians 13:13 - Paul directly contradicts Luther's words. Paul states that faith and hope and love are all crucial but the most important is LOVE. If Paul lists "faith" and "love" as crucial but he states the most important is "love" then how can one say that "faith alone" is what saves a person, and that love has nothing to do with salvation. And if loving God and loving neighbor do have something to do with salvation then one is not saved by "faith alone." Love is important and that is why Christians including Protestants can say that even non Christians can be saved because even if they don't know about Christ, if they choose to believe in God and have charity at heart for their fellow humans they could still be saved. And if that is the case then that seems to show that love is most important. And that would make sense because that is exactly what Paul states. What would you say about this verse? 1 Corinthians 13:2 Paul says that a man can have ALL FAITH but if he does not have love then he is nothing. So if a person has "all faith" that is a lot of faith. But if a person has all faith in Christ but he doesn't have love along with it then he is not saved by "faith alone" because Paul says he can have "all faith" and not be saved because he has no love. The term "all faith" would have to encompass "faith alone" and Paul says that will not save a person. The Bible also point-blank asks: If a man has faith but he does not have works can that faith save him? James 1:22 It is a rhetorical question, and the answer is "no." So if the man has faith but does not have the works of love and cannot be saved because he has "faith" then how can anyone say a person is saved by "faith alone." In James the Bible states at one point Abraham was justified by his faith and at another point he was justified by his works. So if Abraham was justified by faith in one passage and if he was justified by works in another passage then how can one believe that Abraham was saved by "faith alone" through his whole life? It would be wrong to say he is justified by works alone because the Bible also says he was justified by faith. It is not one or the other. The Bible says it was both. In James Rehab was justified by her works and the Bible says nothing about her faith. We can probably assume that Rehab had faith but if she was justified by her works then she is obviously not saved by faith alone. So what would say about this passage? Jesus said in Matthew 6:15 "If you forgive the sins of others God will forgive you; but if you don't forgive others their sins then God will not forgive you." This is a point blank refutation of salvation by "faith alone." If you don't forgive you won't be forgiven. There is no hint that a person would be saved by "faith alone" if he fails to forgive others. This verse says that we have to forgive others or we will not be forgiven. From this one verse alone we know that we absolutely have to do something besides have "faith alone" to be saved; we also at least have to forgive others. So how can that not contradict the claim that justification comes from faith alone and nothing else that one does matters as far as salvation goes? This verse literally says that one is will not be saved if they don't forgive. So no matter what kind of faith they had they would not be justified if they do not forgive. What would you say about this verse? Here is another passage that I did not mention before. But it clearly contradicts the idea that a person can be justified by "faith alone." Jesus says that a person can be justified by his "words." I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:36 If I can be justified by my words and condemned by my words then obviously I cannot say that I am justified by faith alone. This passage says that I can be justified by my words and thus that would exclude saying that a person can only be justified by faith alone and nothing else because Jesus literally says that one can be justified by his words. What would say about this verse? I never said Luther believed one should live an unrepentant sinful life but I told you that he believed that that is almost anyone can do by default and I gave you his own words so it would be great if you could respond to them. These are Luther's words. He did not believe that human deeds could even possibly be good. Even when a person does good things Luther says it is still sin in the eyes of God. These are his words: "Conceived in sorrow and corruption, the child sins in his mother’s womb. As he grows older, the innate element of corruption develops. Man has said to sin: ‘Thou art my father’-and every act he performs is an offense against God; and to the worms: ‘You are my brothers’-and he crawls like them in mire and corruption. He is a bad tree and CANNOT PRODUCE GOOD FRUITS. Man is a dunghill, and can only exhale foul odors. He is so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it. Man may do his best to be good, still his every action is unavoidably bad; he commits a sin as often as he draws his breath." So Luther never said what you for some reason wanted to accuse me of saying; but Luther did say that it just does not matter what a person does. Everything he does is sin. Even when a person does what seems good Luther said it was sin. My second question was how can Protestants feel comfortable that no one in the first 1500 years of Christianity ever believed what Luther came up with. You pointed me to the Augsburg Confession XX and this is one statement that it makes which has irrefutably been proven to be false: "12 And lest anyone should craftily say that a new interpretation of Paul has been devised by us, this entire matter is supported by the testimonies of the Fathers. For 13 Augustine, in many volumes, defends grace and the righteousness of faith, over against the merits of works." This statement has been proven false over and over again by Protestant scholars. Augustine wrote a Treatise on it called "Faith and Works." These are Augustine's own words which contradict the Augsburg Confession: "Let us now consider the question of faith. In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the FALSE ASSIRRANCE THAT FAITH ALONE is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved... When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law [Rom. 3:28]. he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before BUT AFTER JUSTIFICATION. Peter, John, James, and Jude, write against it [faith alone] in their epistles and assert very strongly that faith is no good without works. [….] St. Paul has the same mind on the question of eternal salvation as have all the other apostles, namely, that eternal salvation will not be given except to those who lead a good life. Augustine's own words show that: Augustine believed (as the Catholic Church does today) that initial justification is by faith alone, but that good works are required for salvation after this; Augustine believed that these good works were meritorious; Augustine very explicitly rejected the idea of salvation by faith alone; Augustine believed that this heresy was around in the time of the Apostles, and that big portions of the New Testament were written rebutting it; Augustine believes that it’s possible to have faith and not love, and that such a faith is unsaving (in other words, he rejects the modern Protestant idea that if you have faith, you’ll just “naturally” have the theological virtue of charity, or “automatically” do good works). I also quoted to you Protestant scholars who admit that Luther's view was a new view in all of history. Norm Geisler, Alister MacGrath, Philip Schaff, Hartmann Grisar and Heiko Obermann are all scholars who admit that Luther's view had never been taught before. NT Wright and EP Sanders are other scholars who have also gone to great lengths to show the same thing. Even in Luther's own words he admits that his view is new to history. Luther's own words contradict the Augsburg Confession; Luther wrote: “Although good and holy, he [Augustine] was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as the other fathers.” (Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church paragraph 85, page 535 from the work "da war es mit ihm). So I don't want to be belligerent I am just trying to understand Protestantism. So it would be great if anyone would just answer my direct questions. Do you feel comfortable knowing that no one in history ever believed in Luther's view of justification by imputed righteousness for the first 1500 years?

[@Darth_Vader258]

​@@stevenwall1964The Biblical Way of Salvation is this. We are SAVED by Grace Alone through Faith that is WORKING through Love.

[@zacharynelson5731]

@@Darth_Vader258 "The Biblical Way of Salvation is this. We are SAVED by Grace Alone through Faith that is WORKING through Love." Ephesians 2 states otherwise. Given that protestant "bible believing pastors" have told me to my face that direct, word for word quotations from scripture are "unbliblical" I'm guessing you believe that "biblical teachings" mean things in direct contradiction to the word of scripture.

[@justfromcatholic]

The phrase "article of faith by which the church stands or fall" appears in the Introduction of The Disputation Concerning Justification, written by Luther in 1536 and translated by Dr. Lewis William Spitz (emphasis in capital is mine). Though Luther was not a theological systematizer in the manner of Melanchthon or Calvin, he recognized that ALL ASPECTS OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY WERE RELATED TO THE ONE ARTICLE OF FAITH BY WHICH THE CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS. That is why he said in the preface to this disputation, “As you have often heard, most excellent brothers, because that one article concerning justification even by itself creates true theologians, therefore it is indispensable in the church and just as we must often recall it, so we must frequently work on it.” Introduction to the Dispute Concerning Justification, 1536, Luther’s Works, Vol. 34, page 147 Dr. Lewis William Spitz (1922 - 1999) was William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of History (Emeritus) at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.

[@BlastToTheRescue]

You should make a video about the Sabbath and the early Christians.

[@luissalazar6960]

I think there is confusion between what you celebrate on Saturday and Sunday. Both are two different celebrations. On Sunday you celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, the new creation while in Saturday you celebrate the Day of Rest.

[@johnosumba1980]

@@luissalazar6960we also celebrate our creation, we were made new creation through resurrection.

[@luissalazar6960]

@@johnosumba1980that celebration is on Sunday not on Saturday.

[@johnosumba1980]

@@luissalazar6960 yes hence we have to celebrate our creation.

[@timmcvicker5775]

As for me, I'll take the word of God. Scripture teaches over and over again that we are saved by God's grace, which we receive through our faith.

[@IAmisMaster]

Trent is absolutely right. Some Protestants try to smuggle it in by equivocating the meaning of “faith alone.” In the Protestant definition, faith alone means Christian’s final salvation is not dependent on their good or bad works after being born again. There is no evidence any Christian believed that before Luther. In fact, not even all Protestants believe “faith alone.” Matthew Bates, Norman Shepherd, most people in the New Perspectives on Paul movement. Once you realize Paul was only confemning justification by works of the Law of Moses, it’s all over for the false faith alone doctrine.

[@JD-xz1mx]

"There is no evidence any Christian believed that before Luther." Begging the question. You're measuring Sola Fide by pre-supposing that Sola Scriptura is wrong. If Sola Scriptura is right, it doesn't matter one way or the other what any particular person in the early church personally believed, they were not the word of the Triune God. You have to establish that Sola Scriptura is wrong before you can use this metric to judge Sola Fide. Even then, stating there isn't evidence that anyone believed this is not the same thing as there not having been anyone that believed this. " Once you realize Paul was only confemning justification by works of the Law of Moses, it’s all over for the false faith alone doctrine." This is embarrassingly hypocritical. Just as there's no evidence that early Christians believed in Sola Fide, there is also no evidence that Paul was referring exclusively to works under the Law of Moses. So which is it? Do we get to claim what we think is a best faith interpretation of a dead man's words or don't we?

[@BendyBeam]

@@JD-xz1mx Sola scriptura presupposes a correct cannon on scripture, which cannot be justified by the Bible alone. It is an internally inconsistent and self refuting doctrine. There is no inspired table of contents. How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? What criteria do you use to determine which book belongs in the Bible and which don’t? These are issues SS cannot answer without referring to something outside the Bible.

[@IAmisMaster]

@@JD-xz1mx The only one pre-supposing things is you. Why in the world would you assume I I was pre-supposing Sola Scriptura is false? I believe in Sola Scriptura. I’m not Roman Catholic. I believe “faith alone” is refuted by just reading the Bible in context. I also believe the true fact that there is no evidence anyone believed sola fide before Luther, and I was including Paul. Paul wrote gems like Romans 2:4-16 and Galatians 6:7-10, so he plainly did not believe sola fide. There’s a mountain of evidence Paul was only talking about not being justified by works of the Law of Moses, given that’s his express context in Galatians 1-4, Romans 2-7, Ephesians 2, etc, as well as what Origen, Chrysostom, and all the oldest Greek speakers who interpreted those passages thought he was saying. The one who has no evidence is you, the Protestant who clings to his doctrine of men over Scripture which no one believed before Luther.

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

​@JD-xz1mx I would have serious doubts about the authenticity of the Bible and Christianity if I was told to believe that a random, normie priest inside a system that was supposed to be faithfully transmitting the gospel taught the wrong thing for its entire history - from the church fathers, Aquinas, etc - until that random monk finally discovered the "real" Christianity hidden in scripture for 1600 years. Its the same "great apostasy" argument that Muslims use. The idea that basic historical Christianity is totally wrong and we would know it better than the church fathers and the apostles is madness. 400 years later, people are "discovering" new doctrines and obsoleting others all the time based on hidden messages in Paul that Luther was too dumb to see right there!

[@dankmartin6510]

We are told in Thessalonians to adhere to what was written and what was taught by the tongue (the liturgy) - so no Sola Scriptura is wrong and is refuted by the Bible itself. @@JD-xz1mx

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🕊️ *The video examines historical evidence for the central Protestant doctrine of "Sola Fide" (justification by faith alone).* 01:22 📜 *"Sola Fide" asserts that a sinner is justified by faith alone, with works being an effect, not a cause. Christ's righteousness is credited to the believer, not based on changes in the believer's soul.* 02:06 🤔 *The video questions whether the early Church Fathers, writing in the first two centuries, taught "Sola Fide" given its crucial importance in Protestantism.* 03:16 🧐 *Some Protestants argue that the early Church Fathers focused on other doctrinal issues, but the video challenges this claim, emphasizing the importance of salvation in early Christian discussions.* 04:33 🕊️ *Clarifies the Catholic view, stating that while initial justification is by faith, works play a role in ongoing justification. Faith alone doesn't determine salvation in Catholic theology.* 08:03 📚 *Some Protestant scholars acknowledge a lack of explicit support for "Sola Fide" in the early Church Fathers' writings, pointing to a perceived underdeveloped understanding of Gospel truths.* 13:17 📜 *Examining 1 Clement, often cited by Protestants, reveals a nuanced perspective. While it mentions justification by faith, it also emphasizes the role of works in maintaining justification.* 16:42 🍞 *Ignatius of Antioch's writings suggest salvation involves actions like obeying the bishop and partaking in the Eucharist, challenging the idea of salvation by faith alone.* 18:30 📜 *Polycarp's citation of Ephesians 2:8-9 is often used to support "Sola Fide," but the context reveals agreement with Catholic theology: initial justification is by grace, but ongoing justification involves works.* 21:11 🤖 *Justin Martyr's writings, while mentioning faith, don't support "Sola Fide." He emphasizes actions and moral conduct as determinants of salvation, unlike the Protestant doctrine.* 22:21 📜 *Irenaeus rejects justification by the law alone, advocating for a synergistic understanding. He sees faith empowering believers to perform works that contribute to their justification.* 24:48 🔄 *The Epistle of Diognetus is often cited by Protestants, but its emphasis on the righteousness of Christ covering sins aligns more with transformative justification than "Sola Fide."* 25:15 🔄 *The Protestant concept of imputed righteousness, known as "The Great Exchange," involves Christ taking on our sins and us receiving His righteousness through faith alone.* 26:12 🔄 *The Catholic perspective, as per the catechism, emphasizes that Jesus did not experience reprobation for sin but, in love, assumed us in our waywardness, offering himself as a sacrifice to the Father.* 28:40 🔄 *The Epistle of Diognetus, often cited for imputed righteousness, is argued by scholars like Brandon Crow to represent a broader concept-the "sweet exchange" points to the entirety of the Son's life given for unrighteous sinners.* 29:48 🔄 *The emphasis in Diognetus is on believers being made able to enter the Kingdom of God, suggesting a transformative righteousness, challenging the notion of a purely forensic justification.* 31:10 🔄 *Scholars like Michael Bird and Kren Maus note that Diognetus lacks explicit language on imputed righteousness, union with Christ, or representative obedience, challenging the assumption of a forensic perspective.* 32:49 🔄 *Drawing on Jesus's parable of the unmerciful servant, the transformative aspect of grace is highlighted, emphasizing that the gift of forgiveness is meant to bring about a change in the recipient's life.* 33:42 🔄 *The Epistle of Diognetus is seen as an illustration of the inconceivable gift of grace, making it possible for humanity, empowered by Christ, to enter God's kingdom through a transformative exchange.*

[@JW_______]

I think the key to understanding sola fide is that the meaning of the word "faith" has come to be understood differently over time. Properly understood, "faith" doeen't mean just belief, and thus sola fide doesn't mean just belief either. Faith means trust in Christ and his commands - thus a commitment to following Christ that leads to repentance and action. The reformers understood this. What they wanted to cut out by declaring sola fide was the late medieval theology of legalistic merit whereby penance could be measured and forgiveness of sins could be given a pricetag. It's clear that the Roman church had fallen into promulgating merit-based salvation prior to the reformation.

[@luissalazar6960]

I think you do not understand. The penance is not for your forgiveness is for repairing what you broken. Example: a car crash where you are responsible. The judge do not send you to jail, he forgive your mistake but still you need to pay for the car repair of the other person. If you steal something, you need to return what you steal, not only repent.

[@HyraxusPrimus]

​@@luissalazar6960Except no one can afford to pay the penalty for sin if the penalty for sin (no matter what it is) is death, hence why the whole point of Jesus dying (in our place) is to pay for our sins. Any good works we do are "filthy rags," they can't cover anything up or cover the expenses of our sin.

[@luissalazar6960]

@@HyraxusPrimus Jesus pay the penalty for your sin but still you need to repair. If you broken a window, you need to buy a new window, if you steal, you need to return. Jesus is very clear in this point.

[@lanetrain]

@@luissalazar6960let's take another example. You are rude to a stranger on the street, one who you don't know where to find and will likely never see again. Your priest gives you five Hail Mary's as penance. When does Jesus require the performance of a task, even prayer, when He gives His forgiveness? He never says "Do this and then you will be forgiven". He says "Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well."

[@luissalazar6960]

@@lanetrain as I told you before, the five Hail Mary's is your repair for what you do to the stranger, because probably you will not find the stranger again to say sorry and that repair it is after you have received forgiveness from God. Remember when Jesus visit Zacchaeus. He promised to return what he had stolen. It is not be correct that you after receiving forgiveness, you do not asume your responsibility of what you did. If you kill somebody, Jesus will forgive you, if you repent, at the same time you need to take care of the child of the person whom you killed, that is the repair.

[@not_milk]

Catholics and Lutherans should agree on justification at this point anyway. Ever since the JDDJ. It’s not really a catholic vs Protestant argument. That will just pit us against each other. It’s better to try and get people on the same page and finally get definitions on salvation as something we all can agree on in every tradition.

[@MRAGFT7]

Please e more of this! ❤ So good

[@jennyohanlon5380]

Love these sola videos. They are so helpful❤❤❤

[@harrygarris6921]

Those claiming salvation by faith alone need to go back and read Deuteronomy chapter 30 and see how God describes to Israel what saving faithfulness looks like. Because St. Paul pulls heavily from Deuteronomy 30 in Romans 10 when he is teaching the Roman Christians salvation by faith. I would question how someone can understand St. Paul if they ignore the source material that he is using for his teaching.

[@JD-xz1mx]

You're merely advertising that you don't know what Sola Fide is or what Protestants believe. I am consistently shocked by the devastating ignorance of Catholics about Protestants. Absolutely nothing in Deuteronomy 30 contradicts anything than any mainline Protestant denomination believes or preaches. Nobody, nobody anywhere claims that a true faith in Christ will not naturally result in works, or that works are not obligatory. They merely claim that it is not the works that get you into heaven, but the faith that created the works that get you into heaven. A fire lends itself towards cooking wonderful foods. Its only natural that having a good fire leads to having a good cooking surface. That does not mean that it is the food that you cook that keeps you warm at night. That is the distinction being drawn, the distinction between the fire itself and the product of the fire.

[@sonnyjim5268]

One doesn't need to read the early church fathers, just read the Gospels and count the number of times Jesus commands us to do good work, i.e. John 14:15

[@Nonz.M]

I encourage you to look into Lutheranism. Lutheranism is the Christianity expressed in the Bible and attested to by the early church fathers. Don't make the mistake of lumping Lutherans in with all the other Protestants, because we are quite different. Everything Lutherans believe is found in the early church fathers. The Roman church, on the other, cannot say the same, which is why we consider ourselves to be the True Catholic Church. With regards to this topic of justification, there are simply no scriptures nor patristic writings that speak of justification being divided into initial justification and ongoing justification. Most of the quotes Trent brought up that supposedly "debunk" Sola Fide don't even mention justification, but just show the importance and necessity of good works in the life of the believer, which Lutherans believe. The necessity of good works does not negate that we are justified by faith alone. There are numerous verses in the Bible that describe that justification is apart from works. Of course, Rome will say that these are just works of the Old Testament law, not works of New Testament law that Christians are to follow. The thing is, much, if not all, of the new testament law is found in the old. Christ did not abolish old testament law, but fulfilled it. By adhering to the new testament law, we are following the old testament law. On top of that, there are other verses that are clear that works of any kind do not save/justify. ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:8‭-‬9‬ "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." This verse makes it clear that no work, whether of the old covenant law or the new covenant law, saves you, else you could boast that you earned your salvation, because salvation is not from yourself, but a gift. So it is incompatible with scripture to say that salvation is the reward for your good works as Trent stated in this video. Sola Fide is scriptural and is certainly taught by the early church fathers: “To this end has His Grace and Goodness been formed upon us in Christ Jesus, that being dead according to works, redeemed through faith and saved by grace, we might receive the gift of this great deliverance.” - St. Ambrose (Letter 73) “Human beings can be saved from the ancient wound of the serpent in no other way than by believing in him who, when he was raised up from the earth on the tree of martyrdom in the likeness of sinful flesh, drew all things to himself and gave life to the dead.” - St. Irenaeus (Against the Heresies) "Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ." - St. Basil the Great (Homily on Humility) “Here he shows God's power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” - St. John Chrysostom (Homily 7 on Romans) “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” - St. Clement of Rome (First Epistle) “If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain. If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath- in a word, from punishment- except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ.” - St. Augustine (On Nature and Grace) "Christ prayed for His persecutors, because they knew not what they did. He promised Paradise from the cross, because He is God the King. He rejoiced upon the cross, that all was finished when He drank the vinegar, because He had fulfilled all prophecy before He died. He was born for us, suffered for us, died for us, rose again for us. This alone is necessary for our salvation, to confess the Son of God risen from the dead." - St. Hilary of Poitier (On the Trinity)

[@dankmartin6510]

Martin Luther tried to remove the epistle of James from the Bible - all his fruit are rotten. @@Nonz.M

[@zacharynelson5731]

@@Nonz.M If “everything in Lutheranism is expressed in the Bible” Purgatory is in the Bible. Lutherans deny purgatory. Therefore Lutheranism is not in line with the Bible.

[@zacharynelson5731]

@@Nonz.M Your claim that “faith alone is scriptural” is discredited by your use of Ephesians 2:8-9. Because you, like literally every Protestant is lying by omission when you refuse to include 2:10 in that quote, which is part of the same sentence that Paul is using.

[@zacharynelson5731]

@@Nonz.M It’s very clear that you didn’t watch the video by Trent. Faith alone was not taught in the early church.

[@rogofe0964]

How about these verses? Romans 11:6 [6]And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. 2 Timothy 1:9 [9]He has saved us and called us to a holy life-not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, Titus 3:5 [5]he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

[@cronmaker2]

All of that is compatible with RCism and a non sola fidean view. As council of Trent stated "when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace."

[@Josleyn9616]

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[@cesarerinaldi6750]

Paul met the Greeks, even before teaching them the Faith, he said that they had Justice. What characterizes the Blessed are the Cardinal Virtues, and what characterizes the Saints are the Theological Virtues.

[@atlantean.prince]

Commenting because Trent is the 🐐

[@AlcuinOfYork-lp1pq]

If some wants to understand Lutheran theology please read the book of concord. Luther's small catechism, the Augsburg confession, etc. Catholics love to mention Luther but never challenge his work directly.

[@Sayu277]

This!

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

That’s because they can’t deal with it.

[@johnsmiff9649]

@@Thatoneguy-pu8tythey can and do. Know them by their fruits, the RCC evangelized the entire world, what has Lutheranism done except produce the thirty years war and nut jobs like Stone Choir

[@NikasInParis_777]

You should do a Catholic defense from Orthodoxy

[@Burberryharry]

I have a hard time understanding how RCs read romans and Galatians. It would be cool Trent if you did a video series explaining some of that stuff.

[@darrellperez1029]

Which passages?

[@Matt-1926]

From my understanding when we read Paul we need to read him with the understanding that he was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Therefore, in his writings we need to read it through the lens of the difference between the old covenant Mosaic law of the Jews and the New Covenant in Christ. Basically, like we read in Acts 15 about Paul having troubles with the Judaizers and having to go up to the council for a decision to be made whether or not Gentiles had to first follow the Mosaic laws (circumcision) prior to becoming a Christian. The council said no Gentiles do not have to follow the Mosaic law first. So basically whenever we read Paul speaking of works, the majority of the time we should read this as him pointing to works of the Mosaic law, not that he is speaking of any works (like good works) in general. Hope this helps, God Bless

[@bman5257]

Works of the Law doesn’t mean all good works. The law is the Torah. Nomos same word in Greek for Torah and Law. I really don’t understand how Protestants read Romans: “For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: 7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honour and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. 12 All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.” Romans 2:6-16

[@darrellperez1029]

@@bman5257 good works and works of the law are different.

[@bman5257]

@@darrellperez1029 I agree.

[@DavoBenjamin]

14:17 is substantiated in Luke 12 verse 48 ".... For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required:..."

[@adammatemba1207]

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. This verse summarizes the true Gospel, Jesus Christ in us is out hope, sola fide is the true Gospel, dont let anyone deceive you, out salvation is in Jesus Christ alone

[@christineczyryca5820]

True, but that's not all there is to it.

[@adelbertleblanc1846]

Protestants says: "Sola Fide". But the Scriptures themselves says: "Faith, Hope and Charity”

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I like your comments. Something for me to ponder as I struggle with the concept of faith in God. God bless...

[@jonathanw1106]

Where

[@gk3292]

@@jonathanw1106…1 Cor 13:13 😉

[@jonathanw1106]

@gk3292 that says nothing about whether faith alone saves, and it says nothing about charity either its love in the agape sense, and it also says nothing about works. So it has nothing to do with Sola fide...

[@adelbertleblanc1846]

@@jonathanw1106 So, dear friend, remain in your "sola fide" ! - Have a nice day !

[@liamdoyle2828]

So glad it's in the New Testament everywhere. This is why we measure everything by the Scriptures and not the Scriptures by commentaries. To deny salvation by faith alone is to preach a Gospel contrary to what the New Testament church preached - and that would then mean those preaching the false gospel are to be accursed. Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

[@LHWakefield]

You’re making a commentary right now…

[@liamdoyle2828]

@@LHWakefield that's a direct quote from Galatians...

[@LHWakefield]

@@liamdoyle2828 Galatians doesn’t say, “To deny salvation by faith alone is to preach a Gospel contrary to what the New Testament church preached.” You’re making a commentary to say that’s what it’s saying.

[@liamdoyle2828]

@@LHWakefield nah, it is anathema to preach salvation by works. Galatians 2:15-16, Paul says, “We ourselves . . . who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.”

[@LHWakefield]

@@liamdoyle2828 Now you’re making a commentary saying that “works of the law,” must be referring to any and all good works. Catholic commentaries (and some Protestant commentaries like those of N.T. Wright) state that the “works of the law” is referring to the old covenant of the Jews. Read just a few verses before that. Paul refers to circumcision, the sign of the old covenant. I’m not trying to trap you. I’m just pointing out that either way, you can’t just declare the meaning is plain. Interpretation or “commentary” is an unavoidable step.

[@scottmaag7650]

Robert Sungenis has a great book on this called Not by Faith Alone.

[@the_simone]

Thanks for the video. I'd love to see a part two of it about later Church fathers. I'm especially interested in your thoughts on St Ambrose, since, according to Dr. Cooper, he does teach something similar to sola fide.

[@atobpe]

You cannot just gloss over the Clement quote at 11:10. Clement clearly stated that we are not saved by "... works which we have wrought in holiness of heart..." This statement by Clement is clearly in line with what the Reformers (i.e., Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc.) taught. The fact that Clement later exhorts his readers to avoid sin does not change what he stated in the quote. In fact, Protestant theology also exhorts believers to abstain from sin. Clement's quote at 11:10 is also consistent with Paul's statement in Romans 4 (especially verse 3) which quotes Genesis 15:6 - that is, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." What does that mean if it does not teach salvation by faith (alone)?

[@cronmaker2]

The context of your citation is "All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will." Note the contrast of "operation of His will" vs natural powers. (Good works in RCism and the ecfs are certainly operations of His will). "And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart;" 'we too' continuing the idea. 'His will' vs 'ourselves' which is the umbrella for the subsequent items, continuing the idea. Clement is affirming anti-Pelagianism, not Protestant Sola fide or a denial of justification as infused righteousness. As 2 well-regarded Protestant scholars note analyzing Clement, "The fundamental idea at the back of the words dikaiosunē, dikaioumai seems to be the moral qualification which avails before God conceived as a quality of the soul. That is achieved by faith which is fear of God working itself out in obedience. And so Clement can say that we are “justified by works, not by words” ergois dikaioumenoi, mē logois, and insists that we are not justified by pistis alone but by pistis and eusebeia, by pistis and philozenia, by pistis and alētheia." (Thomas Torrance) “It is obvious that in asserting justification by faith Clement was simply reproducing Paul’s idea without appreciating what it involved, and that he really agreed with the other Christians of his day that salvation is to be had only by obeying God and his will. That the early Christians should have departed from Paul in this matter is not surprising at all." (Arthur Cushman McGiffert). Of course he didn’t actually depart from Paul but that shows Protestant scholars recognize he was not anticipating extra nos forensic justification.

[@atobpe]

@@cronmaker2 What do you make, then, of the fact that God reckoned Abraham's belief (faith) as righteousness? Genesis 15:6 confirms that Abraham was reckoned as righteous.in God's eyes based on his faith (or belief). In other words, Abraham was justified by faith. This occurred before Abraham was circumcised and before the Law of Moses.

[@cronmaker2]

@@atobpe RCism has no problem saying justification is by faith. Read Trents full session on justification or the Joint Declaration. And gen 15 is not the full story of Abraham's justification, gen 12 and gen 22 also speak to his justification as Hebrews/James notes, showing justification is a process with an initial (where works are no factor) and ongoing (where works come into play) component to it, as Horn noted in video.

[@atobpe]

@@cronmaker2 You admit, then, that justification is by faith. You include nothing with that faith? If you have no problem saying "justification is by faith", then why do you have an issue with adding the word "alone?" If God reckons us to be righteous based on faith (alone), why do we need anything else? Abraham's works subsequent to his faith did not contribute to his salvation, but rather demonstrated it. As Paul states in Romans 4:4-5, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness."

[@cronmaker2]

@@atobpe because we have to define what is meant by faith. Is it merely intellectual belief? Is it a virtue and inherent quality of the soul? Is it merely an "empty hand" and extrinsic instrument? Is it something that must be enlivened by charity? This is why you get Protestant luminaries throughout history qualifying "faith alone" in numerous ways, e.g. we're justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone, or works are a means to attain/possess salvation, but not acquire the right to it, or sanctification/works are not necessary for justification but are for salvation. It all becomes very tiresome and tedious when they qualify that way then turn around and accuse RCism of being judaizers or gospel deniers. RCs can affirm faith alone (Pope Benedict did, so did Aquinas and church fathers - that doesn't mean Protestant Sola fide, Trent condemned a particular formulation of SF, not the concept in toto).

[@hope4all69]

Paul is pretty clear on this topic. I ask myself why are you denying this? I guess I have the answer. All the teachings and the authority of the churchfathers and of the church would be put into question. There is no place anylonger for the pope and the authority of the church to rule over the believers. If "FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST" is placed in the hands of the believers than all power and authority of the church leaders is taken instantly away! "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 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." Galatians 2, 15 + 16

[@adelbertleblanc1846]

Yes indeed the writings of SAINT PAL are wery clear ! Thank You for your comment. God bless You and yours !

[@jediv9910]

​ @MrKev1664 *Roman religion teaches "submit to Roman pope to be saved". Do you follow that? Is it biblical?*

[@christineczyryca5820]

In faith and morals, yes we obey, but not in mere opinion necessarily. And yes it is biblical. He 13:17, Mt 18: 17-18

[@jediv9910]

​@@christineczyryca5820 *Misquoting Scriptures does not help you. Nowhere those verses say "submit to Roman popes to be saved". You are just demonstrating Roman religion is man made again.* you said In faith and morals, yes we obey, but not in mere opinion necessarily. And yes it is biblical. He 13:17, Mt 18: 17-18

[@sigurdholbarki8268]

​@@jediv9910you need to stop doing that, I see enough of that from atheists and pagans without seeing Christians do it to each other. You set a bar for "evidence" knowing full well it could not be met, rather than having a good faith discussion on the meaning behind the words. As a Briton I get very annoyed when I see arguments about the US constitution between the Textualists and the Originalists. The Textualists make all their arguments based on what words in the Constitution mean now (or can be made to mean now), whilst the Originals interpret it based on what the original intended meaning was, using historical and linguistic context. The spirit of the Law, rather than the letter of the law, is what is important, as Christ argued many times. Now, imagine rather than talking about a document that was written in our own culture and language over 200 years ago, we are talking about several documents written in a now dead language in and for a culture 2000 years ago. The KJB was translated 400 years ago for an audience with a very different culture to our own and against a backdrop of religious and political strife. Even secular documents can be misunderstood if they're read at face value by a modern reader. And when we talk about modern translations show me one that is not coloured by the last 400 years of history, especially when even Christians are influenced by our post enlightenment materialist culture. That is why Tradition and Reason are so important when interpreting scripture. And let the record show, I am an Anglican, not a Roman Catholic.

[@J-PLeigh8409]

Its so bizarre, the more I look into church history the more Catholic teaching & practice I find...its almost as the early Church was...Catholic

[@rexlion4510]

Yes, they went off the rails rather quickly in some ways. That is why it's best to make the Bible your primary authority; it is the Spirit-inspired word of God. Early fathers' writings were the product of fallible human beings and cannot be considered inspired *in the way that the Bible was inspired.* 2Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." That is why Anglicans say, "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." (Article of Religion #6) Jesus promised eternal life to every one who believes (trusts) in Him as Savior. He paid our debt of sin in full on the cross, and there is now no more sacrifice for sin. No self-sacrifice of good works can justify us; in fact, if we try to merit God's saving grace for ourselves, we are acting selfishly and our 'good works' will be burned in the fire at Christ's judgment.

[@timothypeterson4781]

It... Really wasn't if you compare their practices to modern Rome.

[@J-PLeigh8409]

@@timothypeterson4781 well.... it really was if you compare to every Christian denomination, even today Catholicism & the Apostolic Churches are closer than any Protest Church, but mainly Catholicism since the office of Supreme Bishop(Papacy) is upheld. There has been doctrine that developed & the landscape for the Church & society has vastly changed, but we can take explicit practice & teachings via the church Fathers, Councils, holy Tradition & sacred Scripture, compared thru church history to today & see for ourselves. Just take the sacraments ie; the Eucharist, Baptism, Marriage, Penance- "Contrition, Confession Reconciliation," Annointing the sick....the divine liturgy, the Papacy, faith of charity esp to the poor, orphans & widows, communion of saints, etc. No matter what, the Catholic Church was the early Church & the Schism & Protest have just caused problems & separation of the brethren when were supposed to be of one accord, be one as our Lord & God are One per Christ in John 17

[@zacharynelson5731]

@@timothypeterson4781 I compared early church practices to the Catholic church today. I see no material difference.

[@timothypeterson4781]

@@zacharynelson5731 Ok then.

[@dylanschweitzer18]

I'm reading the book, "Salvation" by Michael barber, via Trent's recommendation. This video is a great help to this study. 🎉

[@glennshrom5801]

The Epistle passage that pops up at 29:00 sounds a lot like the book of Romans. Like the Book of Romans, it may be speaking of the historical dilemma for Gentiles who did not have YHWH, the historical dilemma for Jews who could not keep the law, and how historically the Messiah came to open the way for both Jews and Gentiles to have our sins cleansed so that we could become the people of God, imitators of our heavenly Father, worthy of bearing His name, and without our former wickedness keeping us distant from God. The wrath was removed, and Christ allows us all to come near to the One Creator God, forsaking the former idols, and being welcomed/accepted as heirs of the Kingdom. That whole story and language is worlds apart from the discussion of Protestant and Catholic traditional debates over soteriology and the role of faith. It is the story of the God who loves all humanity, and does everything necessary to reconcile the world to Himself and save his dear image-bearers and the universe we inhabit, which at one time was bound under the curse. The curse has been lifted in Christ, a new kingdom has broken in to the earth, and the hope is clear to all nations now of how the ruling Messiah will ensure that His Kingdom one day will cover the whole earth, like the waters cover the sea! That is something Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and Christians with no traceable line back to any of those traditions, can all share together! Let us rejoice and be glad! Let us give all the glory to Him!

[@jediv9910]

​ @MrKev1664 *Roman religion says "devote to Mary to be saved". Do you follow that? Is it biblical?*

[@peropehar7652]

Hello, can you please show me where this is written, I am trying to learn about all Christians and their faiths and didn't saw this for Catholics. Thanks, God bless 🙌

[@jediv9910]

@@peropehar7652*Roman Church preaches complete heresy of "SALVATION COMES THROUGH MARY"!!!! Roman Catholics say: "DEVOTION TO OUR LADY IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION"* Many have proved invincibly, from the sentiments of the Fathers, among others: St. Augustine, St. Ephrem, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. John Damascene, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure; *that devotion to Our Most Blessed Virgin is necessary for salvation,* and that it is an infallible mark of reprobation to have no esteem or love for the Holy Virgin while, on the other hand, it is an infallible mark of predestination to be entirely and truly devoted to her. The figures and words of the Old and New Testaments prove this. The sentiments and examples of the Saints confirm it. Reason and experience teach and demonstrate it. Even the Devil and his crew, constrained by the force of truth, have often been obliged to avow it in spite of themselves. St. Louis Marie de Montfort *All the Elect obtain eternal salvation through the means of Mary.* St. Ildephonsus *With reason did the Most Holy Virgin predict that all generations would call her blessed, for all the Elect obtain eternal salvation through the means of Mary.* St. Ildephonsus There is no reconciliation, O Mary, except that which thou didst conceive in thy virginity, no justification save that which thou didst nurture inviolately in thy womb, no salvation but that which thou didst immaculately bear. Therefore, O Lady, thou art the mother of justification and of the justified, thou art the begetter of reconciliation and of the reconciled, the Mother of salvation and of the saved. O blessed assurance, O refuge without fear! The Mother of God is our mother, too! The mother of Him in Whom alone we hope, Whom alone we fear, is our mother. We have for our mother the mother of Him Who alone can save us, Who alone will be our judge! St. Anselm For this reason, all creatures are obligated to render her respect and homage as to their Queen and Sovereign to whom they belong and upon whom they depend, and will depend, for all eternity. St. John Eudes Mary became for herself and for all men the cause and fountain of salvation. St. Francis de Sales Eve became the cause of death; Mary became the cause of our salvation. St. Ephrem O chosen Queen of Heaven! You alone are the refuge of guilty mortals to whom so many a tearful eye, so many a wounded and miserable heart is raised . . . You, O elect Queen, are the gate of all grace, the door of compassion that has never yet been shut! Bl. Henry Suso Mary is the key to the gates of Heaven. St. Ephrem ST. THOMAS AQUINAS Open to us, O Mary, the gate of Paradise, since you have its keys! St. Ambrose God has entrusted the keys and treasures of Heaven to Mary. St. Thomas Aquinas

[@jediv9910]

@@peropehar7652 *Pope Pius XI said, “What will it cost you, oh Mary, to hear our prayer? What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned Queen at the right hand of your son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of hell, and you alone, oh Mary, save us from the hands of Satan.”* *Roman Church preaches complete heresy of "SALVATION COMES THROUGH MARY"!!!! Roman Catholics say: "DEVOTION TO OUR LADY IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION"* Many have proved invincibly, from the sentiments of the Fathers, among others: St. Augustine, St. Ephrem, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. John Damascene, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure; *that devotion to Our Most Blessed Virgin is necessary for salvation,* and that it is an infallible mark of reprobation to have no esteem or love for the Holy Virgin while, on the other hand, it is an infallible mark of predestination to be entirely and truly devoted to her. The figures and words of the Old and New Testaments prove this. The sentiments and examples of the Saints confirm it. Reason and experience teach and demonstrate it. Even the Devil and his crew, constrained by the force of truth, have often been obliged to avow it in spite of themselves. St. Louis Marie de Montfort *All the Elect obtain eternal salvation through the means of Mary.* St. Ildephonsus *With reason did the Most Holy Virgin predict that all generations would call her blessed, for all the Elect obtain eternal salvation through the means of Mary.* St. Ildephonsus There is no reconciliation, O Mary, except that which thou didst conceive in thy virginity, no justification save that which thou didst nurture inviolately in thy womb, no salvation but that which thou didst immaculately bear. Therefore, O Lady, thou art the mother of justification and of the justified, thou art the begetter of reconciliation and of the reconciled, the Mother of salvation and of the saved. O blessed assurance, O refuge without fear! The Mother of God is our mother, too! The mother of Him in Whom alone we hope, Whom alone we fear, is our mother. We have for our mother the mother of Him Who alone can save us, Who alone will be our judge! St. Anselm For this reason, all creatures are obligated to render her respect and homage as to their Queen and Sovereign to whom they belong and upon whom they depend, and will depend, for all eternity. St. John Eudes Mary became for herself and for all men the cause and fountain of salvation. St. Francis de Sales Eve became the cause of death; Mary became the cause of our salvation. St. Ephrem O chosen Queen of Heaven! You alone are the refuge of guilty mortals to whom so many a tearful eye, so many a wounded and miserable heart is raised . . . You, O elect Queen, are the gate of all grace, the door of compassion that has never yet been shut! Bl. Henry Suso Mary is the key to the gates of Heaven. St. Ephrem ST. THOMAS AQUINAS Open to us, O Mary, the gate of Paradise, since you have its keys! St. Ambrose God has entrusted the keys and treasures of Heaven to Mary. St. Thomas Aquinas

[@jediv9910]

@@peropehar7652 *Pope Pius XI said, “What will it cost you, oh Mary, to hear our prayer? What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned Queen at the right hand of your son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of hell, and you alone, oh Mary, save us from the hands of Satan.”* *Roman Church preaches complete falsehood of "SALVATION COMES THROUGH MARY"!!!! Roman Catholics say: "DEVOTION TO OUR LADY IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION"* Many have proved invincibly, from the sentiments of the Fathers, among others: St. Augustine, St. Ephrem, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. John Damascene, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure; *that devotion to Our Most Blessed Virgin is necessary for salvation,* and that it is an infallible mark of reprobation to have no esteem or love for the Holy Virgin while, on the other hand, it is an infallible mark of predestination to be entirely and truly devoted to her. The figures and words of the Old and New Testaments prove this. The sentiments and examples of the Saints confirm it. Reason and experience teach and demonstrate it. Even the Devil and his crew, constrained by the force of truth, have often been obliged to avow it in spite of themselves. St. Louis Marie de Montfort *All the Elect obtain eternal salvation through the means of Mary.* St. Ildephonsus *With reason did the Most Holy Virgin predict that all generations would call her blessed, for all the Elect obtain eternal salvation through the means of Mary.* St. Ildephonsus There is no reconciliation, O Mary, except that which thou didst conceive in thy virginity, no justification save that which thou didst nurture inviolately in thy womb, no salvation but that which thou didst immaculately bear. Therefore, O Lady, thou art the mother of justification and of the justified, thou art the begetter of reconciliation and of the reconciled, the Mother of salvation and of the saved. O blessed assurance, O refuge without fear! The Mother of God is our mother, too! The mother of Him in Whom alone we hope, Whom alone we fear, is our mother. We have for our mother the mother of Him Who alone can save us, Who alone will be our judge! St. Anselm For this reason, all creatures are obligated to render her respect and homage as to their Queen and Sovereign to whom they belong and upon whom they depend, and will depend, for all eternity. St. John Eudes Mary became for herself and for all men the cause and fountain of salvation. St. Francis de Sales Eve became the cause of death; Mary became the cause of our salvation. St. Ephrem O chosen Queen of Heaven! You alone are the refuge of guilty mortals to whom so many a tearful eye, so many a wounded and miserable heart is raised . . . You, O elect Queen, are the gate of all grace, the door of compassion that has never yet been shut! Bl. Henry Suso Mary is the key to the gates of Heaven. St. Ephrem ST. THOMAS AQUINAS Open to us, O Mary, the gate of Paradise, since you have its keys! St. Ambrose God has entrusted the keys and treasures of Heaven to Mary. St. Thomas Aquinas

[@jediv9910]

@@peropehar7652 *Pope Pius XI said, “What will it cost you, oh Mary, to hear our prayer? What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned Queen at the right hand of your son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of hell, and you alone, oh Mary, save us from the hands of Satan.”*

[@jesus_is_my_spotter]

I see how believing in faith alone draws people in. It is, in my opinion, Christianity on easy mode. You are not required to live any particular life as long as you profess faith.

[@vngelicath1580]

Except that for Luther "faith" = union with Christ (incorporation via Spirit-wrought existential trust; rather than Spirit-wrought intellectual ascent to revealed propositions) so... I guess it really does come down to definitions. With that in mind, to deny that for the church fathers, salvation was by union with Christ alone, would be incorrect.

[@bman5257]

If faith is defined so broadly that it includes the Catholic view of faith than the Reformation is not justified. I think the dividing line is that faith alone in Protestantism means if someone has faith but sins mortally they still maintain their salvation. See Luther’s letter to Philip Melanchthon Whereas that is not at all what the Church Fathers believe.

[@daliborbenes5025]

The tragic thing is that basically everyone jumps to triumphalist conclusion without even trying to understand the other's position. That is true for Catholics as well as Protestants. I loved the discussion between J. Cooper and J. Akin, where both acknowledged salvation has both forensic and transformational aspects in their respective theologies. Or the quote by Cardinal Ratzinger, that Sola Fide is true if faith is properly defined as faith working in charity. I am not a Lutheran, but even I and my fellow Protestants in this corner of the world would agree with such definition wholeheartedly (faith = our union with Christ is even better in my eyes).

[@vngelicath1580]

@bman5257 That's not what "sin boldy" means. We believe that mortal sin kills faith. You can't simultaneously stand in judgment over another faith tradition AND completely misrepresent them.

[@bman5257]

@@vngelicath1580 But Protestants believe one does not lose salvation upon mortal sin, do they not?

[@vngelicath1580]

@bman5257 Lutherans don't believe that. Other Protestants would typically say that someone that commits mortal sin was a person that was never truly united to Christ -- but we're more comfortable saying salvation can be lost.

[@ml5554]

To me it really seems like a nuance issue. At times differences were magnified, because of a possible excess to one side. Luther didn't negate the importance of good works but placed it differently. A concern from protestant side has been that within catholic circles people tend to have a lack of personal Christ centered faith, but rely mainly on the church (clergy's teachings, sacraments). Also protestant groups as the puritans or certain baptists place(d) more emphasis on transformation and holiness then others. In reality believers sometimes don't live holy in accordance with any moral law, in the protestant as in the catholic world.

[@SparklingDracs]

Love that Benedict quote. I do think there’s room for some good ecumenical dialogue on this Trent. Not sure if you’ve checked out Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Form of Protestantism, but it underlies sentiments like this from Benedict and seeks to lift up the truly Catholic elements of the Reformers emphases and also wrest them away from some corrupting influences in their own though. As a Catholic it gave me more appreciation for where Luther et al were coming from

[@aajaifenn]

Why does pope francis say that Luther was not wrong about justification

[@zacharynelson5731]

Did he?

[@aajaifenn]

@@zacharynelson5731 yeah 2017 I think...its all over the catholic blogs of the time

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

✝️✝️✝️ The Protestant doctrine of Sola fide is one of the worst and most harmful heresies in Church History.

[@brewsker89]

Totally agree

[@razoredge6130]

No. It is not. Plenty of protestants live good lives because of sola fide.

[@GMAAndy333]

I would say the worst heresy for both Protestants and Catholics is to deny the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Heresy: believe that the Eucharist is just a symbol.

[@federicobiondi431]

@@GMAAndy333 calvinists and some other protestants deny that actually, just luther defended it

[@JD-xz1mx]

@@GMAAndy333 There isn't as much disagreement on this as you're imagining. The issue is less of substance than it is of semantics. People are using different definitions of the world "real." Protestants believe communion is of spiritual substance. Where Catholics fall into quicksand and chase people away is when they try and splice the distinction with rhetoric like "It is physically Jesus, but not in form". Well the physical world *is* its form...... so now you've just convinced an audience that Catholics are morons.

[@murattanyel1029]

Sola fide has to do with salvation - we are saved by faith alone. Rewards are on top of salvation, they result in the crowns that the believers will lay at the feet of Jesus.

[@MrKev1664]

Christ be with you the rewards that St Paul tells us we receive for our good works is eternal life (Gal 6:7-9 rom 2:6-8) Jesus does too (Matt 25:31-46) you either believe him or you do not. I disagree that our justification could be said to be by Faith alone even for initial justification. The initial justification occurs in Baptism. We must keep Christs command to be baptised. It is the Love that allows us to obey Christ. (John 14:20-24) it is not being baptised that forgives our sin, making us right be for God it Christ gift of grace but we know because we are baptised in his name that we are saved the change of heart our obedience signifies, the love required for Christ and his Father to abide in us. (1 Peter 3:21) Love and Hope is the missing ingredient from Faith alone. the problem is that people do not know what Faith is. Faith in Jesus Christ is trusting the Son of God to keep his promises, particularly to give the gift of eternal life made possible by his death burial and resurrection to those who repent and love him by following his teaching and keeping his commandments. God bless you

[@rexlion4510]

Exactly right. Roman Catholics' good works will be burned up in the fire, because they were done with the selfish motive of attempted self-justification. Works which Jesus will reward are those done with right motives: obedience to the Holy Spirit's leading & enablement, and love for God & neighbor! As Jesus said in Luke 17:10, "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."

[@MrKev1664]

@@rexlion4510 Christ be with you Self-Justification is just Protestant nonsense to pretend you will still be able to enter heaven without Good works. You want to try and make both Jesus and St Paul liars. I don’t think you understood the verse you quoted from. As the passage you quote from tell us obedience is the least we must give. (Luke 17:7-10) That is the expectation of any servant. St Paul tells us to receive Gods gift of eternal life we must reject sin and live in righteousness as slaves to God so we may be sanctified. (Rom 6:15-23) This is expected of us having been forgiven our sins in Baptism. We don’t get saved because we obey but because we are forgiven the times we do not obey. Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. (James 4:17) When we do good we keep ourselves from sin but we are only doing what we are meant to do. As far as doing things for the right reason. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” (John 14:20-21) Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me. (John 14:23-24) If we follow the teaching and commandments of Jesus we Love him. Come to Christ and Live

[@rexlion4510]

@@Earlychurchfathers33ad You slipped up. The verse you mention (and take out of proper context) is in Philippians, not James. And it actually proves what I wrote previously in the comment you responded to. Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Php 2:13 *For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.* Paul exhorts the reader to "work out your salvation" in light of the fact that "it is God who works in you both to will and to do" the works. He's saying that we need to cooperate with God the Holy Spirit because He leads us in what to do and He also provides the ability to do what He wants us to do. Resisting the Holy Spirit is sinful, but taking personal credit for the works God accomplishes through us is also sinful. The RCC teaches you (incorrectly) that you can merit justification for yourself through your good works (CCC 2010) when in reality you have been fully justified by God through faith in Christ. The true Christian will in fact do the works our Lord leads him to do, out of humble obedience and love; but no one ever performs perfectly (we all err at times, we all miss God's intent at times, we all sin), and *thank God* He does not condemn us for those slip-ups! They are covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ! Read James 2 again yourself, only this time read it in a way that harmonizes with all of Holy Scripture instead of in contradiction to the bulk of Scripture. James writes that we can't see faith (it's invisible) but we can see the results or fruits of faith, which are the good works. For example: Jas 2:22 *You see* that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”-and he was called a friend of God. Jas 2:24 *You see* that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James acknowledges that Abraham's faith is why God accounted righteousness to him, but he points out that we would not have been able to see Abraham's faith directly; we only can observe the actions that Abraham's faith led him to do. That is why we can see (observe) that a person is justified by looking at their pattern of living (or conversely we can see that some other person is not justified, not a true Christian, by looking at how they live). We cannot see (observe) whether a person is spiritually regenerated by looking at faith alone; we have to look at the person's fruits, the visible outgrowth which faith always produces. But notice, this does not mean that the works themselves justify us! They only show forth the root cause: justification through faith. Eph 2:8 For *by grace you have been saved through faith.* And this is not your own doing; *it is the gift* of God, Eph 2:9 *not a result of works,* so that no one may boast. Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Joh 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. Jesus did not say, whoever believes and also justifies himself with good works. Do you believe Jesus when He says, "whoever believes" in Him as Savior "has eternal life"? Or do you doubt God the Son's promise?

[@rexlion4510]

@@Earlychurchfathers33ad Is that the best you can do?? "Even the demons believe..." The demons *do not* believe that Jesus died to make propititation for their sins, because He didn't! Jesus died only to propitiate for the sins of human beings. So it is *obvious* that your chosen scripture verse is *totally meaningless* in the context of this discussion! But I know how feeble a job the RCC does in teaching Bible hermeneutics, so you are excused; God will hold the RCC responsible for this and many other sins.

[@wilfredolopez8319]

God bless you brother FROM Philippines

[@rexlion4510]

Magandang gabi, po. I once had the privilege of visiting your country. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church but now I am in an Anglican parish. I exhort you to trust that Jesus paid your debt of sin in full on the cross. Now the indwelling Holy Spirit leads you and enables you to do acts of love, but do them in humble obedience to God and not in a selfish attempt to earn grace from God. God's saving grace is a *gift* (Ephesians 2) and we cannot earn it because we are still imperfect sinners. Trust Jesus' promise that every one who believes in Him will have eternal life (John 3:14-18; John 6:35,40,47). Joh 6:28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Trent wants you to believe the fallible men of the early church (the first several centuries) even though they contradict the words of Jesus Christ, God the Son! Just trust in Christ, and do not place your trust in an organization staffed by fallible human beings or in their unique Sacraments. May peace and joy in the Holy Spirit be yours always.

[@Zipped44]

Augustine well says, "All God's commandments are fulfilled when whatever is not done, is forgiven." Therefore, he requires faith even in good works. He says this to show that we may believe we please God for Christ's sake, and even our works are not worthy and pleasing of themselves. Jerome, against the Pelagians, says: Then we are righteous when we confess that we are sinners, and that our righteousness stands not in our own merit, but in God's mercy. Therefore, when starting to fulfill the Law, faith ought to be present, which certainly believes that we have a reconciled God for Christ's sake. For mercy cannot be received except through faith, as has been repeatedly said above. Paul says in Romans 3:31, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." Here's what we ought to to understand: People regenerated through faith not only receive the Holy Spirit, and have motives that agree with God's Law, but we ought also to realize that they are far distant form the Law's perfection. This point has the greatest importance by far, and we must add it to the argument also, We cannot conclude that the conscience may become peaceful. For we are not righteous before God as long as we flee from God's judgment and are angry with God. Therefore, we must conclude that we are counted righteous for Christ's sake being reconciled through faith. This is not because of the Law or our works. Because of faith, beginning to fulfill the Law pleases God. Because of faith, there is no charge that we fulfill the Law imperfectly, even though the sight of our impurity terrifies us. If justification is to be sought elsewhere, our love and works do not justify. Christ's death and satisfaction ought to be place far above our purity, far above the Law itself. This truth ought to be set before us so that we can be sure of this: WE have a gracious God because of Christ's satisfaction and not because of our fulfilling the Law. Paul teachers this in Galatians 3:13, when he says, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." This means that the Law condemns all people. But Christ--without sin--has borne the punishment of sin. He has been made a victim for us and has removed that right of Law to accuse and condemn those who believe in Him. He Himself is the Atonement for them. For His sake they are now counted righteous. Since they are counted righteous, the Law cannot accuse or condemn them, even though they have not actually satisfied the Law, Paul writes the same way to the Colossians, "You have been filled in Him" (Colossians 2:10). This is like saying, "Although you are still far from the perfection of the Law, the remnants of sin do not condemn you. For Christ's sake we have a sure and firm reconciliation, if you believe, even though sin dwells in your flesh." The promise should always be in sight. Because of His promise, God wishes to be gracious and to justify for Christ's sake, not because of the Law or our works. In this promise timid consciences should seek reconciliation and justification. By this promise they should sustain themselves and be confident that they have a gracious God for Christ's sake, because of His promise. So works can never make a conscience peaceful. Only the promise can. If justification and peace of conscience must be sought in something other than love and works, then love and works do not justify. This is true even though they are virtues and belong to the righteousness of the Law, insofar as they are a fulfilling of the Law. Obedience to the Law justifies by the righteousness of the Law--if a person fulfills it. But imperfect righteousness of the Law is not accepted by God unless it is accepted because of faith. SO legal righteousness does not justify, that is it neither reconciles nor regenerates nor by itself makes us acceptable before God. From this it is clear that we are justified before God through faith alone. Through faith alone we receive forgiveness of sins and reconciliation, because reconciliation or justification is a matter promised for Christ's sake, not for the Law's sake. Therefore, it is received through faith alone, although, when the Holy Spirit is given, the fulfilling of the Law follows.

[@ChristIsLordofAll-xb6xv]

Amen. Couldn’t have said it better.

[@dave1370]

Scholastic Lutherans just made a great rebuttal to this.

[@reformedcatholic457]

It's not hard, a lot of it is typical misunderstandings of sola fide.

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Thanks for the comment bro gonna go watch it now haha

[@cephasmwila7537]

trent horn the goat

[@MrKev1664]

Christ be with you He would be better of as a sheep (Matt 25:31-46) God bless you

[@cephasmwila7537]

@@MrKev1664 What I mean is that he is the greatest of all time when it comes to Catholic apologetics It has nothing to do with the verse you have quoted .. Certainly, we are the sheep and Christ is our Lord and shepherd.

[@MrKev1664]

@@cephasmwila7537 Christ be with you I was just kidding I knew what you meant God bless you

[@adamcharleshovey7105]

Not to mention, the Bible directly contradicts it.

[@JD-xz1mx]

No. No it doesn't. Not that it matters, because you don't consider the Bible fully authoritative.

[@zacharynelson5731]

@@JD-xz1mx “It is by works we are justified and not by faith alone” Is a word for word contradiction from scripture. From the book of scripture that a Lutheran apologist outright told me shouldn’t be in the Bible. Or “if I have faith that could move mountains, but not charity, I have nothing” Meaning that faith without charity cannot justify. Directly contradicting that we’re justified by faith ALONE.

[@zacharynelson5731]

@@JD-xz1mx Or how about Ephesians 2:10: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.” The verse that so directly contradicts Sola fide that: 1. Every, single, Protestant omits it; and only quotes Ephesians 2:8-9. 2. One Protestant pastor I spoke to outright told me that Ephesians 2:10 is an “unbiblical mistake and should be removed” due to how it contradicts his teaching on Sola fide

[@zacharynelson5731]

⁠@@JD-xz1mx “We don’t consider the Bible fully authoritative” It’s a fact of history that the Bible is a catholic book. So yes, the Catholic Church considers the Bible to be fully authoritative.

[@hectorchavez1589]

Love Matthew Thomas, he was my Patristics professor during my masters program

[@bman5257]

Oh nice. His works of the law reception puts the nail in the coffin for Lutheranism.

[@jonathanrocha2275]

I appreciated the quotes in this video, but I would have liked to see a meaningful engagement with Luther’s paradigm of the two kinds of righteousness. In his commentary on the sermon on the sermon of the mount, for example, he did talk about God being pleased with our good works. In fact, he thought that the pure in heart who see God are people who live righteously in their own station. But to be clear, he also talked about seeing God through justification by faith. These are the two kinds of righteousness, and the two kinds of ways that God reveals himself

[@Sayu277]

This!

[@universalflamethrower6342]

My Grandpa used to say Sola scriptura + Sola Fide = Sola Pride

[@rexlion4510]

Did your grandpa trust in sola Christus? I hope so. None of us should put our faith in an earthly organization staffed by fallible men!

[@thehogjazz7598]

Jesus made it clear: He rewards you with salvation and Heaven based on good works (sheep) and punishes by rejection based bad works (goat). We are justified by Faith as it is the active engagement with God through our life in cooperating with the "work" of the Holy Spirit. Even a prayer is a work. Only a life the works well along side the the work of the Holy Spirit can be considered a Saint. Satan's win against the protestant is the deception that salvation is not something you work out throughout your life.

[@knguyen6061]

Indeed, Jesus made it clear : The parable of three tenants with talents,demonstrated that: Just as the master expected his servants to do more than passively preserve what has been entrusted to them, so God expects us to generate a return by using our talents towards productive ends. The servants were given enough to produce more - it is the same with the gifts God has given us Passive "faith alone" mentality ain't cutting it to the boss ! You have to keep working with the "faith" given to you to please God is the main theme here

[@skylershuman7705]

I've watched a couple of your videos. How come you hardly ever cite scripture?

[@lellachu1682]

As the Church Fathers warned, the overreliance on citing Scripture to make something sound “biblical" is a hallmark of heresy.

[@nicenice3509]

God bless you

[@Soulja4ChristWeAreAtWar]

Paul covered these topics thoroughly, as did Jesus.

[@JesusChristWayTruthLife777]

Apply the same standard to your pope, the Marian dogmas, and salvation through the sacraments.

[@timboslice980]

You guys see how to be christian's recent rebuttal of jeff durbin on james 2? Its maybe the most epic takedown series ive seen.... at the end of it youll wonder how anyone can believe in sola fide at all.

[@franciscorafael2582]

Yeah, after watching that I started noticing every time protestants literally change the wording of bible passages so it can fit with their doctrine. It is usually subtle, but they do it frequently.

[@timboslice980]

@@franciscorafael2582 Yeah it's subtle but if you look for it, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Lately, I've been trying little experiments. Like I'll rearrange a Bible passage to make their theology work and see if they approve. It drives them insane....here's a sample. He will NOT repay according to each one’s deeds: 7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, there will be wrath and fury, 8 while for those who believe with faith alone, he will give eternal life. Good deeds, and truth seeking will flow from those who believe. Now Paul sounds like them and sola fide works. You have to totally change what scripture says to make protestant theology work which basically means you cannot adhere to sola scriptura and sola fide consistently.

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Hello Trent. Did you know that the Early Church also did not have a celibate priesthood nor any of the Marian dogmas? The "Assumption" of Mary, for example, was unknown for the first four centuries in the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

[@jediv9492]

@rolandovelasquez135 *You are spot on. Roman pagan doctrines totally (95%) did not come from 1st century Church. Neither from Jesus, Apostles and Scriptures.* you said Hello Trent. Did you know that the Early Church also did not have a celibate priesthood nor any of the Marian dogmas? The "Assumption" of Mary, for example, was unknown for the first four centuries in the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

[@pierreschiffer3180]

What kind of argument is that? The Early Church did not have the four Gospels either, and neither the letters of Paul; the NT canon she only defined centuries later. Are we now to reject the NT entirely, you say? Or are we to reject the Church for having it introduced only later? Or are we to reject you, maybe, for talking nonsense?

[@jediv9492]

@@pierreschiffer3180*Early Church did have OT Scriptures and NT Scriptures of modern day Bibles by ad100. The last NT book was written in Ad95.* *Jesus and Apostles already called “Scriptures” Scriptures in their days. They did not say we need a canon for Scriptures to be Scriptures.*

[@jediv9492]

@@pierreschiffer3180 *Bible and real history did not say Roman pagan religion = the Church or Universal Church. Please prove this false claim before making more claims based on this.*

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@jediv9492 I like how you said "they did not say we need a canon for scriptures to be scriptures.". I agree with you. However from my understanding, most of the early Christians in the first century would receive the teachings of Jesus orally ( through oral communication ). Unfortunately we don't know how many parchments and manuscripts of New Testament books were in existence in the first century. By the way, I'm no scholar of early Christianity or history. So I could be wrong. I'm just a simple Christian believer who is struggling to understand better the stories and teachings of Jesus Christ. I do appreciate your comments. God bless and peace to you and your family. .

[@dodavega]

Anyone who has read the NT can recall how many times “opened the scriptures” or “according to scripture” are found. To my knowledge tradition is referred to only once, by Paul, specifically related to his teaching. So while not specifically stated as such it seems clear that scripture was THE trusted source.

[@jediv9910]

​ @MrKev1664 *Roman Catholics are taught to misrepresent Faith Alone doctrine. Faith Alone doctrine comes with Good Works, Eph **2:10**. Faith Alone doctrines teaches Salvation is Not By Works and Good Works results from true salvation as its fruit.* *Faith Alone doctrine = Saved Not By WOrks, Eph 2:8-9 + Saved to Do Good Works, Eph **2:10**.*

[@tonyl3762]

"Not dying in a state of mortal sin" can be misleading because there are mortal SINS OF OMISSION. You can sin mortally by not feeding, clothing, etc. those in need.

[@jackieo8693]

Yes we need to hear more about the sins of omission from our priests and bishops and NOT just taking care of the poor but having big families, praying at home, controlling anger, etc.

[@dodavega]

I don’t know what you were taught. I was taught that mortal sin requires 2 parts. It must BE seriously wrong AND you must BELIEVE it is seriously wrong. You cannot commit a mortal sin by omission.

[@tonyl3762]

@@dodavega "You cannot commit a mortal sin by omission." I think our Lord would disagree with you: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." (Mt 25:41-43) Hopefully you can see for yourself the omission and the mortality in our Lord's words?? Last time I checked, refusing to care for the poor WAS seriously wrong and VERY well known among Catholics. By the way, what anyone believes is seriously wrong is irrelevant. You merely have to know that it is seriously wrong or that it is taught to be seriously wrong by the Church.

[@jackieo8693]

@@dodavega yes if you see someone in serious trouble and you know you should help them and you don't, that could be a mortal sin. Missing Sunday Mass for no good reason is a mortal sin of omission.

[@bethanyjohnson8001]

Okay, guys. Whether a sin is mortal depends on 1) grave matter 2) full knowledge, 3) complete and deliberate consent. It is entirely possible to commit a mortal sin of omission. For example, I know that I have an obligation to attend Sunday Mass but decide not to go because I'm simply too lazy or would rather do something else. However, it is difficult to judge mortal sins based on the mere fact of whether or not an individual is "taking care of the poor." We are all called to perform acts of charity, but our own circumstances play a role. I beleive t would be a mortal sin if I am extremely rich and am aware of my obligation to support those less fortunate than myself if I refused to ever do so. However, I must have full knowledge and a make a deliberate choice not to do so for it to count as a mortal sin. Furthermore, we have an obligation to support our own family. If a man is not well off, I do not think it would be a mortal sin for him to perform corporeal works of mercy. While some may choose to give up all their possessions for the glory of God (e.g. the Franciscans or other religious orders), it is not a mortal sin of omission not to do so. Not everyone is called to that way of life.

[@ready260]

Faith is ALL that is required.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Respectfully, how do you define the concept of the word "faith" as it pertains to faith in God? For me , "faith" is one of the main issues that I struggle with. God bless. Peace from Florida.

[@ready260]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Are you Christian?

[@zacharynelson5731]

“Faith is all that is required” “If I have faith that could move mountains but not charity I have nothing” Scripture directly contradicts that idea.

[@aar0n709]

Scripture debunks you

[@Here_to_learn22]

Trent, I was cradle catholic, attending 12 years of Catholic School. I can tell you that I honestly had no idea from school or community (which was all catholic) that HOW we live and act matters. My husband attended Catholic schools through college. We had basically no relationship with God, outside of feeling like you just gotta go to church on Sunday. Outside those doors, live and let live. I often asked my parents why we had to go to church- I admitted to getting nothing out of mass. I was always told it was 1 hour a week we give to God. We started attending a Protestant non denomination church a few years ago and became interested in learning. The sermons actually reached my husband and we started to look forward to hearing the message each Sunday. We realized if our children were to have any relationship with the Lord it would not happen at any Catholic Church in our area. We fully understand from reading the New Testament as Protestants that it truly matters how you live. It makes me sad and angry that we had to go outside the Catholic Church to find that a relationship with God was a key ingredient in salvation. That relationship makes us desire to do good works to “show” Christs love to others. I know you promote that the church teaches the understanding we currently have and that you explain clearly in this video. Sadly, neither of us ever saw this desire to live as Jesus from anyone in our Southwest Chicago suburban Catholic parishes, communities or schools

[@Here_to_learn22]

When I joined a bible study a the Protestant church, I felt gut punched to read that how we live matters. In our communities and schools no one thought these things mattered. Living sinful lives of drunkenness, slander, and sexual immorality were totally normal. I have since done a lot of digging into history and theology. I have learned SO much. If a Roman Catholic church in our area actually promoted a faithful lifestyle outside of just attend mass, and mindlessly recite prayers, we might bring our family back. Until then, our children have to attend and build community within a faithful bible believing community of Protestant who take seriously the Lords call to turn away from sin (not in a legalistic sense).

[@justfromcatholic]

I can relate myself with what you wrote - I was born and raised as Catholic but understood only the basics and became evangelical through the influence of my evangelical friends. I decided to return to the Catholic Church after studying what Catholics really believe and stop listening what non-Catholics said/wrote about it. You can find relation with God and Jesus in the Catholic Church. Christ said that everybody knows we are His disciples if we love one another - you should be able to see it through charitable works of many Catholics, even in Chicago.

[@Here_to_learn22]

@@justfromcatholic I agree that there are people doing charitable works in our communities- but out of the mindset that those works matter towards salvation- in a very do more good than bad sense. Raising kids, they need to be surrounded with a deep understanding, and I know it won’t happen if everyone leaves, and yet all of my Catholic friends and family think we take how we live and God too seriously and that none of what the Bible teaches matters actually does.

[@romain3935]

Excuse me, but english is not my native but I want to say to you that, If there is not this type of catholics in Chicago, why you don't say to yourself that you have to be the Catholic you think catholics must be, as you didn't know about the beauty of Catholic Church May be those catholics are searching for that model, take your cross and follow Christ, that's what everyone have to do(it's very hard to do by the way😅). But we have to keep trying. The lecture of the lives of saints can help to put you on that relationship with The Only one. Nothing is better by the way than a everyday prayer, it's true that People don't pray in their home but just at sunday at the mass. That's quite a no sense it's like you have a spouse or a husband and you didn't even say Good morning or something to him or her all week and you want on the week-end to unite yourself with her/him. This relationship will never be as good as in one where the husband and wife take care about the life of each other. It's the same with spiritual life, we must not forget that the sin againest God it's called in ancient Testament infidelity so we have to treat our spiritual life as and even more than what we think it's okay now, it never enough because He who loves us, have given His life for that we can be in that relationship with Him. Our love will never be enough but we have to love Him more and more everyday by asking Him to give us His love in the Holy Spirit by Who we can remain sons of God because of the Christ we receive in Eucharist and His love which we experience in all sacrements of the Church special in confession. So for you and for me, we have to be the saints what we want to see, and it's possible because of the Yes we give to God everyday in our life, because we want to see Him and be with Him. That's The goal of our life.

[@jimnewl]

"We fully understand from reading the New Testament as Protestants that it truly matters how you live." What was preventing you from reading the New Testament as Catholics? What was preventing you from paying attention to the Scripture passages that are read at every Mass, or listening to the homily? Did you really go to Mass and think you could rob someone there and it wouldn't matter--that the priest (for example) wouldn't care? Please.

[@glennshrom5801]

"A sinner is justified by faith alone, and works are only an effect of justification, never its cause. Moreover, Christ's righteousness is imputed, or credited to the believer, and his standing before God is only ..." That first sentence sounds like Sola Fide, but the second sentence sounds like a separate Protestant teaching, or one Protestant theory of how sola fide works. SECOND: Trent, you agree that the first sentence can be understood as true, under at least one condition of what might be meant by it or understood by it. You said "Luther's phrase is true, if ..." Great! I have heard it taught in Catholicism that God gives us a real grace (gift) which allows our works to merit ultimate salvation as a reward; if that real grace is equated somehow to "justification" or "imputed righteousness" (in the sense of something graciously birthed in someone from God above, that the person could not muster up on their own, rather than in the sense of some kind of imaginary or pretend righteousness that is only true theoretically but not in practice along the lines of how you describe forensic justification) ... if that real grace is somehow equated to those two things then, it sounds identical to Catholic teaching. This makes sense, because both formulations of it are rooted in the same Gospel and the same Scriptures, the same teachings of Christ and the Apostles. THIRD: Christian faith as understood in the Bible is a loyalty to Christ and his teachings (including his promises, commands, etc.), which obviously involves works for it to be a living faith; a dead faith of the type James implies also exists, won't cut it. (I realize that Luther as an immature new believer with no good discipleship input took a poor view of James' epistle, at least at the beginning. He didn't know how to understand it in the light of Romans. But then again, the Catholic clergy had no idea how to explain it either, or they would have explained it to Luther instead of excommunicating him over his insistence that someone had to explain it to him in order for him to change his mind.) FOURTH: faith of the type that saves must endure to the end and be manifest by the person dying in a state of grace (and obviously not dying in a state of mortal sin). It is easily understood that a faith which does not persevere is not a true living faith, and not a saving faith. Catholics may deny this and say that a true living faith may be one that does not endure to the end, but that doesn't make the other view less understandable, and there is no practical difference if we think that the only true living faith is the one that has the believer in a state of grace - not mortal sin - in time of death. FIFTH: If justification is understood as how we are found on the day of judgement when Christ returns, then obviously once justified one cannot lose their salvation. I think that neither Catholicism nor Protestantism teach that one can lose their salvation after being welcomed into the eternal heavenly home having been proclaimed righteous on the day of judgement after the resurrection. SIXTH: there are two parts to the forensic justification. One part is "righteous", another part is "not guilty". If Catholics and Protestants agree that the forgiveness of sins, i.e. the "not guilty" part, is true for all who place our trust in Christ, and that we are saved if found sinless in Christ's eyes - his having born our sin even though we all have sinned - then we can be saved by mere virtue of having our sins forgiven, regardless of whether or not we are proclaimed righteous and regardless of in what sense or basis we are proclaimed righteous. SEVENTH: modern scholars such as NT Wright are bringing back the Jewish understanding of justification as "vindication", in the sense that we put our faith in the one true God and in his future deliverance, rejecting idols and the worship of idols, and when he does work that future deliverance and make all things plain, we will be vindicated in the eyes of all heavenly and earthly beings - the opposite of being put to shame as fools for having worshipped/obeyed the wrong lord. CONCLUSION: I think that these seven points are more valuable to the Christian today, and to the seeker, rather than teasing out historical differences between Protestants and Catholics. As NT Wright says, let's stop giving 19th century answers to 16th century questions, and start giving 21st century answers to first century questions.

[@MrKev1664]

Christ be with you I disagree that our justification could be said to be by Faith alone even for initial justification. The initial justification occurs in Baptism. We must keep Christs command to be baptised. It is the Love that allows us to obey Christ. (John 14:20-24) it is not being baptised that forgives our sin, making us right be for God it Christ gift of grace but we know because we are baptised in his name that we are saved the change of heart our obedience signifies, the love required for Christ and his Father to abide in us. (1 Peter 3:21) Love and Hope is the missing ingredient from Faith alone. the problem is that people do not know what Faith is. Faith in Jesus Christ is trusting the Son of God to keep his promises, particularly to give the gift of eternal life made possible by his death burial and resurrection to those who repent and love him by following his teaching and keeping his commandments. God bless you

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@bobinindiana]

The Protestant doctrine is based upon Scripture. Catholicism has an entirely different doctrine of justification and always has had. Catholicism teaches that only Catholics go to Heaven as summarized in the slogan recently reiterated by Pope Benedict that there is no salvation outside the walls of the Catholic Church. For a detailed explanation of the Catholic doctrine, see Mitch Pacwa’s debate with Walter Martin on the John Ankerberg Show here on KZbin. The debate on Justification is listed separately. The Protestant doctrine is based on Scripture alone & it was condemned by Trent 500 years ago. I don’t know why this channel constantly attacks Protestant theology over the points already pronounced anathema. We are not going to say that we agree with the Catholic doctrine of Justification ever. Even Mitch Pacwa outlined how Catholicism is different from sola fide. It’s the same old debate for 500 years.

[@timothypeterson4781]

Oh man, it's gonna hit him hard when he reads everything the Catholic church does that isn't in the early church.

[@franknwogu4911]

such as?

[@timothypeterson4781]

@@franknwogu4911 Confessionals, the primeacy of the pope, the canonization of the saints... I could go on.

[@cronmaker2]

Apples and oranges. Protestants hold to perspicuity of Scripture, RCs don't. Secondly RCism affirms development of doctrine, no one argues full-orbed 21st century RCism is found perfectly explicated in the early church, it is argued that the essence and seed of all 21st century dogmas is found in it.

[@timothypeterson4781]

@@cronmaker2 So you're saying that the development of sola scriptura isn't valid but the development of other things is? Seems like special pleading to me.

[@fantasia55]

​@@franknwogu4911It's all in the Bible, right next to the word Trinity.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Hi Trent, I'd strongly recommend reading Thomas McCall's book "The Doctrine of Good Works". He shows in the first chapter something that most of us who know classical Protestantism have always affirmed: we're not saying *salvation as such* is by faith alone since salvation is a broader category than justification. It includes sanctification and glorification. The Augsburg Confession explicitly says that open and manifest sin cut you off from Christ, and the Reformed tradition says that works are the way and means of salvation. Justification by faith alone has to do specifically with the question of the basis by which we become heirs of the promise (I've suggested in some of my own writing under review at the moment that we should think of *filial* justification as opposed to *initial* justification, since the grounds of "being justified" depends on the nature of the case being tried in the covenantal law court). But Protestants have always agreed that glorification, and hence final salvation, are related as a crop to a seed--the nature of our final salvation grows out of Spirit empowered holiness. Final justification adjudicates the question "what does this person's life say about who they are"--hence why the sheep and goats are sheep and goats prior to the rendering of the verdict in Matthew 25. What we are asserting is that one receives adoption and sonship by faith alone. Hence, Clement is much closer to our view when you take this framework into account. And we'd argue that some fathers believed this while others did not. The sense in which one even receives "the remission of sins through love" has been hashed out by Edwards--it's not by way of merit, but insofar as love is the exercising of a lively faith. That harmonizes Clement much better.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

So in other words, justification by faith alone is shorthand for being accepted by God solely because one shares Christ's merits by being *united to Christ* through faith alone.

[@Obilisk18]

Ok, but when you start saying things like, "exercising a lively faith", it's pretty clear you're no longer in the tradition where faith means "belief/assent and trust". You can call that being "saved by faith alone" if you like but I find the justification debate so boring because, A.) It's clear everyone means different things by the words they're using, B.) When they allow themselves to mean the same things, it's clear that the best proponents of each tradition aren't miles apart, and C.) Justification is not the only or primary way the NT has of talking about salvation. If the early Church wasn't all that precise about justification it's because they read books other than Romans whereas, if you step into a modern Reformed church week after week (for instance), like the one I attend on Sundays after a Saturday mass, you're likely to find that over the long haul you're spending ~35-50% of your time in Paul and probably half of that in Romans. Easy to conclude justification and salvation are just 1-to-1.

[@cronmaker2]

​@@Obilisk18bingo. Protestants counter with "lively faith" or "faith alone but not by a faith that is alone" or "sanctification/works are necessary part of salvation which is more than justification", then when RCs says "ok how about a faith working through love", it's suddenly nuclear war. Very tiresome.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@Obilisk18 Trust has always included the disposition to obey (e.g. Book II of the Institutes). The "only" in "faith alone" is an adverb that modifies justified by, not an adjective that describes the faith by which we are justified. But yes, I agree the discussion gets messy because everyone means different things by "justification". I think it's better to narrow down the question to: on what basis does God count us an heir of eternal life and utterly remit sins (including the debt of sin)? Protestants respond "union with Christ, whenever you're united to Christ, which union is effected only by a living faith".

[@cronmaker2]

@@anglicanaesthetics why would you think RCism doesn't affirm union with Christ or considers it an afterthought? Deification/theosis is quite central to RC soteriology. I'd say the bigger differentiator would be the necessity of ongoing extra nos imputed righteousness in Protestantism and consequently the denial that anything inherent to the believer (eg infused righteousness, good works) can withstand God's standard and judgment.

[@gagelivingston378]

You should write a whole book on justification Trent!

[@timrichardson4018]

The very fact that we are said to be under a new "covenant" as opposed to the old covenant indicates that we have terms to fulfill so that God will fulfill his. This implies obedience to a new order.

[@berniepfitzner487]

St Paul is pretty clear you are saved by Faith. Period.

[@cronmaker2]

Sure, and what type of faith? “the only thing that counts is faith working through love” just as RCism and the early church affirms.

[@berniepfitzner487]

@@cronmaker2 I'd define faith with the earliest Canon law. That Canon law authored by the Holy Spirit in St Pauls' epistles.

[@cronmaker2]

@@berniepfitzner487 I cited Paul.

[@WC3isBetterThanReforged]

St. Paul was pretty clear that he could have enough faith to move a mountain but if had not love, he had nothing. In the New testament, love is a verb, not just an emotion.

[@masterchief8179]

Right. But not by “faith alone”.

[@scottezdries]

Luther in my book is a heretic

[@aajaifenn]

It is interesting that Trent quotes Mathew Thomas on Saint Clement in terms of present justification( not initial justification which refers to a past event ) and final justification . This paradigm is consistent with the Protestant scholastics who insist that good works are necessary and that God has chosen not to grant eternal life to anyone without good works on judgement day They distinguish between right to eternal life by faith alone and possession of eternal life where good works and mortification of the flesh also play a part . The reformed always spoke of good works as the way or the path one must travel to possess eternal life .

[@zacharynelson5731]

"who insist that good works are necessary" If good works are necessary then once again Sola Fide is false.

[@aajaifenn]

@@zacharynelson5731 if sola is an adjective describing faith then you are right . However for the reformers sola is adverb describing what faith does . In fact their slogan was we are justified by a faith alone but never by a faith that is alone . Love , Hope, and all other graces always accompany faith Faith alone unites us mystically to Christ and we share his legal record of being the perfect covenant keeper that Christ achieved by his life of perfect obedience even unto death on cross for our sins . This legal title only can satisfy the just requirements of Gods law that demands utter perfection . This is what we term as justification . At the same time since as we are United to Christ we share his very life that transforms us and this is what we call sanctification . A crude example would be that we see by our eyes alone but not by eyes that are alone . All the others parts of the body are always with the eyes and at no time are they not with the eyes and sight is impossible if the eyes were alone .

[@thefluxlife]

Wow, I will never look at the parable of the unmerciful servant the same.

[@Nolongeraslave]

I think this will never end. Everybody is holding on to their traditions and assumes the early fathers (not those the Apostles and Prophets that are the foundation of the Church and Christ as the Cheif Cornerstone) but the so-called Apostles successors! The impotant point is there is a reason why Protestantism rose up in time of Luther, that's why Pope Benedict agreed with him that Luther's Faith Alone is true. Ratzinger was a Church theologian, not an Apologist. Scholars and theologians get it right without necessary arguing their side. Let us admit the truth where it is found ~ in God's Holy Word.

[@bethanyjohnson8001]

Sure there was a reason the protestant revolution happened, but not because the Church taught false doctrines (Christ promised He would never let the gates of Hell prevail against His Church). Also, when did Pope Benedict XVI ever agree that Martin Luther's sola fide teaching is true? I highly doubt you could provide a source without being immediately debunked. And even IF he did agree with Luther, unless it was declared Ex Cathedra, it would just be his opinion and not binding on the universal church. The Catechism's section on Salvation clearly explains the Catholic position on both initial justification and how works united to the works of Christ can be meritorious by God's gift of grace. Paragraphs 1987-2029.

[@zacharynelson5731]

That’s not been my experience. Most Protestants despise the church fathers or the concept of studying them. That’s what discredited Protestantism and it’s teaching in my eyes when I was converting to Catholicism.

[@zacharynelson5731]

“The truth where it is found; God’s holy word” The Bible is a catholic book, this is a fact of history. It then follows that only the Catholic Church is the legitimate teacher and interpreter of its meaning.

[@Nolongeraslave]

@@zacharynelson5731 I think you are more into showing off your conversion than what you believe Protestantism does. Nobody despises anybody. That is far fetched.

[@newglof9558]

Trent, could you make a video (or point me to the video if you've already made it) regarding the uncooperative aspect of grace that many Protestants claim?

[@thewiseandthefoolish]

What is the citation for Luther saying the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls?

[@ReArmApologetics]

As always, a very well-presented video. I want at the outset to express my love and prayer for my Catholic brethren. The doctrine of Sola Fide is essential and fundamental to the message of the Scriptures and the Gospels. While admittedly, my knowledge of the early church fathers is generally lacking. However, I don't need the church fathers to plainly read the Scriptures and neither do you. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Romans 4+5, Ephesians 2, and Hebrews 11 amongst many other passages in context. By faith we are justified and have peace with God. No work can justify salvation. Living (justified) faith produces justified works. James 2. Faith made perfect thru works is Sanctification. James 2. Please consult the Holy Scriptures without imposing on the texts. Let the Word of God speak for itself. Sola AND Tota Scriptura. Soli Deo Gloria.

[@oswaldomaldonado1051]

Thank you, Thank you, thank you.❤❤❤

[@edwardanderson2847]

The slides with white text on blue background are iconic! I hope it's a tradition that will endure. 😃