When I feel lonely, for some reason i come back to your channel to find reassurance. My mom recently passed and I am still grieving. Thank you for your faith in God.

Great conversation. I love to see that you two can dialogue so well on a topic that is that is the main point of contention between Lutherans and Catholics. As a former Confessional LCMS Lutheran, I can honestly say it was a deep dive into the topic of justification that lead me to the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran, I had been taught many things about the Catholic Church that ended up simply not being true. I also found out that many of the key ideas for the Lutheran approach to justification were simply not found in the Church before the Reformation. Conversely, you can find ample historical evidence of the Catholic view of justification through out the different eras of the Church. I strongly recommend to Peyton, or any Protestants, to take the time and learn more about what Catholics actually teach about justification (from Catholic sources!), because you are likely to find it is not what you think they teach. One common misconception in particular, is that Catholics are pelagians or semipelagians. They are in no way shape or form either, and have many Church documents and councils that condemn these positions. After my research, I now think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories: 1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics). 2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics). 3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis) 4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes. **Peyton, I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy**. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace". Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification: Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum (italics added). **Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186** The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external. In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification. **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126** These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing. **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127** The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on . **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127** In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct. Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification. **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135** I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him. "A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186) God bless!

Your buddy is a cool dude. Very charitable and level headed

@thecatechumen

Жыл бұрын

Agreed

The trick with the LCMS approach to JDDJ (as with all ecumenism) is to strike a balance between making too much of a dialogue (the liberal Roman/ELCA response) and to make too little of the agreement, which tends to be the temptation for the theological rightwing. The LCMS never said progress hasn't been made in properly exercised ecumenism, but we're cautious not to ignore differences in a desire to achieve cheap unity.

For the sacrifice of the mass, have you read Erick Ybarra’s Melchizedek and the Last Supper? I think this is a very important link that the reformers rejected. It can be an interesting topic in further discussion.

Thanks for sharing!

@thecatechumen

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

Said so well!

@metaphysika, this is comprehensive and very impressive!!!❤❤❤ Kudos!!!🎉🎉🎉

@thecatechumen

Жыл бұрын

Appreciate it!

I had fun doing this man! If we didn’t have to go, we’d have talked for hours!

@thecatechumen

Жыл бұрын

That’s for sure. Can’t wait for the next one!

@ThruTheUnknown

Жыл бұрын

That was interesting. Did I get hear correctly that it was stated that lutherans hold to the belief you can commit mortal sin & still you'll remain justified?

@ThruTheUnknown

Жыл бұрын

Bump

@disputatiodehomine9217

Жыл бұрын

@@ThruTheUnknown Hey! Sorry for not replying sooner. I’ll clarify it a bit, because I did a poor job since we jumped to another topic haha! Here is a good quote that explains some well: “Mortal sin and venial sin are distinguished from each other not on the basis of the substance of the deed involved or according to some difference in the sin committed, but on the basis of the person or because of the difference of those who commit the sin.” There are of course degrees of gravity between sins and so “there are also degrees among the damned because of the difference in their sins. Yet all are in damnation” (II:675). The committing of mortal sin that lacks repentance of any sort is damning, of course, since it is linked entirely to faith. The classification of what is a mortal sin, though, isn’t not defined wholly but depending on lack of repentance. I want to give you the best definition and explanation possible, so if you have time, check this out. afkimel.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/can-lutherans-commit-mortal-sins/

@ThruTheUnknown

Жыл бұрын

@@disputatiodehomine9217 Thanks for the reply. So if there was no repentance would the person lose their justification? Let's say we get in a fight I break something of yours but repent are we all good despite the damage?

I think mortal and venial sins present a rubber meets the road litmus test of sorts for Lutherans. First, I have a hard time following a consistent teaching from Lutherans on the matter. And second, I fail to see how the Lutheran teaching on mortal and venial sins lines up with what the Bible teaches. The main problem I see with inconsistent teaching is that some Lutheran theological statements seem to lead to the idea the only way a sin can truly become mortal (which is to say it leads directly to the loss of salvation) is apostasy. In other words, a sin can only damn you if you also lose your faith. Others, like Phillip Melanchthon, seem to claim there are sins in and of themselves that are mortal (like murder) but a Christian with a living faith would never commit them. There are many famous Luther quotes along the lines of the only mortal sin being apostasy. 3.8See, how rich therefore is a Christian, the one who is baptised! Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins - so long as the faith in God's promise made in baptism returns or remains -all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself. If only you confess Him and cling believing to Him that promises. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction - along with all those carefully thought out exercises of men - if you turn your attention to them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is done without faith in the truth of God, is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit. **Luther, Martin. A PRELUDE BY MARTIN LUTHER ON THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH. Translated by Albert T. W. Steinhaeuser. English Text Edited and Modernized by Robert E. Smith Originally published in: Works of Martin Luther with Introductions and Notes, (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915) p.527-528** "If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner [LW 48:281-282]. Martin Chemnitz appears to take a similar approach: “Mortal sin and venial sin are distinguished from each other not on the basis of the substance of the deed involved or according to some difference in the sin committed, but on the basis of the person or because of the difference of those who commit the sin [have faith or not]" (Loci Theologici II p. 675). From the fruit we also can learn whether faith is true or false. The fruit of true faith is not to serve sin but to live unto righteousness. Likewise the corrupt fruits also show that the tree itself has become evil because of the loss of faith. From these basic ideas it is simple to judge when true faith has been lost and trodden under foot. Consequently when sins take place and are mortal, it means that faith has been lost and destroyed. (Chemnitz, Martin. Loci Theologici II p. 677-678). Conversely, Phillip Melanchthon seems to teach that it is impossible for a person who has a living faith to ever commit a mortal sin. Here, Melanchthon seems to imply that 1) there are grievous sins that in and of themselves (like murder) could cause one to lose their salvation, but also 2) a person with a living faith would never commit these sins through the power of the Holy Spirit. 115]Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. .AAC IV This leads me to what I see as a bigger problem for Lutherans. While Martin Luther adamantly spoke out against antinomianism (the idea that saved people are not obligated to keep God's law), he very clearly taught a system of justification that said there are no sins that can cause you to lose your salvation except unbelief alone: "Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe." This just simply flies in the face of everything that Jesus teaches us in scripture and the other apostles (John 14:15, Matthew 5:48, John 14:23-24, Galatians 6:8 , 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Matt 7:21-23, John 15:10,14, Roman 8:12-13, Romans 12:1-2 , etc.). From my experience, this seems to be the prevalent view in modern Protestantism/Lutheranism. This just doesn't seem to lead to any kind urgency for Christians to live a life of holiness which the Bible clearly teaches over and over. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a great section on the universal call to holiness: 2013 “All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity.”65 All are called to holiness: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”66 (915; 2545; 825) In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ’s gift, so that … doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints.67 2014 Spiritual progress tends toward ever more intimate union with Christ. This union is called “mystical” because it participates in the mystery of Christ through the sacraments-“the holy mysteries”-and, in him, in the mystery of the Holy Trinity. God calls us all to this intimate union with him, even if the special graces or extraordinary signs of this mystical life are granted only to some for the sake of manifesting the gratuitous gift given to all. (774) 2015 The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle.68 Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually lead to living in the peace and joy of the Beatitudes: (407; 2725; 1438) He who climbs never stops going from beginning to beginning, through beginnings that have no end. He never stops desiring what he already knows.69 2016 The children of our holy mother the Church rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance and the recompense of God their Father for the good works accomplished with his grace in communion with Jesus.70 Keeping the same rule of life, believers share the “blessed hope” of those whom the divine mercy gathers into the “holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”71 (162; 1821; 1274) 64 Rom 8:28-30. 65 LG 40 § 2. 66 Mt 5:48. 67 LG 40 § 2. 68 Cf. 2 Tim 4. 69 St. Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. in Cant. 8: PG 44, 941C. 70 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1576. 71 Rev 21:2. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., pp. 488-489). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference. For me, the Catholic teaching on mortal vs. venial sins coupled with their teaching on justification and reconciliation just seems to fit the Bible better and also seems to lead to lead to a theological framework that embodies the universal call to holiness that our Lord teaches us better. God bless!

@richardbenitez1282

Жыл бұрын

Ghris: I appreciate your comment. This is difficult to say. But your comment leads to big thoughts that boggle the mind. Great!

Third.

Second.

@thecatechumen

Жыл бұрын

Yes

I found it disturbing how the baptist seminarian would often refer to Luther’s teachings rather than Saint Paul’s epistles. I would also strongly would suggest he and many others in the protestant faith seeking truth, would consult the biographies and/or the letters from the first fathers of Christianity, e.g. St Ignatius of Antioch, St Damasus, St John Chrysostom, St Augustine, etc.

@disputatiodehomine9217

11 ай бұрын

You’re ignorant. I’m a Lutheran seminarian. We had limited time and the goal was to hear directly from our confessional documents, not Luther’s writings by the way. I’ve also read works from those Church Fathers. You’re just looking for something to disturb you. It’s quite obvious that Scripture, specifically St. Paul’s works, are the underlying focus of the information being presented or the topic itself would exist.

First

@thecatechumen

Жыл бұрын

First reply to the first comment

@shlamallama6433

Жыл бұрын

​@@thecatechumen First reply to the first reply to the first comment

@nicholasvogt2524

Жыл бұрын

@@thecatechumenI really enjoyed the interview!

FOURTH

It’s amazing folks to this day talk of what Luther said or wrote. Luther was mentally off. Plus a vicious anti Jew guy. I guess his timing was right.

@disputatiodehomine9217

Жыл бұрын

Everyone was anti Jew then. And Anti-Judaism isn’t wrong anyways.

@user-kk7xh3yq6g

3 күн бұрын

Don't read the church fathers then, luther was tame in comparison to some

Common W LCMS. LCMS4L