I’m a Catholic convert. I was a fundamentalist Baptist with a lot of Calvinistic beliefs, though I was not a Calvinist. After I became Catholic, an old friend of mine gave me a list of videos from Dr. Busenitz’s seminary class on Church history. He told me, “Watch this… there is no way you can watch this and then think Church history belongs to Catholics…” Well, after watching these seminary videos, my Catholic faith ended up being strengthened lol

I'm considering catholicism. It's pretty clear at the very least catholicism is the oldest "branch" of Christianity. I'm currently writing a paper on church history and Catholic dogma. It's currently close to 600 pages and I'm in the final editing process. This podcast has been very helpful. Currently living with anti Catholic parents. The Rosary is my favorite prayer. My anxiety has been much more manageable since I've started praying the Rosary everyday

None of these denominations can even conclude and agree on what Sola Fide is.

I was raised a Protestant and was until recently. Faith alone and once saved always saved was the big holding points, and the thought of those not being true was terrifying. Ultimately those two topics is what lead me to the Catholic Church.

Things make so much sense knowing that Joe is a lawyer. No wonder these videos are so methodical. Huge fan of this style!

The first time I heard about Sola Fide was in RCIA, and my immediate question was “How do you operate a society without good works?” The priest kindly explained that Protestants think that if you have faith, you will want to do good works. While that sounds nice, it seems a bit idealistic and unrealistic. There are a lot of lazy humans who might want to just say “I believe “ and then sit around watching TV. There are definitely some Sundays I don’t feel like going to Church, but I’m glad it’s required because I am always glad when I go, even if I didn’t feel like it beforehand. Also, I think Jesus’s commandment to love our neighbors means we need to actually be doing something for them. Love is more than just a nice feeling. It means willing the good of the other.

Thank you for covering this crucial topic, Joe! It's essential to recognize that the concept of sola fide, emphasizing salvation by faith alone, wasn't present in the early teachings of Christianity. Keep up the excellent work in shedding light on these significant aspects of our faith! 🙏

I've been Catholic for almost a year. But even as an evangelical protestant, I rejected faith alone based purely on scripture. By the grace of God, I came organically to an understanding of salvation that was almost perfectly in line with the Catholic view. Then, I would have phrased it a lot like you did. That salvation isn't something we receive like an item that can be kept or lost. Salvation as such is being alive in Christ. It's a state of being. If I don't remain in Christ, obeying him, I will, in short order, begin to spiritually die. If I persist in that, I risk cutting myself off from Christ and ending up in hell. The Catholic articulation is more precise than that, which I now affirm. But I was pleased to learn that I had come to the generally right idea. We cannot become alive in Christ by anything we can do. We're dead. But once made alive, we must remain in Christ and receive nourishment from him to stay alive. This means avoiding mortal sin, participating in the life of his Church, and doing what Christ commands (which is summed up as giving ourselves wholy to God and the good of others, which is love).

Extremely informative video. Even as a non catholic (investigating) when I read the first even 500 years of writings, it’s clear the teaching was salvation comes in two stages, Initial which is totally an act of grace, and then holding on to what has been given, which is why things like John 15 were so heavily quoted from in the ante nicene period

At about 42:00, it seems that many protestants do the same in their reading of The Church Fathers that they do with Scripture. They pick and choose what supports their theology instead of adjusting their theology according to the entirety of Scripture (and all of Revelation) in context.

It's interesting how the reformers must think that Christians worshipped wrongly for 1500 years..till they came along.

Excellent video as always Joe. This one started a war for me with a couple of Protestant friends of mine but we’re all good now. I have been arguing for the last 3 hours and I have to say they are planning on taking this information to their pastor and see what he says so I guess I’ll have a boss fight on my hands next week. The biggest take away for me from the video is really the point you made about proof texting the church fathers. When they quote them out of context they seem so confused and self contradictory. Really it does a horrible disservice to the fathers to abuse them like that. Gavin Ortlund and Jeff Durbin are amongst the worst when it comes to that. I think the unintended consequences or perhaps fully intentional is that it keeps Protestants from even wanting to read the fathers! I have Protestant friends that constantly quote Augustine on scripture and truth but totally ignore him on the church and tradition. I can tell they’re just sharing a quote on Facebook more than reading sections from city of god

Protestant: “Chrysostom believes Sola Fide!” Chrysostom: “‘Is it enough’, says one, ‘to believe in the Son, that one may have eternal life?’ *By no means.* “Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, *his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation*” Protestant: “Oh! Or well, we have Augustine on our side!” Augustine: “We feel that we should advise the faithful that *they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation* or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved.” “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.” Protestant: “You know it’s not really important what the Church Fathers say on this”

Hey Joe - excellent video here. Literally just had a discussion last night with a Protestant brother in law on this and I covered many of these points (but perhaps not as eloquently!), so the timing was impeccable. Lol. One thing I think is seriously worth expanding on when it comes to these discussions is logic. Your "one of these three things can not be true" statement nails it. You may or may not be aware, but the majority of standard Protestant Biblical teaching out there is exempt of logic and rhetoric. Not saying this to insult anyone - but it's truly a key factor in their comprehension of some of the critical dialogues on so many of these topics. Arguments such as "one of these must be true," "one of these can not be true", "what are the premises of this particular belief", and so forth, will go much farther than many recognize. Nice work!

Spot on, Joe. As a former Confessional LCMS Lutheran, I can honestly say this is the key issue that keeps classical Protestants from the Catholic Church (the doctrine on which the church stands or falls...). I can also 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 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. **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 (some Joe already pointed out too) 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: "A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within man)... where none was conceded before. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification, is defined as the alien righteousness of Christ, external to man and imputed to him, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to him… It is clearly of importance to account for this new understanding of the nature of justifying righteousness, with its associated conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification. Attempts on the part of an earlier generation of Protestant apologists to defend this innovation as a recovery of the authentic teaching of Augustine, and of their Catholic opponents to demonstrate that it constituted a vestige of a discredited and ossified Ockhamism, can no longer be taken seriously. It is the task of the historian to account for this new development, which marks a complete break with the tradition up to this point." (McGrath, Allister E. 1986. lustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (1st Ed. Vol. 2). Cambridae University Press.) 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!

Just watched further into the video. After initially listening to the lazy argumentation used by Jeff Durbin in his video, I had to make a full-length response to it. His shotty representation of the fathers and of Church teaching - as if Catholics don't affirm the graciousness of salvation - is ridiculous.

I literally pulled up to my law school as you cited to the Federal Rules of Evidence 😂 love it

What's striking to me is how the most selfish doctrine of the Faith, the one that points to ME and talks about how little it takes for ME to be saved, is the central doctrine.

New banger just dropped

Re: Forensic justification Once at lunch with my neighbors, I spilled a little but of soup unto the tablecloth and my neighbor just put a napkin over the stain and put a flower vase on top. I couldn't resist making the comment 'That's Lutheran justification,' when I looked at how we handled the incident. 😅

Joe, I really appreciate your apologetic style, especially as you emphasized at the beginning. Not every argument needs to be an out of the park KO birthday bash mixed metaphor kinda argument, but that doesn't keep it from being a valid and useful apologetic. Arguing about the early church, in and of itself, does not prove Protestant doctrines false. But it does make them far less likely. For me, I think it was the total sum of arguments that eventually pushed me over the edge. Even the strongest biblical argument for Catholicism wouldn't have convinced me if it was by itself. Thank you for your work, please keep it up!

Happy feast of st Paul, brothers.

Love your analogy about the gift of the car! If the intended purpose of salvation is holiness, the exercise of holiness does not devalue the gift. In fact, not exercising holiness would devalue the gift of salvation. Just like the intended purpose of a car is to drive it and not driving it would devalue the gift by letting it sit and rot. I think functionally many of the Protestants I know don't actually believe in salvation by faith alone although they insist on using that verbiage. Most will say you're saved by faith alone then tell you what you need to DO to be saved (accept Jesus into your heart, confess with your mouth, be baptized, etc or any combination of these things.) Let's define terms. I think most Protestants can agree with Catholics that faith requires obedience, love for God and neighbor, holiness etc. So what exactly does faith ALONE mean? Of course, Catholics believe (as do Protestants) that we are saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto good works. P.S. In case anyone was wondering, my prospective is from a Protestant born and raised, currently finding my way into the Catholic Church.

Great point in highlighting how taking church fathers out of an apostolic context and into a post reformation protestant one makes their own literature contradictory. I appreciate how you provide quotes from same church fathers and harmonize them within their own apostolic tradition. Sad to see how some brothers half-quote from sources that when read entirely contradict their protestant views. Is like imposing Sola Scriptura (if it’s in the book then it’s true and self explanatory) into church fathers and making them speak today pastor’s view.

As someone who spend all of my adulthood thinking she was reformed, when the first sola fell (ironically sola fida) the rest soon followed. They are so intertwined that one falls the rest follow. I’m grateful that it feel, it’s lead me to seek truth and I’ve found myself more inclined to convert to Catholicism

Joe is a master of his craft. This video truly helped clarify the history, significance, and reasoning behind these often-misinterpreted ideas. THANK YOU.

I’ve been a catholic my whole life, I’m 17 juss turned on the the fifth of January however I was lied to by Protestants and they were challenging my knowledge knowing I didn’t know much about my faith but just looking at the scriptures brought me back to the faith and Peter being the rock that Jesus built His church upon

This is awesome! Please do All Five Solas!

I like the transitions with music, it's a good change

Great video, I was always unsure how to defend Catholic doctrines of justification, regeneration and how they differ from protestant view, however your video helped me a lot to better understand the differences.

“Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.” -Gandhi Ever since I read this quote a few years ago, I have always liked it. It came to mind as I was listening to this podcast. I can’t just think about Jesus, talk about Jesus and not do what Jesus did and expect to be justified.

It recently occurred to me that the thief on the cross actually DID perform a work. He defended Christ and admonished a sinner - the other thief. Certainly, given his circumstances, these were great works.

I definitely think the defining factor of this debate is not merely the phrase "Sola Fide" - since that has been used in different ways throughout Church history. Rather, the issue is how we are defining "justification." I think you hit the nail on the head in pointing that out. McGrath's book Iustitia Dei is such a great resource - from the Protestant side - for demonstrating the novely of Luther's understanding of justification. If you want to go deeper, the associated sessions and papers from the Joint Declaration on Jusification are also a great resource outlining historical and theological considerations. They're compiled in the "Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII" - which isn't in print anymore but is easy find.

Great stuff as always. I didn't know you were an attorney, but that makes sense. Your approach is very methodical. Thanks

Pardon my surmising, however it would appear that Luther attacked the doctrine of sainthood and the idea of struggling to work out one's salvation because he failed mightily in that endeavor, and simply gave up the struggle for sainthood in exchange for the false and temporary feeling of relief that came from the lie that he could just give up, take the easiest way out, and be guaranteed heaven for practically nothing and no conditions at all. The idea that he was right in this idea, and the last 1500 years of the greatest saints, mystics, apostles, martyrs, theologians, etc. were all just dense or wrong is insane, and no rational individual could actually believe such a thing. He was right that becoming a saint is hard, at times seemingly impossible or too hard, and he was also correct that God loves us unconditionally, and will even forgive any potential or possible sin we could commit, and also that He will unfailingly provide us the grace we need to persevere unto final salvation - he was wrong, however, that He does this unconditionally, and that He grants all the grace of FINAL salvation the instant of their conversion, and that we do not have to actively contribute to and directly participate in the process, lest we fall away, as the church and scripture warns us. However, some lies are so sweet-tasting, and so placating and relieving of the pains of purposeful, redemptive suffering and soul-forming hardship, that the temptation to "tap out", of the trial, to drop one's cross, and to live a life on spiritual easy street thereafter, is just too great of a desire, or a consoling promise to refuse, and many are those who give up the goal for temporary comforts, including, in Luther's case, psychological comforts, rather than persevere unto the end. I believe this is the most likely explanation, and the alternative explanation that Luther's interpretation was correct is vanishingly small. The real question is now, how to tell the truth about this, and him, to a world which was formed by his lies, and to people who have lived an entire lifetime within it, never knowing in many cases anything else? Pray to the Lord. Ave Maria.

Phenomenal work, and the jazzy interludes are a nice touch.

I'm glad I found this catholic podcast! I like your delivery and voice. Just enough tone and balance to listen while at work.

Solid presentation Joe. Thanks.

this video is so great on so many levels, makes so much sense the way you have put it

Joe, thank you for your contribution. This came at a pertinent time for me. Very clear, very charitable. You are putting your talents to work for the good of others.

Excellent video Joe! Would you be willing to do one on Baptism in the early church? Might even be a great topic for a book, since there really isn't one solely dedicated to Baptism in the early church.

2:45 I'm noting, Luther also said "without it, the Church of God cannot subsist one hour" ... He's easy to refute. a) Jesus says there are no days in which the Church will not subsist (Mt 28:20) b) there are, as you are no doubt going to show, entire centuries without this doctrine.

Thank you for this dive into Sola Fide. It was nice to learn about it more

I think the pastor of the Protestant church I grew up in didn't believe in faith alone. That is, he said the words, but he seemed not to believe in the concept. One time, he was preaching, and a bunch of us kids were sitting on the front row. He said, "I'm going to show you what it means to have faith in God." He holds up a quarter. "Kids, how many of you believe that I'll give this quarter to the first kid that comes up here?" We all raise our hands. "Do you believe me?" We all nod vigorously. "So how many of you believe I'll give the quarter to the first kid that comes up here?" We all raise our hands again. "I'll ask one more time: do you believe that I'll give the quarter to the first kid that comes up here?" Then I hopped off the pew and went up. He gave me the quarter and said, "That is what it means to have faith in God: you can believe all day long, but faith is belief in action."

I have heard recently, a few times, Protestants seem to place themselves in the position of the thief who professed faith in Jesus and was saved with no works necessary. But that thief did do saving works - he made open confession to God and man of his sins; that he was a thief. He accepted the punishment for those sins - the immense pain, suffering, and impending death. He did Not ask Jesus to spare his earthly life. He asked only to be remembered... but that is another thing regarding Jewish traditions. Protestantism, which is man's "white-washed" version of the Christianity Jesus established in His flesh and blood, seeks to remove all hardship, suffering, and even mere inconvenience from their lives. They love only the reward, and in accord with the baser instinct of the human heart - the day off with pay - Protestants seek to gain salvation, eternal life, eternal joys, wealth, power, etc., for as little as possible. They are, therefore, akin to the bad thief who tries to get Jesus to use His powers to get him off his cross - to spare him righteous judgement and penance so he can resume his life as a thief.

Thank you for sharing this no nonsense lesson. This needs to be said and it needs to be said boldy and frequently.

That is awesome! I am glad to be back as well ❤

This video was so helpful. Thank you joe!!

This is one of your strongest videos!

The music choices for this one is 👌😩 Oh, and yeah the content is good too.

Joe, you are a truly gifted Theologian. Please do more half hour episodes, daily. God is with you.

Even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

You can't trust Durbin as far as you can throw him on this, but what's bizarre is the protestant founders claimed there was this continuity and took for granted some provenance from the early Church when in the ensuing centuries no such evidence has ever been found and the Catholic case has only been strengthened. Like with many claims by their forebears, they have abandoned them as they have become embarrassing to hold and retreated to a much crazier barebones version of sola scriptura and ecclesiology. They've kept parts of the form and name of their forebears while throwing out what were key doctrines to them. The only thing that realy unites all of them is being anti-Catholic and this is presumably why they're so indifferent.

Joe is such a bully. The poor protestants watching this must be having a terrible day.

I love these "lectures". Thank you Joe!!!❤

If we didn’t have to do anything, why is there a judgement? Why is the Bible full of things we must do? Why do we believe we must do the Father’s Will? Why must we repent and confess our sins? Yes ultimately Jesus saves us but we must cooperate. If we didn’t need to do anything, why did Adam and Eve lose paradise?

Sola Fide does not show up in the Bible nor in the Students of the Apostles. Great video Joe.

For a moment, I thought Joe said the scholar “wasn’t some French guy” instead of fringe.

Great quotes by Schaff. Just was reading Augustine’s Sermons last night, Schaff evidently was very familiar with the works of the Bishop of Hippo Regius.

This is my favorite channel

"If you wish to enter into life, then keep the commandments " ( Matthew 19:17). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

Really appreciate this video..

These transitions are getting crazier with each new video

Thank you! You are such a well read person and a great teacher. I have benefitted much from your book "The early church was the catholic church" as well as your video content. The production quality is great as well. Seems like there might have been a "bug" in the Jeff Durbin clip though (23:43), it repeated twice which might not have been intentional, looks like an editing mistake because there is a break before his clip repeats.

The wild thing about faith alone is that it is simply ridiculous on its face because literally nothing in life works that way. Does faith alone put food on the table? Does faith alone pay your taxes? Does faith alone work in your relationship between you and your spouse? Does faith alone work and how you raise your children? Does faith alone work when it comes to building bridges? Does faith alone raise skyscrapers?

EXCELLENT job of explaining why sola fide is not part of the ancient church belief!

"To David himself; for understanding; by which it is understood that not by the merits of works, but by the grace of God, man is delivered, confessing his sins. "Blessed are they whose unrighteousness is forgiven, and whose sins are covered": and whose sins are buried in oblivion. "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin, nor is there guile in his mouth": nor has he in his mouth boastings of righteousness, when his conscience is full of sins." St. Augustine Exposition on Psalm 32

You’re a big help in my walk with Christ

"It is clear that because grace is the gift of God there is no reward due for works, but it is granted freely because of the free mercy which intervenes." Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles. 'It was in His own flesh that He overcame the enmity. The work is not ours. We are not called to set ourselves free. Faith in Christ is our only salvation." Gaius Marius Victorianus

I love how Protestants hate the papacy, yet turn to one of the first popes to justify their false sola fide justification doctrine. 😂😂😂

From the Haydock commentary: "Faith begins the work of salvation. Good works from a motive of charity continue it. Perseverance in a life of virtue and patience under trial and affliction complete it". Not faith alone. For many are called to faith but few are chosen.

How do the Protestant scholars who recognize Sola Fide as a development reconcile this with their own position? Do they disagree with Luther about it being an essential doctrine and see Sola Fide as a legitimate and true doctrinal development? Are they comfortable with the doctrine of how one gets saved being unknown to Christianity?

Awesome video 👍

Gavin Ortlund WrEckT!!1

I can’t wait for you to dig into scripture in another episode. I am especially interested in your thoughts on Ephesians 8-10. Even your faith is a gift from God that you did nothing to obtain and you are thus saved unto good works and even those were ordained by God even before you were saved that you would do them and he will make sure that you do. And after that deal with Romans 3 & 4. Not sure how you read those and think you add anything to your justification with works. You can also start with James if you like and then compare that to Romans 4. Look forward to your resolution of those passages and to see how it compares to mine.

"We must moreover notice this too. For when He had well enforced our position with regard to our faith, He straightway adds the memorial of the promise at the end of ages, and then ordains the remaining laws, Honour your father and your mother, thou shalt not kill, and so on: that we may not think we are justified by works, nor look for the ungrudged bounteousness of God as the fruit of our own toils, but that we must have it of faith." St. Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on John

My mom (Pauline Zingleman) wrote a little book, apparently popular in several seminaries back in the day, called Protestants, Catholics and the Bible. She was a convert and brought many into the Church. She was a master at dismantling the arguments of Protestants on this matter.

Why is it so hard to accept, for catholics, to look at a tomato plant and realize that a seed grows, then it blooms and flower, then it gives forth fruit. God help all of you and I pray deeper than you know that you come to a real knowledge of God.

Patrion! Yes. I will support!

I suggest reading Articles IV and V of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (warning they are quite long) and Melanchthon’s Disputation on Justification.

Rev22:12 Behold I am coming soon. I bring with me recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.

But a Protestant would ask how can 1 Clement 32 be talking about initial justification when an unregenerate person cannot “wrought in holiness of heart”??? Because only Christians can wrought in holiness of heart. The way I understand 1 Clement 32 is that one isn’t justified by the works done in the past prior to a Christian who’s currently in the state of mortal sin. Because in context St. Clement was writing to the church of Corinth that “righteousness and peace departed” from them (1 Clement 3).

Romans 1:17: "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'"

“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

Justification, then sanctification. We are made new, old man has died and new man is born from above. We are saved as a gift, but then God changes us as we renew our mind, and we walk by the spirit. I know this is true because God has been changing me and growing me for over 40 years. He is faithful to finish the work He started. I know who I was, and how He has changed my heart. That happened by believing and trusting Him. It is God who works in Believers to will and do His good pleasure.

“They have been manifestly blessed whose sins and iniquities are forgiven and covered without any labor and effort. No works of penance are required of them except only that they believe.” Ambrose On Romans 4

If any old covenant saints could have been declared righteous on account of their works, surely Abraham and David could be examples for us. However, they are instead prime examples of justification by faith alone, apart from works. Their obedience to the Lord came as a result of the faith, the loyalty and trust, they were given by the unsurpassing grace of God. As Paul says in Romans 4:5: "To the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

Great video! Question: would you consider Cardinal Gasparo Contarini's Epistle on Justification from May 25, 1541 as an example of Sola Fide?

"Wherefore let no man glory in works, for by his works no man shall be justified, for he that is just hath a free gift, for he is justified by the Bath. It is faith then which delivers by the blood of Christ, for Blessed is the man to whom sin is remitted, and, pardon granted." St. Ambrose of Milan Letter 73

Hey Joe, can you post a link to your new Patreon set up? Thanks. I’ve gathered from what I hear that you are going to set up something similar to what Trent has done.

Hi Joe, i love ur videos & am learning more about fear of God. What is the difference between servile fear and holy fear? Some Protestants say justification by works means we have servile fear.

Slam dunk. Awesome job, Joe.

δικαιόω (dikaioō):Meaning: This verb means "to justify," "to declare righteous," or "to acquit." Paul uses this word to describe the act of God declaring a sinner to be righteous based on faith in Jesus Christ. For example: Romans 3:24: "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."Galatians 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ."

Hi Joe! Protestant here but with questions 😅. Would you be willing to do a video on the early Christians on Marian theology?

The work required to maintain one's faith is to ignore the preaching of those who are constantly trying to kill this doctrine. Trust me, I have to check myself all the time to see whether I'm still in the faith. But thanks be to God that His mercy fortifies me against false teaching. Trust me, your "logic" would certainly deceive, if it were possible, the very elect. But it can't and so I'm grateful.

I've often thought about the point you made - that if all is required to be saved is to believe, then Satan would be the first through the gates of Heaven, as he knows a lot more about it than we do... and he believes.

I learn a lot when I watch these videos, and for that, thank you sir. Some genuine questions for you... 1. Do you think infused righteousness and imputed righteousness are mutually exclusive? Could it be that there is a forensic side and a formative side? Could it be that we are declared righteous positionally upon conversion and then are tasked with "working out" that salvation that is within. In Scripture we see this imagery of new man vs old man, this internal struggle the Christian has (Paul in Romans 7). Could it be that we are made a new creature upon conversion (II Corinthians 5:17) but that new man is "trapped" inside of sinful flesh. One day, when "this corruptible will put on incorruption" we will not have this dichotomous problem. But for now, as we abide in our Adamic fallen flesh, that imputed righteousness must needs be worked from the inside to the out. Protestants would call that process sanctification. 2. I think its important to point out that both sides are working with theological structure here. That is to say, its never as simple as "just reading the Bible" (I know Joe does not make that claim but I have heard other catholic channels say that). Both Protestants and Catholics are forming theological structures to make sense of Romans 4 and James 2 (or Clement 30 and 32) in a logical way. Catholics build a "initial and final justification" structure and Protestants build a "initiative and indicative" structure. Faith alone initiates salvation (by initiates we don't mean 'does the work' for Christ is the worker) and works indicate salvation. Historically that has been expressed like "faith alone saves but a faith that saves is not alone." I think most of the quotes, if not all, of the church fathers you stated, could be explained by a Protestant within our structure. Clement, in paragraph 30, could have been talking about justification in an indicative sense, a vindication sense. Catholics may say, "yes, but you have to 'explain' them and can't take them at face value." But I would say that back to the Catholics with the passages that seem to be teaching sola fide rather clearly. Catholics take those passages and say "yes, but he is speaking about initial salvation." BOTH SIDES must interpret scripture and early church writing through structure because of the apparent contradictions. 3. On the topic of Augustine's quote. Not having the full context but what you provided says "so while he made you without you, he did not justify you without you. So he made you without you know it, He justifies you with your willing consent to it" I think Augustine defines his terms here and what he means is that justification does not come without our consent. Consent, though, is not works. Actually, consent is more like faith than it is like work. Consent merely says "yes" and doesn't need work. So it seems reasonable to me to think Augustine is saying that God justifies "those who say yes to Him" or "those that have faith in Him." Maybe I'm stretching consent into faith. But if I am stretching consent into faith, i think its also a stretch to say consent implies the necessity of good works. Just a few of my thoughts. God bless.

"The fact that you Ephesians are saved is not something that comes from yourselves. It is the gift of God. It is not from your works, but it is God’s grace as God’s gift, not from anything you have deserved. Our works are one thing, what we deserve another. Hence he distinguishes the two phrases 'not from yourselves' and 'not from works.' Remember that there are faithful works that ought to be displayed daily in services to the poor and other good deeds…" Gaius Marius Victorinus

I think this is the motivation behind Dr. Ortlund's line of reasoning. He tries to show icons and Mary were a break with historical Christianity up to that point because then it's okay for the reformers to break with historical Christianity up to that point as well. The only real Christian tradition is breaking with tradition. An argument that, if followed consistently to its conclusion, would tend towards Christian agnosticism just as well as Protestantism, and probably moreso imo. But it does open a door of reasoning for Catholics. If you can find a doctrine that was obscured for 1500 years just by reading a few verses in the bible, why not say we can justify Catholic doctrine itself by appealing to a few verses? That is, even if the Catholic church made a break with what came before on the topic of icons or Mary, it can do that because it appeals to scripture to back up these doctrines either formally or informally. In the absence of decisive evidence, it seems reasonable to stick with the older break of Catholicism than the very new break of Protestantism. If that's not good enough for you, then go even earlier than the 3rd or 4th century and stick with what was defined there, but either way that still doesn't leave you with Protestantism just a Catholicism that hasn't answered as many controversies and questions. Really the issue with semper reformanda is that it assumes all reforms are equal. By my reckoning, it could just be, and very arguably is, better to stick with the earliest reforms as they were most likely to be the correct reforms. If not, why not?

Ephesians 2v 8 "For by Grace you have been saved through faith .. it is the gift of God not of works lest anyone boast" However Christ also said "by their fruit ye shall know them" In other words Faith results in works, or works are evidence of a saving faith. But it is not the works that save.