A Question Protestants Can't Answer
Brian Holdsworth, 14 July 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I05643Pbxo
[Not yet seen it]
"A Question Protestants Can't Answer?" My Response to Brian Holdsworth
Truth Unites, 18 July 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf3EnFfIspk
6:18 You are explaining Baptist Protestantism.
Brian was explaining Lutheran Protestantism.
I once moved from sth very close to Baptist Protestantism to Lutheranism as it officially is now. Because I believed Lutheranism was older than Free Churches (in Sweden that's certainly so, 16th vs 19th C), and because I had no qualms about Baptising children.
While I was a Lutheran, I more or less believed as you, somewhat closer to Luther. But I also refused to believe Catholicism (historical or contemporary mainstream) was the Harlot of Apoc 18, or the Pope the Antichrist of Apocalypse 13. I would have taken those positions as very extreme Protestant positions, not representative of Lutheranism. The problem is, when I read Luther's letter to Bohemians, I found that that was precisely his position.
So, what you are defending is not the actual position of the Reformers. It may be your actual position, so it's your protestant position. But it's not the historic Protestant position.
- @fantasia55
- Protestant denominations are all the same. Each was founded by someone who thought he knew better than Jesus.
- @hglundahl
- @fantasia55 Is Buddhism and Islam the same?
Both were founded by people who thought they knew better than whatever remains of the revelation at whatever stage they had access to.
It's an idiocy, apart from the evil purpose of maintaining prejudice as prejudice, to reproach one Protestant (or Pagan) sect the errors of another, different one.
6:53 First of all, Gabriel Biel was local to South Germany.
Second, he never wrote a tractate on the question of justification.
Here are his works. Those that were posthumously printed in the Counterreformation:
Gabriel Biel, Sacri canonis Missae expositio resolutissima literalis et mystica, Brixen, 1576.
Gabriel Biel, Epitome expositionis canonis Missae, Antwerp, 1565.
Gabriel Biel, Gabrielis Biel Canonis Misse Expositio, edited by Heiko Oberman and William J. Courtenay, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1965-1967.
Gabriel Biel, Sermones, Brixen, 1585.
Gabriel Biel, Collectorium sive epitome in magistri sententiarum libros IV, Brixen, 1574.
Gabriel Biel, Tractatvs varii atqve vtilis de monetis, carvmqve mvtatione ac falsitate in gratiam studiosorum ac practicorum collecti, Cologne: Theodorus Baumius, 1574.
So ... three works on Holy Mass, three other various works, two very general collections, and one more like a monography on economic questions.
To cherry-pick Biel as a fair exposition of the Roman Catholic view of justification is wrong.
8:17 Like Roman Catholicism, and unlike Luther, you require sincere contrition and an intention of turning away from sins.
I'll give you an example why this is not representative of the Reformation era Protestantism.
You may have heard Tyndale was burned for translating the Bible into English. Wrong. He was burned in Vilvoorde in Belgium, where the languages back then were Flemish, Spanish, possibly French, absolutely not English which was not yet a world language.
Tyndale fans have actually made pages about the Inquisitorial process. And while Tyndale's writings in the dialogue leading to his condemnation are not preserved, James' Latomus' ones are.
How was Abraham justified? Both Tyndale and Latomus agreed from Romans 3, he was at a certain point in time justified by faith without any previous works meriting that justification. Where they differ is whether the justification involved or didn't involve an obligation to subsequent works.
You are taking the position of Latomus, Abraham would not have been justified if he hadn't made the resolution to obey God.
The position of Tyndale was, Abraham could have had no intention at all of living a godly life, as long as he believed God was justifying him, he was justified. That's also the position of Luther.
Why did soldiery in Protestant countries get more drunk than previously? Because staying sober is "works" and keeping Lent is "works" ... if a soldier drinking a bit too much an evening (sth which happened often) woke up with a headache, said to himself "shouldn't really have done that, but hey, I believe Christ died for me, so I'm forgiven!" according to Luther's theology he was immediately forgiven. Note, I said Luther's - not your own.
11:36 Karl Barth died the year I was born.
Referring to Barth to see what Luther meant is a bit like going to Surah V to see what John 8:58 really means (not saying Luther was as good as the Gospel of John or Barth as bad as Surah V).
A n a c h r o n i s m.
11:56 The core issue is not whether "the obedience of His life and death" can be placed on someone's account.
The core issue is, can it do so with someone not resolving to be obedient? And while you seem to share the Catholic view, no, Tyndale and Luther had the opposite one, yes.
12:17 Will you argue that "faith" simply means the act of believing with no reference to any will of obedience ?
Because, while John 3:16 uses the same language as St. Paul, a few verses later Christ adds a fairly important clarification:
He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.
Believing in someone may sometimes be said of someone who is ready to trust someone's judgement. And trusting Jesus' judgement means obeying Him, doing what He says, at least habitually, and rising from the lapses. Important thing to ponder before you declare "faith alone" the terms of justification.
12:37 Romans 4:4 has this Catholic comment:
[4] "To him that worketh": Vis., as of his own fund, or by his own strength. Such a man, says the apostle, challenges his reward as a debt due to his own performances; whereas he who worketh not, that is, who presumeth not upon any works done by his own strength, but seeketh justice through faith and grace, is freely justified by God's grace.
He's not saying we don't have to obey. He's saying we should ask God to make us obedient through His grace.
14:08 I am reminded of Christ healing leprosy.
And here St. John says "make" and not "declare" ... in other words, the declaration is followed by an actual and even immediate change.
Luke 17:12 - 14 - the words Go, shew yourselves to the priests. are in fact a declaration "you are clean"
And if again it be turned into whiteness, and cover all the man, The priest shall view him, and shall judge him to be clean.
Leviticus 13
Jesus had just said "the priest can view you and judge you clean" ...
This points to a difference about the sanctification.
If I commit some certain sin of the flesh and confess it, Catholicism views me as clean from it until I repeat offense. Protestantism considers I'm still that sinner until I have completely ceased to do that sin.
15:04 Here St. John Chrysostom is urging to not repeat the sin, at least to shun the next (unnecessary) occasion for it.
15:30 Pretty much, and again, St. John uses the word "make" and not "declare" - in other words, whatever remaining inclinations one may have to sin, one is not made unjust and is not committing a sin by those inclinations. It's acting on them which changes things to the worse again.
17:10 Come on. It's not "justification by works" because how you feel about yourself is something distinct from your justice or your status before God.
You may want the event to go well because you want someone else to be saved (even if that's not certain, given the wrongs of your theology).
You may want the event to go well because you want to keep your job, you have a family to feed, or if your work as youth pastor started before you had one, you were planning to have one.
18:22 "true penitance" - sounds so Roman Catholic. Sounds so not Lutheran.
Responding to Dr. Gavin Ortlund - "A Question Protestants Can't Answer"
Brian Holdsworth, 19 July 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHlDARLn-X8
2:43 Could it be that Lutheranism is, either overall pretty dead, or, even more probably, never was very alive among Baptists and Anabaptists in the first place?
3:38 I think lots of Lutherans treat the Augsburg confession about as much as a dead letter as Sébastien Antoni, supposedly Assumptionist in Paris, supposedly in good standing with the Catholic Church (in better standing with Bergoglians over here than I am), treats Trent Session V as dead letter.
Or at least did back when our dispute was, while I do not know of any change of mind later on.
No comments:
Post a Comment