![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2026\/04\/Luther1546.jpg\")
<\/a>For background, see Part 1: \u201cReformation\u201d Debate (vs. Lutheran Nathan Rinne) . . . Including St. Augustine\u2019s Opposition to Imputed Justification, \u201cFaith Alone\u201d & Other Protestant Unprecedented Innovations<\/a><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n No traditional Catholic dogmas have been changed or overturned. We\u2019re still against abortion and divorce and contraception (all Protestants agreed with us till 1930, and Luther thought it was murder). We still teach the Holy Trinity and everything in the Nicene Creed. <\/span>If you think we have changed something, by all means provide the proof. But those who make these claims virtually never even try to do that.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n First of all, I understand Dave\u2019s frustration with me here. Regarding liberalism, we can certainly point out how we are all, not just Rome, tremendously affected!<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>The Pew data shows this.<\/span><\/a> Sadly, regarding all the important questions Pew asks about faith and morals, the Roman Catholics generally are closer to the Mainline denominations than the Evangelical and \u201cBible-believing\u201d ones.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes; I just saw some polling yesterday about belief in the propriety of homosexual sex. The numbers were atrocious. Evangelical Protestants made the best showing (some 69% opposed, as I recall). About the same percentage of Catholics were in favor. But what people believe \u201con the ground\u201d has nothing whatsoever to do with which body is correct in theology and moral teaching<\/em>, or to what degree<\/em> they are correct. All we can do in making comparisons \u2014 in the end \u2014 is look at a given group\u2019s confessions<\/em> and creeds<\/em> and doctrinal statements<\/em>. There are always ignorant and nominal people in every group. That\u2019s a boring discussion. The poll I saw tells us that even 31% of evangelical<\/em> Protestants (my old allegiance that I was proud to be a part of and still remember with great fondness) think that homosexual sex is perfectly fine.<\/p>\n That\u2019s outrageous. I would say it immediately casts doubt that a person with such opinions is evangelical at all, since he or she clearly rejects biblical inspiration and inerrancy, and a Catholic saying that also rejects the Bible and unbroken Catholic moral teaching and thus has no business identifying as a \u201cCatholic\u201d in any meaningful, historically or even sociologically based sense of the title. It\u2019s a disgrace. In other words, it\u2019s a case of mistaken category identification or \u201cdishonest advertising\u201d (to call oneself an evangelical or a Catholic with such outlandish views). But that\u2019s \u2014 as Nathan noted \u2014 what we all deal with today: rampant, relentless secularization and our beloved, oh-so-superior and holier-than-thou theological liberals, alongside the usual enemies of the world, the flesh, and the devil.<\/p>\n One thing the 19th century LCMS Lutherans were good at doing was convicting people that what they confessed or had on paper was essentially worthless if it was not practiced. Perhaps we should consider that that might apply here?<\/span><\/p>\n Of course all self-proclaimed Christians need to practice what they preach and be consistent and orthodox and moral, loving, etc. as traditionally understood. But that\u2019s a different question<\/em> from deciding yay or nay on which group to join. If the criterion had been the wonderful knowledge and Christian moral consistency of individual Catholics back in 1990 when I converted, I never<\/em> would have become Catholic in a billion years. The evangelicals \u201cwon\u201d that contest hands-down. But that was irrelevant. All that mattered to me was \u201cwhich group is more biblical<\/em> and which carried on the glorious legacy of apostolic and patristic teachings<\/em> and practice<\/em>?\u201d The answer was extremely easy. One simply has to know in the first place which questions to ask and what to look for; how to properly make such a decision.<\/p>\n Going along with this, the following quote would probably be acceptable to most every person that we think is decent and who we would want to have as a neighbor:<\/span><\/p>\n There is no doubt that an element of the truly righteous life, or good life, is that it is characterized by real love and compassion which does not think about rewards, spontaneously comes from the heart, and shares the love of God with all people (see, e.g., Deut. 11).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Amen! May that<\/em> tribe of people multiply like wildfire!<\/p>\n I know Rome certainly remains \u201cdogmatic\u201d today, but, to say the least, it is not very \u201cdogmatic\u201d to imply atheists can be saved, . . . <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n St. Paul did that in Romans 2, and St. Thomas Aquinas \u2014 in his ever-helpful distinctions \u2014 allowed for a possibility of it (which doesn\u2019t have to be a great<\/em> possibility). If someone doesn\u2019t know something, they don\u2019t. They can know God exists<\/em> (as Romans 1 makes clear). But whoever is saved is saved by<\/em> God\u2019s grace, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and through<\/em> the Church (as Luther and Calvin also firmly held), whether they are aware of it or not. God knows how much everyone knows, and hence, how culpable they are; we don\u2019t. I\u2019m glad to let God be God, and we know He is extremely merciful and is love itself, as well as being the Great Judge. <\/span><\/p>\n We\u2019ll know when we get to heaven what is the truth regarding all of these disputed matters and we\u2019ll know the reasons why<\/em> whatever is true, is true. Nathan can come look me up at that time and we\u2019ll review our debates and see who got what right. It\u2019ll be fun! We can all laugh about our past errors then, and see how silly and ungrounded they were, and how blind we all have been in cases where we were wrong, when we are perfected in knowledge and glorified. I can\u2019t wait!<\/span><\/p>\n Google Gemini tells me that \u201cThe Council of Florence is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a valid, infallible ecumenical council that successfully defined key doctrines\u2014such as the Filioque, purgatory, and papal supremacy\u2026.\u201d, and that is sometimes considered the 21st Ecumenical Council.<\/span><\/p>\n That Council said this in its 11th session (1442):\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I dealt with this sort of thing at great length in reply to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund (who has ignored some 40 of my replies to him, save one):<\/p>\n Catholicism & Non-Catholic Salvation (Vs. Gavin Ortlund) + How Early Protestants Widely Damned Other Protestants Who Held Different Theological Views<\/a> [2-9-24]<\/p>\n See also my many treatments of this topic, and some I have collected from others:<\/p>\n Is There Salvation Outside the Church?<\/a>\u00a0(Fr. William G. Most) [Catholic Culture<\/em>, 1988]<\/p>\n Salvation Outside the Church?: Alleged Catholic Magisterial Contradictions & St. Thomas Aquinas\u2019 Views\u00a0<\/a>[7-31-03]<\/p>\n No Salvation Outside the Church: Reply to Pastor Bill Keller<\/a>\u00a0[4-23-08]<\/p>\n Salvation Outside the Church<\/a> [Joe Heschmeyer,\u00a0Shameless Popery<\/em>, 8-12-10]<\/p>\n Various Thoughts on Salvation \u201cOutside\u201d the Church<\/a>\u00a0[2012]<\/p>\n Ecumenism vs. No Salvation Outside of the Church?\u00a0<\/a>(vs. Dustin Buck Lattimore)\u00a0[8-9-17]<\/p>\n Has Rome really resisted liberalism? <\/span><\/p>\n In our official teachings, yes: across the board, as no other Christian body has done. This is why I am a Catholic. Protestants institutionalize<\/em> theological error and sin. We do not. That\u2019s the essential difference in this discussion of how \u201cliberal\u201d different Christian communions are.<\/p>\n Is there any other church that so eagerly and vigorously embraced evolutionary theory \u2013 which certainly undermines the underlying account of creation, fall, and redemption in the scriptures \u2013 as much as did Rome?<\/span><\/p>\n It does no such thing. How God may have created, and laws of science, whatever they may be, are infinitely less important than the fact that God is creator and sustainer and upholder of the universe. Matters of science are different from the Christian faith itself. People have different opinions.<\/p>\n The death penalty is not dogma. It\u2019s a question of how justice is applied. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil, and in the past the Catholic Church favored it. In today\u2019s environment, it has been decided that being against it is more in accord with pro-life principles. But that\u2019s not a change in dogma.<\/span><\/p>\n In the Roman Catholic Church today it is now said that the discipline of celibacy for priests is a discipline and <\/span>not a dogma.<\/span><\/i> And yet, in the past, some men believed that celibacy for priests was absolutely required.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Nathan confuses categories. Clearly, something can be required as a discipline without it being a dogma.<\/p>\n The question really is where the line between dogma and discipline begins and ends.<\/span><\/p>\n I suppose there can be some fine lines, as in all serious worldviews and systems of thought, but there has never been any debate over whether celibacy is a discipline and not a dogma. People simply vehemently disagree with this particular discipline, on inadequate grounds. I\u2019ve argued it probably more than twenty times by now. The biblical case is strong.<\/p>\n And the current statements about the death penalty appear to be rather absolute and not based on historical contingencies at all. How can we know for sure that this is not now to be considered a dogma?<\/span><\/p>\n The most obvious way is because it changed<\/em>, and as Nathan knows, Catholics believe that dogmas can\u2019t change; they can only consistently develop from what was before. The view on this could also change because opponents of the death penalty aren\u2019t saying that it\u2019s intrinsically<\/em> wrong. But it\u2019s not enough to summarize this issue with nice little soundbites. It requires serious thought and analysis. See:<\/p>\n Dr. Fastiggi Replies to Dr. Feser on Capital Punishment<\/a>\u00a0[2-2-18]<\/p>\n Not Burning Heretics was a Far More \u201cControversial\u201d Change (Pondering the Analogy of Not Burning \u201cMurderers of Souls\u201d to Recent Popes\u2019 Opposition to\u00a0All<\/em>\u00a0Capital Punishment)<\/a>\u00a0[8-6-18]<\/p>\n Three Popes & Capital Punishment (vs. Ed Feser)<\/a>\u00a0(with Catholic Theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi) [10-20-20]<\/p>\n The Death Penalty Is Wrong But Not Intrinsically Evil or Infallible<\/a>\u00a0[Fr. Matthew P. Schneider, LC, 8-6-18]<\/p>\n Understanding the Catechism Revision on the Death Penalty<\/a>\u00a0[Jimmy Akin, 8-8-18]<\/p>\n Capital Punishment and Magisterial Authority<\/a>\u00a0(+\u00a0Part 2<\/a>,\u00a0Part 3<\/a>,\u00a0Part 4<\/a>) [Robert Fastiggi,\u00a0Where Peter Is<\/em>, 8-17-23]<\/p>\n If someone wants to choose only one of the articles above to read, I highly recommend the last series by Dr. Fastiggi, a personal friend of mine, and a renowned systematic Catholic theologian. He covers every base, and brilliantly so, as always.<\/p>\n Does Nathan prefer the 1530s in Saxony, where Luther and Melanchthon were in favor of drowning Anabaptists for heresy and sedition, because they believed in adult baptism? This would entail the execution of Billy Graham, John MacArthur, James White, Gavin Ortlund, Charles Spurgeon, John Bunyan, Chuck Colson, Johnny Cash, Presidents Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter, and myself between 1982 and 1990, since I did a full immersion \u201cbaptism\u201d in 1982 (having embraced the \u201cbeliever\u2019s baptism\u201d view)?<\/p>\n This topic is far from the topic of the \u201cReformation.\u201d<\/p>\n So, why not simply assert to them that there is no other name under Heaven by which they must be saved, and to tell them to believe in the Lord Jesus? Why not boldly assert without any hesitation that he alone is the way, the truth, and the life? Should we not desire to lift him up and to glorify him and proclaim him before the nations?\u00a0To put all the other false conceptions of God to shame? To recognize that only He has been raised from the dead? Why not encourage all to read the Bible and to take a look at Acts 17? Why not boldly say to them: thank God Jesus is God!<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously, I do<\/em> do that, as an evangelist and apologist (full-time since 2001 and altogether since 1981). I\u2019ve devoted my life to it, at considerable personal cost in several ways. That said, there are cases where a person might be saved based on what they know and don\u2019t know. Just let God iron all that out. Our job is to proclaim and defend the gospel (and I say also, the fullness of Christianity in Catholicism), as Nathan says.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve been out there for thirty years online, taking the slings and arrows and rank public personal insults and calumnies from anti-Catholics, reactionary Catholics, liberal Catholics and Protestants, Catholic pope-bashers, atheists, political liberals, homosexual activists, radical feminists (sometimes even losing friends \u2014 or so-called<\/em> \u201cfriends\u201d \u2014 for taking a stand), etc. because I believe in my message 1000% and will do the best I can to get that message out to as many people as I can, no matter how much opposition I encounter.<\/p>\n I\u2019m willing to undergo that nonsense and to make a lot less money than the average income in America, yet still outwork virtually any other Catholic apologist today (as several prominent apologists have said about me). Delighted and privileged to do it . . . \u201cthey left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name\u201d (Acts 5:41); \u201cFor necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! . . . What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel. For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more\u201d (1 Cor 9:16, 18-19). St. Paul is my hero, and I follow his evangelistic model, right down to \u201cmaking tents\u201d when financial necessity requires it, and offering more than 5,000 articles and now 65+ videos for free.<\/p>\n No one will be justified by the law, not even the Apostle Paul as a Christian can perfectly keep the commands of God (Romans 7).<\/span><\/p>\n The latter isn\u2019t true, according to the Bible. See my paper, Perfectly Keeping the Law: 15 Bible Passages<\/a> [12-12-24]. Paul said about himself: \u201cas to righteousness under the law blameless\u201d (Phil 3:6).<\/p>\n It seems that Dave would basically confirm what I am saying here when he gives me his reasons for being confident that he will make it to heaven:<\/span><\/p>\n God should let me into heaven because I am characterized by righteousness, integrity, uprightness of heart, good conduct, good ways and good fruits, good deeds, having done the will of God, endured to the end, hearing Jesus\u2019 words and doing them, feeding the hungry, providing drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, welcoming strangers, visiting the sick and prisoners, inviting the poor and maimed and lame and blind to my feast, good works, obeying the truth, being a good laborer and fellow worker with God, unblamable holiness, being wholly sanctified, a sound and blameless spirit and soul and body, being without spot or blemish, knowing God, obeying the gospel, sharing Christ\u2019s sufferings, and repentance.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Conversely, I\u2019m not wicked, committing abominations, angry with or insulting my brother, calling someone a fool, weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness, and the cares of this life, ungodly, suppressing the truth, doing evil, a coward, faithless, polluted, a murderer, fornicator, sorcerer, idolater, or a liar.<\/span><\/p>\n This is how God and Bible-writers say we get to heaven. I like to actually cite the Bible on the exact topic at hand when I claim to be representing what it teaches. I\u2019m weird that way.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yes; note the second-to-last sentence: \u201c<\/span>This is how God<\/em><\/strong> and Bible-writers<\/em><\/strong> say we get to heaven.\u201d<\/span> I \u201cconfirm\u201d<\/span> what the Bible<\/em><\/strong> commands me to do as regards salvation (alongside and in conjunction with faith: both caused by grace). I\u2019m being ultra<\/em>-biblical, in fact. This is the problem for Protestant soteriology. It\u2019s massively unbiblical<\/em>, and I can\u2019t find any Protestant who is willing to provide for me counter-exegesis for the many hundreds of \u201cCatholic verses I produce as pro-Catholic arguments (here\u2019s Nathan\u2019s golden opportunity!). <\/span><\/p>\n I recently expanded this argument again, with 70 Bible passages: NT: 70 Specific Good Works Contribute to Salvation<\/a> [3-6-26] This is explicit biblical teaching. It\u2019s not mysterious or a difficult conclusion to arrive at. It\u2019s plain as day (as long as someone allows<\/em> it to be and doesn\u2019t place man-made tradition above biblical revelation). I didn\u2019t come up with it: Jesus and the inspired Bible-writers did. So Nathan ought to go argue with them<\/em>, rather than imply that I believe I\u2019m doing all of this on my own power, for my own glory, without God\u2019s grace, or that it\u2019s supposedly unbiblical<\/em> to do so. It\u2019s all grace-enabled, but we still have to do<\/em> it. But Protestants so often fall prey to the \u201ceither\/or\u201d mentality that isn\u2019t biblical, either. It has much more to do with secular Greek philosophical rationalism than Hebrew biblical thought.<\/span><\/p>\n For, as noted above, Lutherans have no trouble acknowledging that God\u2019s final judgment before the eyes of all will be according to works. And this is not an issue. <\/span><\/p>\n Then why not go the whole way and agree with the Bible, Augustine and the fathers, all of medieval non-heretical soteriological tradition, even Luther himself to some extent, that sanctification and justification must not be formally separated<\/em>, Melanchthon-style; that works are part and parcel of salvation, alongside grace and faith? If Nathan says, after all, that salvation will be \u201c<\/span>according<\/em> to works\u201d<\/span> that\u2019s causation<\/em>, and that\u2019s the Catholic and Augustinian view.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not that we get to heaven <\/span>by<\/span><\/i> our good works, but that anyone who gets to heaven will have such good works.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This is the category confusion and error and the Protestant tradition of men and talking points (sorry!). Scripture precisely says over and over (I present 150 passages; 120 from the NT<\/a>) that works are one of the causes<\/em><\/strong> of salvation, not merely the inevitable fruit of an already achieved one-time justification. That was why Augustine believed as he did. The absolute clearest and most undeniable passages about this are the rich young ruler and the scene of the sheep and the goats. But there are at least 148 more passages that have to be directly addressed and incorporated by Protestants (since this is all inspired Scripture) into their overall view, and not ignored or rationalized away. This is the sort of thing that will create Catholic converts. Someone reading this right now may be on the edge of converting, and this information will put them over the edge. Lord please! Here I am preaching a biblical message, repeated over and over.<\/p>\n He began by saying that \u201cGod should let me into heaven because\u2026.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, exactly. What Nathan seems not to realize<\/em> is that this is a direct response<\/em> to a very common evangelistic approach from Protestants. They will ask, \u201cif you died tonight, and God asked you why<\/em> He should let you into heaven, what would you say<\/em>?\u201d I explained all of that in my original paper on this topic in 2003<\/a>, after an encounter with Presbyterian Matt Slick, who runs the CARM forum. Protestants like him hope that the \u201cdumb\u201d Catholic will talk about works when asked this, at which point they can counter that salvation is all by grace and faith and not works at all, and proceed with the usual \u201ccanned\u201d 5-10 verses that are always brought up (John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9<\/a> being absolutely required every time).<\/p>\n My polemical and apologetical point is that the Bible teaches\u00a0(in 70 ways I have found) that our post-regeneration, post-initial justification grace-caused good works also<\/em> are reasons why we will be let into heaven. Again, this isn\u2019t me; it isn\u2019t some Catholic invention, or salvation by works; it\u2019s the Bible. The Bible teaches that salvation comes by grace through faith, which in turn includes within itself (assuming we live for some time after our baptism) grace-enabled good works done with this same faith. It doesn\u2019t separate works into a solely non-salvific category. It was Philip Melanchthon who was the first to do that, according to McGrath, 1500 years after Christ and the beginning of His Church. Why should anyone think that makes any sense? If he was right, then someone would have figured that out long before, and I would contend that it would have been in the Bible, if it\u2019s so<\/em><\/strong> earth-shakingly profound and important. But neither is the case.<\/p>\n I would deal with this question, \u201cWhy should God let you into his heaven?\u201d, <\/span>in a completely different way<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, it would be the highly selective evangelical and\/or Lutheran way that separates works from the overall equation in a way that the Bible and Augustine and the fathers and unbroken soteriological tradition do not do. It picks a few passages and ignores 150 others, and will nevertheless be called \u201cbiblical.\u201d We\u2019re not ignoring<\/em> grace and faith. They\u2019re absolutely necessary<\/em>, too<\/strong>. We simply don\u2019t exclude works<\/em> because it\u2019s anti-biblical to do so. And we don\u2019t teach salvation by works alone, or works salvation, which is the heresy of Pelagianism.<\/p>\n What is the major difference here? Here is something that I wrote in the past that I believe speaks to this specifically:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Having been Christianized, [most human beings in the West were nevertheless] tempted to manipulate God by insisting that when they did the stuff that He said was right and good, He was obligated to reciprocate. Even in the Christian church, the concept of \u2018congruous merit\u2019 arose, which stated that \u2018on the ground of equity\u2019 we could claim a reward \u2013 even the reward of eternal life \u2013 from God for our works. In other words, were God not to compensate us, He would actually be committing an offense by violating that which is fitting.\u00a0 He would be unfairly discriminating against us (even if, strictly speaking, as God, He was under no obligation and violated none of our rights in doing so)! In short, what this really means is that man perpetually underestimates the depth and seriousness of original sin \u2013 and his sins to boot.\u00a0 That a \u2018Great Divorce\u2019 on God\u2019s part would actually be justice does not even seem to occur for many modern persons claiming Christ.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n No Scripture given there, but I can provide lots of it in support of merit:<\/p>\n Meritorious Works: 50 Biblical Proofs (Bible Passages On God\u2019s Rewarding and Being Pleased by Grace-Originated Meritorious Works of the Regenerate)<\/a>\u00a0[10-4-24]<\/p>\n Justification in the Book of James (Different from Paul?)\u00a0<\/a>[8-30-23]<\/p>\n Works & Sanctification Partly Cause Salvation: 34 Passages<\/a>\u00a0[1-30-25]<\/p>\n Salvation Caused by Actions: 80 Bible Passages (. . . Proving That \u201cFaith Alone\u201d is a False Doctrine)<\/a>\u00a0[10-5-24]<\/p>\n Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[72 passages] [2013]<\/p>\n \u201cDo\u201d in the NT vs. \u201cFaith Alone\u201d (40 Passages)<\/a>\u00a0[11-16-25]<\/p>\n Reply to Calvin\u2019s\u00a0Antidote to Trent<\/em>\u00a0on Justification (Highlighting \u201cWorking Together with God\u201d and Our Grounds for \u201cBoasting\u201d and \u201cPride\u201d in the Meritorious Work We and Other Christians Do for the Sake of God and Evangelism)<\/a>\u00a0[10-14-24]<\/p>\n Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification)<\/a>\u00a0[380 passages] [1-21-10]<\/p>\n Last Day: What Jesus Says To The Elect (Vs. Gavin Ortlund) + Bible Passages On the Organic Relationship of Faith, Works, Grace, Obedience, & Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[2-16-24]<\/p>\n \u201cIf You Died Tonight\u201d: Debate w Matt Slick of CARM<\/a>\u00a0[5-22-03]<\/p>\n St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages)<\/a>\u00a0[8-6-08]<\/p>\n New Testament Epistles on Bringing About Further Sanctification and Even Salvation By Our Own Actions<\/a>\u00a0[7-2-13]<\/p>\n Of course Dave\u2019s own idea of why God should let him into heaven is not the way that any traditional, orthodox Presbyterian would think!<\/span><\/p>\n Then they are literally being anti-biblical, by utterly ignoring 70 Bible passages that tie works into salvation, alongside grace and faith. That\u2019s what I was being provocative about. I was challenging Matt Slick and chiding him for being so unbiblical. I\u2019m the one who accepts all<\/em><\/strong> biblical teaching and tries to live by it. Imagine that!: the lowly Catholic \u201cpapist\u201d \u201cout-Bibling\u201d the quintessential \u201cBible people\u201d! But this has been the experience of so many Catholic converts. We have a saying on our YouTube channel about Catholic converts like us: \u201cBible verses I never saw.\u201d Protestants sadly very often only trot out highly selected \u201cprooftexts\u201d and ignore vast portions of the Bible that don\u2019t fit into their theology very well, if at all.<\/p>\n Rome puts so much emphasis <\/span>not on faith<\/span><\/i> but on living a good life based on the knowledge of this that one possesses<\/span><\/i>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n For the 20th time, we are simply following explicit biblical guidelines. We are not excluding grace and faith at all. It\u2019s Protestants who are unbiblically excluding works from salvation altogether. They<\/em> have the \u201cignoring the Bible\u201d problem here, not us.<\/p>\n Of course it makes sense that our old nature will need to be entirely purged before we enter the next life. <\/span><\/p>\n Glad to hear it!<\/p>\n In the deuterocanonical texts it does talk about how almsgiving makes atonement. That is true. <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s not indulgences [that was Nathan\u2019s own title for this section]. That would be penance. Indulgences mean the relaxation of temporal punishment for sin.<\/p>\n But why does Rome insist that doctrine should be established by texts that they themselves admit are not at the same level as those books from the primary canon? If this is sufficiently important, why is it not a part of the primary canon?<\/span><\/p>\n It is. Our latest video is on this topic, and I have the following articles out there already, among others:<\/p>\n Biblical Evidence for Indulgences<\/a>\u00a0[1996]<\/p>\n Myths and Facts Regarding Tetzel and Indulgences\u00a0<\/a>[11-25-16; published in\u00a0Catholic Herald<\/em>]<\/p>\n The Biblical Roots and History of Indulgences<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 5-25-18]<\/p>\n Vs. James White #11: Biblical Evidence for Indulgences<\/a>\u00a0[11-15-19]<\/p>\n Top Ten Explicit Biblical Proofs for Indulgences<\/a> [1-14-26]<\/p>\n