Why Does This Catholic vs. Protestant Debate Never Resolve?

Dude, that's word concept stuff. I don't have to, I don't, I don't have to meet your standard word concept. It's just the same. You're you're making an assertion that people can be justified without being predestined. Can you give me a single biblical example of that? Of someone says that they're justified?

"Where does it say that Judas was justified?"

Oh my gosh. It doesn't. It doesn't say anywhere that he's justified.

Argument from silence, word concept. And you know it, dude. You're the one asserting. You have the burden of proof to say that it's possible for a person to not be predestined but get justified. You have the burden of proof. If you can't substantiate, then then back down from your position.

"Judas a disciple. Was Judas a disciple?"

Yes. Being a he wasn't justified. You know how much that doesn't make sense.

"An dude," how do you, have you looked at John 17?

This up, man. I'm getting animated. I can't believe people eat this up. I'm just believing what scripture says here. That no scripture says predicated on reformer reformed traditions and Lutheran. I haven't quoted a single reformed tradition. Instead, I'm just going to scripture. Called the spirit of Protestantism. That's where it comes from.

[music]

Why is it that almost every time we see a debate about works and salvation, it never seems to land? And sometimes it doesn't just stay at the level of misunderstanding. It culminates into larger claims about Protestantism, like the one we just heard. Now, [music] when Roman Catholics say something like that, when they talk about the spirit of Protestantism, they are usually referring to the idea that Protestantism inherently produces a sort of flattening and lack of theological precision. And this is allegedly because there is no single definable Protestantism, only many individual Protestants with differing beliefs.

So, what we just heard is the climax of a back and forth between two YouTubers, Ryan from needgod.net and a guy by the name of Eric from Catholic Christian. And, uh, it was a perfect example of a real-world discussion that you may find yourself in one day. Many of you probably already have. Which is why in this video, I want to slow that conversation down and investigate, not to react to it, but actually identify where it breaks down and why. Where the categories shift, where the responses fall short, and what a clearer, more historically grounded Protestant answer would have sounded like. And in the process, I want us to be asking a simple question: Is what we're going to hear put forth actually Protestant? And by the end, if you're an evangelical or a Protestant, you're going to be better equipped to navigate the next, uh, works-based salvation discussion that you find yourself in, as well as the claim that there's no unified understanding of Protestantism, only rogue individual Protestants.

Now, as we go along, you're going to hear some technical language from some fancy names. And that's on purpose, not to chest thump or wow you with big words, but to show the richness of the Reformation heritage across the board and how it measures up to a lot of what we hear today that often gets labeled Protestant. Um, I realize it's going to be a lot of information because touchy subjects like this require us to be precise. But before we get into it, welcome to Canon and Creed. My name is Miles, and this is the channel where amidst all the noise in Christianity today, we slow things down and try and look at what's going on underneath the surface, all from a historic Protestant perspective. So, if that's something that interests you, hit subscribe and come along for the ride. This is the Canon Creed live show.

[music]

Can I just, uh, piggyback off what that last gentleman was trying to say, maybe?

Or, and your analogy at least to the, the gift of, was it $50?

Australian dollars or American dollars? What are we talking? [laughter] Worth more? Yeah.

I mean, that makes a difference, my friend. Does it? As soon as it's, whether it's 50 Filipino pesos or whether it is whatever it is, if I require you to wash my car, clean my house, do good things for me, would, would that money be a gift if you had to do that to get the money?

Sure. Sure. Uh, before I answer that, I just want to apologize on behalf of a Catholic that came onto your channel. I think it was like two or three weeks ago. I think his name was Ben. And he didn't really represent our faith well, and just by the way he acted, and it was reprehensible and deplorable. So I just, I apologize because, you know, it can be scandalizing to you. It can be scandalizing to just anyone that's not a Christian. And I would hate for anyone to make a hasty generalization and encapsulate all of us as if that's how we act in public or in private. So I'm sorry that you do get some rotten apples up here. I mean, I don't know how you do it, man. Because some of the people, I mean, you got to have an extraordinary amount of grace and resilience to actually put up with some of these people. So, in that sense, in that sense,

Oh, glory to God.

I'll, I'll pat your back, but just a little, little pat. [laughter] So, all right. So,

And because my, my focus of my ministry is, I just really want people to understand the gospel of grace, to find rest in Christ, to end up in heaven. And so that's that having that mindset helps me to be like, I'm going to try to be patient with, with this person as long as it's reasonable and point them to Christ. And then if they don't want to hear, they don't want to hear. But

Yeah.

May, may God save those who get to hear the gospel.

Okay. So I'll take a stab at your question or your dilemma with the gift, the free gift of gratuitity and all that stuff. So I think when it comes to accepting a gift, you also have the will to reject that gift. But to properly accept a gift, especially when it comes to like covenantal grace, you have to be properly disposed to receive that gift. So for instance, our Lord says, I think the first words out of his mouth in his public ministry, repent and believe if you want to enter into the kingdom of God. Well, those are dispositions before you can enter into the kingdom of God. I know you don't believe in baptism getting you into heaven and all that stuff, so I, why even argue about that? But for you to receive Christ, right, the bridegroom, to receive him, you need to be properly disposed because if he comes to you and you're not properly disposed, you're not going to know who he is and you're not going to prop, you're not going to accept him as who he is. So, and the offer of his grace, which is free. Okay? I wouldn't say it's contingent on something that you have to strictly do in of yourself, but through the dispositions and the pervenient graces that come before you need through your will, and this is where you where you'll disagree, but through the freedom of your will, you would need to cooperate with the pervenient graces to be disposed to receiving that gift. Otherwise, okay, you're going to, you maybe you'll receive it in vain. It'll be sacrilege, or you'll just straight up reject the gift. But it doesn't mean that the dispositions make it contingent or that it's a wage earned. You know what I'm saying?

I would, I would say it is though. If I only get the inheritance [snorts] of heaven after I die, if it's based on me having to go to mass every single week, take the Eucharist, avoid mortal sins, things like that, then I don't see that as a free gift. I now see it based at least partly on my performance. Sure, there may be faith involved as well, but it is still based on having to go to church, having to avoid sin, and do other things that God wants me to do in order to eventually obtain that inheritance of heaven.

Okay, so let's get oriented here real quick because on the surface, Ryan's objection has a very understandable ring to it for Protestants and evangelicals. Uh, if I were to wash your car, if I have to clean your house, if I have to do something in order to get the money, then in what sense is it still a gift? And you can see exactly what he's trying to protect there. He's trying to protect grace. He's trying to preserve the idea that salvation is not a wage, not a paycheck, not something you perform your way into, which is a good instinct. But you can probably feel it, the conversation already starts to get just a little slippery because Eric doesn't simply respond by saying, "Yes, you earn it." He responds more precisely by saying, "No, you, you have to be properly disposed to receive it." Which is a very technical phrase. And then he brings in things like repentance, belief, prevenient grace, cooperation with grace, freedom of the will, and so on. So there's a fork in the discussion right from the beginning. I know it started a little slow, but we want, I wanted to start there because this really is the fork of the discussion, and we're going to see a recurring pattern that pops up over and over and over again. Ryan is still arguing at the level of gift versus earning. But Eric has moved the discussion to the level of gift and disposition for receiving it. And those are not exactly the same thing. Think of it like this. A gift can be free and still only be received by open hands. Open hands do not earn the gift per se. They simply receive it. Now, that still leaves the real question open, of course, who opened the hands and what role does that receiving play? But at least now you see the category that Eric is working with when he speaks about disposition. The recurring theme will be that Ryan simply does not understand Eric's position because Eric is operating a layer deeper than Ryan was able to engage. Notice reformed theologian Lou LeBlanc on this. He was a scholastic. So he more precisely helps us see what Ryan is running into here. It is dense, but bear with me. He writes, "The Roman church says that faith justifies in the manner of disposition or even as a part and beginning of justice. In this respect, faith is referred back to the formal cause of justification. For the understanding of this matter, it must be observed that the doctrines of the Roman church by justification do not mean solely absolution from sins but also the renewal of the inner person, which we designate by the name of sanctification. Moreover, faith is understood in two ways by them. Firstly, as an act of faith, which is stirred up in the soul by the actual help of God before habitual grace is attained. Secondly, as the habit of faith which is infused into the soul of the one who already believes along with the habits of hope and charity. Taken in the former way, faith justifies according to their view by the manner of disposition because through it the soul is prepared and disposed to receive from God the remission of sins and at the same time also that habitual justice, by which the faithful are called righteous and holy in scripture. But faith taken in the latter way pertains to the formal cause of justification because it is a part of that new justice which the Holy Spirit creates in the faithful and by which he truly and effectively makes them righteous and holy."

I like looking at scholastically minded theologians on this channel, not because everyone has to be a scholastic, but because they give us precision, and they were actively engaging the other side at a deeper level. So, in plain English, here's what Leblanc is laying out. Rome is not merely claiming grace is a gift, and that's the end of it. They are saying you are prepared for that gift, disposed for that gift, oriented for that gift. And that is a soul work of God's grace. Okay? And then through that grace, something is formed in you. So the issue is not merely, do you earn salvation like a wage? Protestants say no. Roman Catholics say yes. The issue is, what role do those dispositions play in receiving it? That's the category Ryan misses here because he hears the word "required" and immediately jumps to, "Well, then it's not of grace." But Protestants and evangelicals have to, have to, have to resist this temptation and urge. And it's why historically Protestants were more precise than this. Turning again to Leblanc, notice what he writes. "Since Protestants do not simply deny that certain conditions or moral dispositions are required before justification, which in no more than what the Roman church demands in this regard, and since Catholics do not want these dispositions to be regarded as efficient or meritorious causes with respect to our justification, which is precisely what Protestants abhore, it can be concluded that there is no real controversy between the two regarding these dispositions, but only a certain verbal dispute, which once the ambiguity of certain formulas and words is resolved vanishes."

If you were to stop right there, you'd think the Reformation was just a misunderstanding, then, which it obviously wasn't. LeBlanc is only talking about the one narrow slice of the question. What comes before justification, not what justifies you before God. He's showing that at least at this level of the discussion, Protestants historically did not deny that there are conditions or dispositions in the broader order of salvation. So Ryan's move is too simplistic. He is thinking condition equals strict merit. Condition equals earning. Condition equals wage. And Leblanc is saying, "Not so fast, Ryan. The mere presence of a condition does not by itself destroy grace." And that's why Ryan's objection, as stated in the clip, is weaker than it should be. He's reacting to something Protestants themselves historically didn't even deny. However, however, the agreement only remains if you stay at the level of what comes before justification. We're going to see the real disagreement in a moment. The moment you ask a deeper question, "What actually justifies you before God?" That's where paths diverge. Which means the objection and response has to become more precise. The deeper question is not whether repentance, faith, obedience, and response are present anywhere in the Christian life. Of course, we all agree with this. The deeper question is, what do they do? What role do they actually play? Puritan divine Thomas Watson is perfect for giving us a clean mental category to carry through the rest of the stream. Notice from his body of divinity, which is a 17th-century commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism. He notes, "But are not works required in the covenant of grace? Yes, this is a faithful saying, that they which believe in God be careful to maintain good works. Titus 2:8. But the covenant of grace does not require works in the same manner as the covenant of works did. In the first covenant, works were required as the condition of life. In the second, they're required only as the signs of life. In the first covenant, works were required as grounds of salvation. In the new covenant, they are required as evidences of our love to God. In the first, they were required to the justification of our persons. In the new, to the manifestation of our grace."

So Watson highlights a very important distinction that's very easy to miss in these discussions. This one being no exception. Ryan is collapsing what salvation is based on with what salvation produces. I'm going to say that again. Ryan is collapsing what salvation is based on with what salvation produces, which is a move that if pressed consistently historically leads toward Antinomian heresy. Watson's point is that scripture separates those cleanly. Works are not the ground of salvation. They are the signs of life. In other words, works can be required and grace still not be destroyed. So, brother Ryan is right in instinct, but underdeveloped in structure, and the rest of the conversation is going to ride on whether those categories are kept distinct or collapsed into one another.

Now, regarding what LeBlanc said about the differences basically being semantic, even if we grant everything up to this point, that dispositions exist, that cooperation exists, that real righteousness exists in the believer, that grace actually transforms, and so on. None of that can bear the weight of justification before God. Notice how Leblanc draws a hard line. "When our theologians deny that we are justified before God by inherent righteousness, their meaning is that no one by reason of any sanctity and righteousness found in himself and the good works he has done can be pronounced innocent in the severe judgment of God and absolved from all guilt. Nor can anyone escape damnation in God's judgment and be deemed worthy of eternal life, if God rigorously examines our righteousness and works and there is no mercy or compassion toward us."

And this is where the disagreement becomes very real because Eric is saying, "You must be properly disposed. You must cooperate with grace. You must receive it in, or you must not receive it in vain." And Protestants can say, "Sure, let's discuss conditions, dispositions, repentance, faith, response, all of that. But the moment that any righteousness in you, even grace-enabled righteousness, begins to function as the thing on account of which God accepts you, you've crossed the line because that righteousness cannot stand in the severe holy judgment of God. Not because it's fiction, not because it's not real, not because infusion of grace doesn't happen, but because it's imperfect. And the law does not justify sinners on the basis of sincerity or progress, but on the basis of perfect obedience. And anything short of that, no matter how real, no matter how grace-empowered, cannot bear the weight of the absolving sentence. It's the difference between a stained garment and a spotless robe. However real the stained garment is, however much work has gone into cleaning it, if the standard is perfect cleanliness, it still can't do what only a spotless robe can. It's not just that it's not perfect. It doesn't meet the standard that God requires."

Major difference. Because when the law is considered as the standard of judgment, it does not justify sinners on the basis of sincerity or progress. It justifies on the basis of perfection. And even our best efforts, grace-enabled as they are, do not meet that standard. So now you can see there's a two-fold problem in how this conversation is set up. Ryan is reacting too quickly and too bluntly. He collapses condition into earning, and so he misses the actual Roman Catholic structure and claim. But Eric, for his part, is introducing categories that can't ultimately bear the weight that Rome needs. And we're going to see that in a little bit, uh, in a little bit. And what you're starting to see here, without maybe even realizing it, is that we're not just dealing with different arguments. We're actually dealing with two very different ways of thinking about grace itself. And those competing definitions are what's under the surface driving the conversation.

Now, everything's based on grace. It's not based on just strictly going to mass or observing or obeying the strict letter of the law. Okay? If it were based on those things, you're absolutely right. I'm in agreement with you and I'm against Pelagius. Okay? We don't, that's not a religion. Everything is based on grace. So for instance, St. Augustine,

What does that mean? When you say it's, I just want to clarify. You said everything's based on grace.

I would define grace as unmerited favor.

Yeah.

So therefore, if it's based on grace, as soon as I say, look, I'll give you favor, but it's contingent on you doing something for me, I wouldn't call that grace anymore because you're now trying to merit it.

Sure. No, but the cooperation is itself a grace, and the disposition to actually cooperate with that grace is in itself a grace. Everything is literally a grace. So just because you have the grace to cooperate and the will to cooperate doesn't nullify it being grace because God made us in his image and likeness. So we have, um, free will and we have an intellect. So for us to actually be in a covenantal relationship with Christ, it's got to be based on freedom and grace. We can't be coerced into it. We can't be manipulated into it. We can't be compelled into it.

But just because changes anything, though? Just because you can say it's all by grace. I, I speak to Mormons. They say the same thing. It's all by grace, but you have to do these temple rituals. It's all by grace, but you have to do this and do that.

Well, what do you mean? I don't mean to interrupt you, but what do you mean you have to do these things? What do you mean by you have to do these things? What do you mean?

Well, as in, just like in the Catholic Church, they say you are obliged to attend the Sunday mass, and if you don't, you would deliberately miss that. You commit a grave sin and therefore would even be a mortal sin if you knowingly did that.

Right?

And so therefore, you can say it's all grace, grace, grace. But as soon as you make the, uh, receiving of heaven, the inheritance of heaven contingent on me having to go to mass each week, that's not grace. It's now my performance, what I'm doing for God.

But it sounds like you're putting it in a dichotomy. So me, Catholic Christian, right? I go to mass, but I can go to mass in, with, and under grace, right? Or I could go to mass not with grace, or like we would call it in a state of mortal sin. But we don't have to get in that. So it, whether you want to say it's performative or whatever, that's fine. But if there's no grace as the substance, as the basis, as the thing that's actually moving me and driving me to do these things out of love for Christ, then it's feudal and it's, and it's in vain. You know what I mean? So even if, so that's why going back to my analogy, if you have to go wash my car, clean my house, do all these things to gain a gift from me, it's not really a gift. Even if I say it's all grace, it's grace that you get to do this for me. In fact, I'll empower you or give you food that you need for this.

Still not grace. It's not a gift. You're working for it.

So, I think you're alluding.

Okay. So, before we proceed, notice how Eric is not backing off of grace. He's enthusiastically doubling down on it. Everything is of grace, he says. The cooperation is grace. The will to cooperate is grace. The ability to respond is grace. So from the Roman Catholic paradigm, nothing Ryan said feels like it threatens grace at all. And Ryan hears that and still says, "Yeah, but if I have to do something, it's not grace." Which is where we see the mismatch because at this point, they're not actually disagreeing about whether grace is necessary. They both agree on that. But there are two different ways of thinking about grace operating underneath the surface. I'm not going to fully unpack that yet, but keep that in the back of your mind because what Ryan is reacting against is the idea of cooperation. Again, an understandable instinct. He hears, "You must cooperate," and in his mind, that translates to things like performance, earning, working your way into heaven, etc. But once again, this is a much too surface-level of an understanding. It circles the issue, but it doesn't quite get there. This is where someone like Francis Turretin actually helps us see what's going on here because he diagnoses this exact confusion. He writes, "The question does not concern the second stage of conversion in which it is certain that man is not merely passive but cooperates with God, or rather operates under him. Indeed, he actually believes and converts himself to God. While being acted upon, he acts, and being regenerated and moved by God, he moves himself to the exercise of the new life. Rather, the question concerns the first moment when he is converted and receives new life by regeneration. We contend that he is merely passive in this as a receiving subject and not as an acting principle."

In other words, Turretin is explaining that Protestants historically have agreed that Christians do act. We do believe, we do respond, and we do obey. But that's not the question. The real question is what happens at the point of justification. Because if you collapse those two things, the beginning of salvation and the ongoing life of the Christian, you'll end up talking past each other, which is exactly what's happening here. Ryan is reacting as if any action at all equates to earning. Eric is responding by saying, "No, even that action is produced by grace, dude." And Turretin steps in and says, "No, you're both missing a key distinction that scripture demands. Grace does not eliminate action. It produces it. But that action does not function the same way at every stage."

So, think of it like this. If someone builds a fire, the heat that comes off of it is real, right? It's produced by the fire, but the heat isn't what started the fire and it isn't the source of the fire itself. It's the result of something else already burning. Listen to how the Westminster Larger Catechism puts this. In question 32, we read, "How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?" Answer. "The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator and life and salvation by him, and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his holy spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith with all other saving graces, and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith, and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation."

So, the catechism answers the exact issue that Ryan and a lot of modern evangelicals often struggle with. Scripture teaches that God requires faith. That is a condition of the new covenant. But scripture also teaches that God gives the faith that he requires. And not only that, he produces obedience in the believer. And that obedience is described as evidence, fruit, the outworking of grace, not the ground of acceptance. And I know Ryan would agree with that. I just don't think he's as clear in his articulation sometimes. And so it often times leads to confusion. But now we can answer the question Ryan is struggling with. Can something be required and still be grace? Yes, 100%. If what is required is also given. That's the difference. And with that clarified, we're in a better position to press the actual issue because Eric is right about one thing. Grace really does produce something in you. But the question is, what role does that something play? Turning to Turretin once again, he writes, "But the question is, to what is that imputation made? To justification in life, as we maintain, or only to the infusion of internal grace and inherent righteousness, as they hold? The papist so limit the benefit of the imputation of Christ's merits to obtaining the effect of infused grace that this imputation is made for no other end than to merit for us infused grace, in virtue of which we obey the law and, being righteous in ourselves, are justified. From these it is evident that the question here is, are the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ so imputed to us by God as to be the only foundation and meritorious cause in view of which alone we are acquitted before God of our sins and obtain a right to life? Our opponents deny; we affirm."

So what is he saying? He explains that Rome doesn't deny grace. Exactly like Eric has been saying. They say that Christ merits grace for you. That grace is then infused and transforms you. And then that transformed righteousness in you, that becomes what God ultimately accepts. That's the dividing line. And like the reformers that came before us, we have to press the issue at the right level of precision because Rome can say we're saved by Christ alone and yet mean something entirely different by it. Listen to how Anglican reformer William Perkins exposes the shift. He writes, "Touching salvation by Christ alone, there is a manifest deceit because they craftily include and couch their own works under the name of Christ. For say they, works done by men regenerate are not their own, but Christ's in them. [clears throat] And as they are the works of Christ, they save, and no otherwise. But we, for our parts, look to be saved only by such works as Christ himself did in his own person, and not by any work at all done by him in us. For all works done are in matter of justification and salvation opposed to the grace of Christ. Romans 11:6. We confess with them that good works in us are the works of Christ. Yet are they not Christ alone, but ours also, in that they proceed from Christ by the mind and will of man, as water from the fountain by the channel. And look, as the channel defiled, defiles the water that is without defilement in the fountain. Even so the mind and will of man, defiled by the remnants of sin, defile the works which, as they come from Christ, are undefiled. Hence it is that works of grace which we do by Christ or Christ in us are defective and must be severed from Christ in the act of justification or salvation."

So Rome says, "Yes, Christ saves you," but Christ saving you includes what he works in you. And Perkins shows why that's a problem. Because the moment what Christ produces in you becomes part of what saves you, you have now shifted the ground of justification from Christ's finished work to something happening inside of you. And even if that something is produced by grace, it's still imperfect, which means it can't stand in the judgment of God. Only the perfect alien righteousness of Christ can do that. Nothing needs to be added to it. Nothing can be added to it. So now we have to ask a more precise question. Are we talking about what answers for you in the judgment of God or what is demonstrated in the life that follows? Infused righteousness belongs to the life that follows, but your standing before God rests on the merits of Christ alone.

So Ryan rejects cooperation too broadly, as if any required response at all threatens grace, which is far too simplistic. Whereas Eric's position affirms cooperation but then assigns it a role it can't actually sustain when pressed. And the historic Protestant position does something more precise. Grace doesn't compete with your response. It creates it. But what it creates is not the ground of your acceptance before God. It's not what justification rests on. Or to use technical categories, good works are related to justification, not antecedently, efficiently, and meritoriously, but consequently and declaratively. The issue is not whether grace produces something, but what role that something plays. That's the fault line. And what's at stake is the sufficiency of Christ and what that really means. Solus Christus. Now watch what happens when the word "merit" is introduced.

To Romans 4:4 and 5, where in that sense, what St. Paul is talking about is strict justice or strict merit. And I agree with you, aside from grace or apart from grace, we absolutely cannot put God in a position as like he's an employer where he gives us our due, where we earn a wage. That's exactly what St. Paul is saying because then it wouldn't be based on grace. It would be based on our natural strength. It'd be based on the law, which St. Paul vehemently is against. Okay? But that's not what the, but that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. What the Catholic Church teaches is that once we are properly disposed, and that's called a pervenient grace, it's all grace. Once we are properly disposed, it is God who, well, let me ask you this, actually.

But then you, let me ask you this, cooperation, though. Your cooperation, correct?

Yep.

What justifies us? Is this not a false dichotomy or gotcha? What justifies us? Faith or God?

God justifies us, but by faith.

Amen. So God is the formal cause, right?

But you disagree. You think it's justified by baptism, which is actually disagree. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. No, no, no, no, no. I don't. Baptism is the instrumental cause.

God is the formal cause.

Where does the Bible say the instrumental cause is? That doesn't say we're justified by faith. Romans 5:1. Right. But what you're doing, I think what you're doing here, Eric, is you are using biblical language just like the Mormons do. They use biblical language to couch it and say, "Look, we actually are a fully grace-based religion." But I don't think the Mormon religion is a fully grace-based religion because they require you to do temple rituals in order to attain the celestial kingdom to be with God. Okay? So, you, you're using biblical language as well to say, okay, grace, grace, grace, because the Bible uses that language. But then to say, but if you don't attend mass, if you do mortal sins and you die in that state, even though you got faith, you still end up in hell. And so therefore, the person who went to hell, even though they had faith, was like, "Well, why'd I go to hell?" "Because I wasn't obedient enough." "Why did I go to heaven?" "Well, I was obedient enough."

Obedient enough. What do you mean by that? We don't teach that. Obedient enough. Obedient enough in the sense of to not die in a state of mortal sin.

Okay. Sure. Yeah.

That's obedient enough compared to the other guy who did die in a state of mortal sin. He went to hell. He went to heaven. So then therefore, that guy has a reason to boast. The other guy doesn't, 'cause he went to hell.

Okay. But why, why are you contrasting us? Or, well, you're comparing us with Mormons because we have elements that might correlate or overlap. To me, that's a genetic fallacy because Mormons believe in a fundamentally different God and a fundamentally different soteriology.

It's how analogies work, how Jesus used parables. And obviously, the parables don't necessarily always correlate to the spiritual reality he's talking about, but they are helpful for people to understand. And I think there's similarities here in that you're using biblical language to say it's all grace, but in essence, you don't believe in a grace-based way of salvation if you make it contingent on avoiding sin well enough by not dying in a state of mortal sin or having to do positive works. Right? Even Tren Horn in his video, he's like, "There are works that you need to do to enter heaven. You need to not die in a state of mortal sin." And what works are covered under that? Well, you got to honor your parents. And the Catholic catechism talks about you've got to spread the truth of the Catholic faith. You've got to give to the poor. If these are requirements to not die in a state of mortal sin, and therefore works you need to do to attain heaven, I don't think that's grace when Paul makes very clear that grace is not of works at all. Romans 11:6.

So grace,

It's by grace. It's not on the basis of works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be,

100%. But see, we don't teach that. We don't teach that it's on the basis of works. So when it, when it says on the basis of works, what does that mean? It's on the basis of our own natural strength and our own natural merits. Okay? It's based on the law.

That's not what works means. That's not what works means. Works just means it's the Greek word ergon. It just means deeds or actions. So if you receive salvation by any deed or action, or you keep salvation, enter heaven based on any deeds or actions.

It's not grace. And you think deeds or actions are required for heaven? Any good work, anything, any kind of work, any kind of work. Our religion, our faith, our, our Catholic Church, we are not, we're not saying that it is based on any kind of work. Okay? What? Okay.

So Protestants have to understand what what Eric is trying to clarify. Notice he said, "We don't believe in strict merit, not wages, not earning like an employer." And Ryan still hears, "Okay, but if anything is required, it's not of grace." So again, we're watching the same pattern, but now it's happening around a new word, merit. And most Protestants and evangelicals are weaker in this area than they realize. Now, it needs to be noted upfront, as Bishop John Davinet points out, "When one engages in arguments with the papists or for a less learned audience, we ought not say that works are necessary for salvation unless it unless it is accompanied by clear qualifications and explanation. Otherwise, it will appear as though we are denying gratuitous justification."

So that's what I want to do now because I have high confidence in my audience. Notice Bishop Davinet's use of the phrase gratuitous justification. The issue here is not simply grace versus works. It's not even merit versus no merit at all. The real issue is, what do we mean by merit? And once again, what role is it playing? A lot of us hear the word merit and immediately translate it to wages, earning, strict justice, God owes me something. But that's not the only way that merit can be understood. It has a semantic range. And this is what Eric was trying to explain to brother Ryan. Master Leblanc is helpful once again on this. He writes, "When the more moderate theologians of the Roman school assert that the good works of the regenerate truly and deandno merit eternal life, they do not mean what Protestants so vehematly abhore, that there is an equality of value between good works and eternal life, like a price and a purchased item. Rather, they affirm what the reformed admit, that there is a certain suitability and proportion, like that between seed and fruit, means and ends, contest and reward, and that given God's promise, his faithfulness and his goodness, the reward of eternal life is rendered for the good works of the pious. Thus, it seems the dispute is merely verbal."

The real question is whether that connection can rightly be called *de condigno*. So notice this is someone deeply engaged in Roman Catholic polemics at a high and technical level who understands both sides of the debate and he explains that Rome is not claiming our works equal eternal life like wages equal payment. They are saying that there is a fitting connection between what God produces in you and the reward that he gives you. And that connection is grounded in three things: God's promise, God's goodness, and his faithfulness. So, what this exposes is that Ryan is rejecting a definition that Eric's not actually using. Eric would sit under that moderate Roman school that LeBlanc mentions. And right there is where the confusion begins. There are two kinds of merit. As Leblanc points out, John Benderius, a notable papist writer of the previous century, can serve as an example of two kinds of *condign* merit. He says, "Merit of condignity is found in two ways. One taken strictly and properly is a voluntary action for which a reward is owed by the rigor of justice. Such merit is not of man before God. The other is called merit which is not by its own nature worthy of reward but from the supposition of the one rewarding. Such is the merit of man before God, who by his own liberality has determined to accept our works as worthy of eternal happiness."

So there is a kind of merit that is strict, wage-based, and owed in justice. And they explicitly deny that kind applies to us before God. That's why Eric said he rejects that. So again, Ryan is reacting to merit equals wages, but Eric is operating with merit equals something God graciously chooses to reward. That second category, so think of it like this. A father promises his child, "If you finish the race, I'll give you a reward." The child then runs, and the father gives the reward. The reward is real, and the running does matter, but the reward doesn't come from the value of the run itself. It comes from the f, the father's free promise. That's the category that Rome is trying to operate in. Now, that doesn't mean that their system is correct. But it does mean that you have to understand it before you can meaningfully engage it. And once you do, the debate changes. What kind of merit is actually biblical? And what is its proper role? Looking again at LeBlanc, he writes, "Therefore, when we deny that the good works of the faithful merit eternal life and glory *de condigno*, we mean to deny that those works are equal in value and price to eternal life in themselves, and therefore that eternal life and glory are owed to them by the rigor of justice, which is also denied by those who are now discussing. But they maintain that this is not at all necessary for our works to be considered to merit eternal life *de condigno*, for in their view *meritum de condigno* can be found even where exact justice properly and strictly said does not apply and where the work is not equal to the reward nor has strict and absolute equality with it, but only a certain suitable proportionality, as the fruit is rightly said to be commensurate to the seed."

So he highlights the actual difference by clarifying both sides at the same time. First, what Protestants are denying, at least historically. We are denying that good works have any kind of equality with eternal life, any kind of intrinsic worth that could demand it, or any value that would make God owe us salvation by the rigor of justice. That's what Protestants historically denied. And he clarifies that's not exactly what Rome is claiming either. They're saying something more subtle. Make sure you catch this, folks. They are saying that there is a kind of fittingness, a kind of proportion between what God produces in you and the reward that he gives you. Like seed and fruit, like contest and reward, like means and end. Not strict justice, but a kind of ordered correspondence, we might say.

Now, before I critique that, we need to be very careful and precise here because historically Protestants did not deny that there is a real connection, even a necessary one, between obedience and the outcome of salvation. The question was never whether that connection exists. The question was, what kind of connection is it? German reformer David Paris is helpful here in his 1615 response to Roman Catholic apologist Robert Bellerin on the subject of justification. Notice what he writes. "It is false that we teach that works are necessary only by a necessity of presence and that good works have absolutely no relation to salvation, not even as conditions. This I maintain is false. Even if they have no causal relation, nevertheless, they have a relation of order as a means to an end, as antecedent to consequent, as a necessary condition to an effect. The presence of that condition does not indeed effect salvation, but its absence can impede it. For example, fighting is necessary for victory, and victory for a crown. Yet fighting does not effect victory, nor does victory affect the crown. For it is given freely according to a promise."

And this is essentially the same thing we find in John Calvin's Institutes, where he says that what proceeds in the order of administration is called the cause of what follows. In other words, cause in this context means ordered sequence, not meritorious ground. And this is where the discussion can get slippery fast because someone can say, "Good works are not instrumental to salvation." And depending on what they mean, that can be true or false. If by instrumental they mean the instrument by which Christ is received for justification, then no, faith alone is the instrument. But if by instrumental they mean the appointed way or means by which God brings his people to the promised end, then yes, scripture speaks that way constantly, which shows us the importance of being able to think in categories. Because since the time of the Reformation, the charge has been made that Protestants treat good works and obedience as sort of optional add-ons, something that's nice but not necessary in the order of salvation. And Pius and Calvin both respond, "No, this is a misrepresentation. We deny something very specific regarding what good works cause. We deny that good works are the meritorious reason the reward is given." So being able to think in proper categories is key. And think about the example that Pius gave. Fighting is necessary for victory. You didn't win a battle if you don't fight. And victory is necessary for the crown. No victory, no crown. So yes, there is a real order there. But but the fighting doesn't produce the victory, and the victory doesn't produce the crown. The crown is given. That's his point. The way is not the ground, nor is the path the basis, and the sewing is not what gives the harvest its worth. God does bring his people to the end through obedience. But he doesn't give the end because the obedience is worthy of it. And lest one is tempted to dismiss what Pius and Calvin said to their own or as their own private opinions, the Westminster confession enshrines what he said where it states that good works are not only the fruit and evidence of true and saving faith, but that they are also the order.

To the end of eternal life. Furthermore, this also isn't only a reformed thing. The Lutheran confessions, specifically the Formula of Concord in very plain language, affirms the same thing in the Solid Declarations statement on good works. And then, to round out the Reformation pack, the 39 Articles also echo the same thing. And notice how it explicitly says our good works cannot endure the judgment of God. Like I mentioned earlier, about the issue being something in us being able to do such. And this is crucial. The Reformation traditions were not only agreed that our good works cannot stand as the basis of our acceptance before God. They also uniformly agreed that good works do not remit the debt of our sin. They do not satisfy divine justice or pay what guilt owes. So, on this specific point, the mainstream Reformation tradition speaks with one voice. The remission of sins rests on the merits of Christ's passion alone.

Which gets us to the real problem with the Roman Catholic view. Like I mentioned, they are saying there is a kind of fittingness, a kind of proportion between what God produces in you and the reward that he gives you. Not strict equality, not wages, not earning in the crude sense, but still a real correspondence. Because for that kind of correspondence to actually function, what is produced in you doesn't just have to be present. It has to be able to bear the weight. Turning again to Perkins, who pressed on this exact point, he says, "If something truly functions as merit, the reward has to be proportionate to the work." Even granting their definition that merit is grounded in God's promise and not strict equality. Otherwise, it's not merit in any meaningful sense. It's simply a gift. So, the unavoidable question remains: Is eternal life proportionate to anything produced in us, even by grace? If it isn't, then whatever connection exists between obedience and reward cannot be grounded in the work as merit.

You see, Rome's position is claiming that what God produces in you functions as part of the reason the reward is given according to his promise. That's a serious problem because even what Rome calls the smallest sins, what they classify as venal, they are still real violations of God's law. They do not destroy charity, but they are also not perfect. And the law does not evaluate on a curve. It doesn't merely demand sincerity and progress. It demands perfection. Which means whatever is produced in you, no matter how real, no matter how grace-enabled, it cannot bear that kind of role in the judgment of God. Not because it's not there, but because it isn't sufficient. And more than that, it can't remit the debt of sin. It can't satisfy divine justice. It can't answer for you in judgment. That belongs to Christ's passion alone.

See the problem? Protestants are not denying that good works are necessary. We're denying what kind of necessity. The Reformation consistently taught that good works are necessary to salvation. Not as the cause of it, not as the ground of it, and not as that on account of which eternal life is given, but as the means and way that God has appointed to that end. Critical distinction. When obedience is made to function as a part of the basis for eternal life, it must be able to answer the law's demands, not merely be present, but stand in the judgment. And more than that, it would have to account for the debt of sin itself. But scripture is clear. No work in us, even grace-enabled, can do that. The remission of sins and the right to eternal life rest on one thing alone: the merits of Christ's passion.

But there is a deeper biblical question that also has to be answered. When God rewards obedience, is he doing so out of justice owed to the work or out of mercy grounded in his promise? Irish reformer James Ussher is helpful here in his response to a Jesuit. He writes, "We know that in keeping of God's commandments there is great reward" (Psalm 19:11), and that "unto him who soweth righteousness there shall be a sure reward" (Proverbs 11:18). But the question is, whence he that soweth in this manner must expect to reap so great and so sure a harvest, whether from God's justice, which he must do if he stands, as the Jesuits would have him do, upon merit, or from his mercy, as a recompense freely bestowed out of God's gracious bounty, and not in justice due for the worth of the work performed.

Originally, therefore, and in itself, we hold that this reward proceeds merely from God's free bounty and mercy, but accidentally, in regard that God has tied himself by his word and promise to confer such a reward. We grant that it now proves, in a sort, to be an act of justice. For a promise, we see amongst honest men, is counted a due debt. But the thing promised being free, if the promiser did not perform, he could not properly be said to do me wrong, but rather to wrong himself.

So what is he saying? Yes, scripture speaks of reward. Yes, obedience is connected to it, but the reward is not rendered because it is owed to the work. It proceeds from God's mercy, his free bounty, and only after God freely promises to reward obedience can it then be spoken of as just, not because the work deserves it, but because God has bound himself to give what he promised. He has bound himself to his own word. So the certainty of the reward doesn't rest on the dignity of the work. It rests on the faithfulness of the one who gives it.

Looking again at William Perkins, he sharpens this even further. Notice what he points out in his response to Rome's claim that our works merit by bargain or covenant because God has promised to reward them. He says, "God doesn't reward the work but the person, and not for the dignity of the work but for Christ's sake." So the promise isn't even properly directed at the work itself. It's directed at the person as they are in Christ. Just like Article 12 of the 39 Articles states. Which means even when scripture speaks of reward, it's never because the work itself is worthy of it, but because the one who is being rewarded is already accepted in the one who is. That's the Reformation position. Major difference. Okay? Because even if obedience is produced by grace, we all agree it is. The question still stands: Does what is produced in you ever function as the reason the reward is given, or is the reward grounded entirely elsewhere? And then, alongside that, can anything in you actually stand up to the law's standard? Those are the issues.

Now watch how this plays out in real time.

>> Deeds or actions are required at all to go to—

>> I'm saying what it's based on. Ryan, what it's based on.

>> Required, say required. Then—

>> We're talking about what it's based on. Okay, you're putting the cart before the horse. What is it based on? What is the foundation? The foundation, what our faith is based on is Christ and his infinite merits and the graces that he imparts to us. Okay.

>> That's semantics. Now, I'm saying what is required to go to heaven. What is required to go to heaven? Are there good deeds at all that are required for a person to enter into heaven, attain eternal life? Yes or no?

>> Okay. So I will answer that, but can you just let me finish when it comes to Romans 11:6? Can you just let me—and then I'll get to that question what you just asked me.

>> Right.

>> Everything, like I was saying, is based not on any kind of works or anything that we do. I'm talking based, the foundation. Okay. What comes first? What precedes? What's the cause and then what's the effect? The foundation, the basis, and the—and all the—the formal cause is Jesus Christ is and his infinite merits. Okay. Instrumentally, or at least in a condign sense, imperfectly, we can cooperate with that, but it's the grace that gives us the efficacy or the empowerment to obey the law. Okay. So it's still based on grace. God justifies us, and it's that justification that makes our works good and meritorious for eternal life. But it's that doesn't mean that—

>> Your works are meritorious for eternal life. You admitted it yourself. You do not believe in a grace—well, you don't believe in a grace-based salvation. You want to say it is—well, we do think it's grace, we do think it's Christ, but as soon as you bring in your elements of works, it's not grace alone or Christ alone, it's Christ plus—

>> Ryan, are you okay? So did you catch it? Who caught it? This is the exact problem we just spent the last section untangling. Ryan hears the word "merit" and immediately pounces on it. But what does he plug into that word? An idea that Eric has already said he explicitly rejects. And when he does, the entire conversation collapses right back into merit equals works equals earning. So therefore, it's not of grace. And Eric is trying, imperfectly but genuinely, to say, "No, the foundation is Christ. The formal cause is grace, and what follows is something else." But Ryan doesn't engage that. He flattens it. So the point never lands, and they go round and round and round. How many of us have had this conversation before? How many of us have watched these discussions, and it's the same thing over and over and over again? As Protestants and evangelicals, we've got to be more precise, guys. We have Eric using formal terminology and categories: foundation, cause, instrument, effect. And Ryan just hears "required equals basis." This is why the Roman Catholic position sounds stronger here than it actually is. Not because it's correct, but because it's operating with categories that the response isn't even engaging. Categories that are absolutely biblical and are necessary to make sense of the various contexts in which certain words get used in the Bible. So it makes the Roman Catholic position appear rigorous and nuanced versus the one that's being labeled as Protestant, which appears anemic and reduced to proof-texting and then just declaring that the text means what you claim it means. It's like a university-level lecture being answered at a grade-school level. That's what's going on here. And I'm not saying everyone has to be a scholastic, guys. Depth of knowledge isn't the test of salvation or whether or not you're a Christian. But if you're in a context where you regularly put yourself out there like this, seeking to do apologetics, you have to know. You have to know when a discussion requires a more advanced tool for the job and then do your best to be equipped for those encounters.

Notice Swiss reformer Johann Heinrich Heidegger here. He corrects Ryan. "The righteousness of Christ is not imputed to the sinner without condition. This is neither the same righteousness that the law demands, nor one's own satisfactions, nor sacrifice, nor love or good works, but faith in Christ. We conclude that man is justified by faith without the works of the law" (Romans 3:28). Moreover, "it justifies not as preparation, disposition, part of righteousness accepted for the whole or a work, but as an instrument or hand by which one grasps and applies Christ and his righteousness as refuge of one's salvation and from the fullness of the same grace for grace" (John 1:16). So, I just want to highlight the rooting of these types of distinctions in scripture. It isn't just for the sake of complexity. Heidegger doesn't deny that scripture teaches there is a condition. He doesn't deny that something is required. But he correctly identifies what that condition is according to scripture. And he argues, like the other reformers did, that faith is not a preparation, a disposition, a part of righteousness, or a work. It is an instrument. The hand that receives Christ. This is what I was saying earlier about the word "instrument." Depending on the context or category that it's being used in, think of it like this: If someone hands you a gift, your hand receives it, but your hand doesn't actually contribute to the value of the gift. It doesn't add to it. It doesn't complete it or supplement it. It takes hold of what is already there. That's the category Ryan needed to press. The issue is not "are there any conditions?" The issue is "what do those conditions do?" Because in the Protestant view, faith contributes nothing to the ground of your justification. It humbly receives. When Ryan says, "If anything is required, it's not grace," he's rejecting a category that scripture itself uses. Not all conditions threaten grace, folks. Only the wrong kind of condition does.

Looking at Francis Turretin again, he shows us where the argument really lies. It's long, but stick with me. "But the question is whether that inherent righteousness such as exists in believers on earth enters into our justification either as its cause or as a part, so that it constitutes some part of our justification and is the meritorious cause and foundation of our absolving sentence in the judgment of God. Romanists assert that the cause on account of which God justifies us is the righteousness of God which, infused into us, constitutes us internally righteous. They maintain that the right to seek life depends upon inherent righteousness and that on account of it God justifies us. On the other hand, the Orthodox deny that it enters into justification in any way, either as a cause or as a part. For the righteousness of Christ alone, imputed to us, is the foundation and meritorious cause upon which our absolution sentence or absolute—absolutory sentence rests. The inherent righteousness cannot be the meritorious cause of our justification. We prove one, because no one is justified by an imperfect righteousness, since the judgment of God is according to truth. But inherent righteousness is not perfect. In many things we all offend, and God cannot be satisfied except by a perfect righteousness. Rather, it consists in this, that the vicarious and alien righteousness of surety is admitted for our own."

So, lots of technical language and terms there. Turretin takes the categories that Eric is using and he asks a very specific question: Does that righteousness in you which God infuses by grace enter into your justification as a cause or even as a part? Turretin argues no, because that righteousness, even when produced by grace, is still imperfect. And like I pointed out earlier, as the 39 Articles state, if it's imperfect, it can't stand in the judgment of a perfectly holy God, which means it can't bear the weight of your justification. Noticing the recurring theme. This is exactly what we saw earlier. Grace produces real obedience and real righteousness that is infused. But what grace produces in you is not what your standing before God rests on. Because the moment it does, you've shifted the ground. You've gone from the perfect and all-sufficient righteous merits of Christ exclusively to something in you that can't pass the test of God's law. This is what our spiritual forebears actually meant by "works salvation," to use modern vernacular.

And now you can see the full breakdown. Ryan collapses everything into requirement equals basis equals works. So therefore, it's not of grace. A very common misconception in our day, especially at the popular level. Whereas Eric distinguishes categories, but he still moves cooperation toward a role that it cannot ultimately sustain when—sustain when pressed. And the historic Protestant position is doing something more precise. It distinguishes the ground, the means, and the result like this: The ground is Christ's righteousness alone, what he merited for us. The means by which that is applied is faith as an instrument. It lays hold of that righteousness. And then the result is justification and the life that follows, peace with a holy God. So the problem isn't that grace produces obedience. The problem isn't merit generally speaking. The problem is what role one assigns the obedience and merit. And that segues us perfectly to where their discussion moves next, where they begin discussing covenant. Bit of a long clip here, but we need to hear them hash it out. Pay very close attention.

>> Merit. I think you're married.

>> I am married.

>> I know you love your wife. I'm not even going to ask you that. I know you love your wife.

>> You're in a covenant. Well, I hope you are. I don't know if you are for, but that's a covenantal relationship. You can disagree with that or not, but nonetheless, that mirrors the bridegroom-bride relationship. Likewise with Christ and his church. Okay? So, if you're going to have like I agree. Listen, hold on. If you're going to have fidelity and trust, if you're going to have this marriage work out, can you commit adultery?

>> I would say no. Because in the marriage vow, what you've done—

>> Just wait up. Just wait. Let me answer. No, no, no. Listen.

>> Marriage is still—

>> Just wait up.

>> With marriage, marriage is a picture of Christ and the church in the sense of like a husband lays his life down for his wife, it says. And just like Christ laid his life down, and and the wife submits to her husband, just like the church or the people of God, they submit to Christ. It's in—it's that sort of picture. But the covenant of salvation is also slightly different. It's similar in that way, but also different in another way. In a marriage, both parties promise that they're going to be with each other till death do them part, for better, all those sort of things, right?

>> Promise.

>> Now, the covenant of salvation, guess what? There was only one party that made the promise. It was God. We did not have to make a promise to God in order to enter the covenant of salvation. He made a promise to us, and we believe his promise.

>> You believe that we don't have to—you believe that we don't have to promise to enter into the covenant of Jesus Christ?

>> Correct. The Bible never says make a promise to God and and receive eternal life. Instead, God's given us a promise. Have a look in First John 2.

>> How is that a relationship with God? How do you have a relationship with God? How does that look, Ryan?

>> I have peace with God, not because I've made a promise to him, but because he's made a promise to me. I've believed his promise by his grace. And therefore, I have—I have peace with him through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 John 2:25. This is the promise he made to us: eternal life. Just like even when Abraham was given a promise, "You'll have as many offspring as stars of the sky" in Genesis 15:5, it just says, "Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteousness." He didn't have to make a promise to God saying, "God, okay, I'll do this for you, and then you'll give me offspring." No, he—God just said, "I'll do it for you." And Abraham believed that promise, and he's credited as righteous.

>> But is that promise not based on hope?

>> It's based on trusting God's promise because God will live up to what he said. God will do what he promised.

>> Right. But on your part, do you have to have hope in that promise?

>> But that's different to me making a promise to God. Never once does scripture say, "Go and make a promise to God that you're going to be good enough, you're going to keep his rules, you're going to do this or that." Instead, Abraham's faith—let me have a look. It says, "Abraham was fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised." That is why his faith was counted to him as righteousness.

>> Was he counted as righteous because he made a promise to God—

>> Back in Genesis 12? Yeah. He had fidelity and trust with God and walked with God in Genesis 12 right up to—

>> Genesis 12. It doesn't say he made a promise to God.

>> Right? Was he counted? Was he counted righteousness in front of men or in front of God? In Genesis 15—

>> Genesis 15, it says he was declared righteous. He was—God counted it to him as righteous. So it's obvious—

>> Before God or before men?

>> Clearly before God.

>> Okay. So why in James 2 does James cite the exact same thing and say that it was fulfilled when Abraham offered Isaac if he was—so are you saying that—

>> Go ahead.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So, I was going to say, because he was declared righteous before God in Genesis 15:6, and therefore, his faith was brought to its intended end. It was completed in the sense of faith, not that he didn't have faith before, because he's already righteous in Genesis 15 and justified even. But in the sense that faith—

>> Produces works. That's what the point of James 2 is. But he's not then going to heaven on the basis of works. But it's that vindication to others that he has true faith.

>> I agree. Not on the basis of works, Ryan. I agree with you. Not on the basis of works. We don't teach that.

>> Okay. But but we're talking, you've made the claim that you have to make a promise to God. Now, did Abraham make a promise to God to be counted righteous in Genesis 15?

>> Well, why are you reducing it to Genesis 15? Because Abraham lived a life of fid—no, Abraham lived a full life of fidelity and trust and covenantal prom—or, I mean, did he actually make—so like when it comes to a promise like—

>> Did he ever make a promise to God? I'm wondering, can you sign me anywhere where he's made a promise to God on that basis God declares him righteous?

>> I—I mean, yeah, by his actions in Genesis 22. How is that—

>> Different? That's that's Gen—that's 30 to 40 years after he's already declared righteous in Genesis 15. But what—

>> Well, you're dichotomizing because you're saying in Genesis 22 that that was just a demonstration before men and not before God completing his faith.

Okay, now this is really important because on the surface, Ryan sounds relatively strong here. God made a promise. We believe the promise. That's it. And as a Protestant, I understand he's trying to protect grace. So when he hears anything that sounds like obligation or requirement, he immediately pumps the brakes and says, "No, no, no. Salvation is just trusting the promise." And on one level, that instinct makes sense. But in doing that, he collapses something important. He collapses covenant into promise alone. And once he does that, he no longer has a category for what Eric is trying to press. Because Eric isn't just asking, "Do you believe a promise?" He's asking, "How does that promise actually function in a relationship?" And Ryan never answered that. He just repeated the promise. Did you catch that? He didn't actually answer Eric's question. Now, I don't think he was trying to dodge. I simply think he doesn't understand what was being asked at a technical level. So once again, in the same discussion, we are seeing the same underlying problem on yet another topic. The disagreement isn't just about structure. It is also about how grace itself operates. Ryan is treating grace as a promise received. And Eric is treating grace as something that brings you into a covenantal relationship. So they're talking past one another. The key question isn't simply "is covenantal obedience required?" The key question is "required in what sense and for what end?" Is covenantal obedience what gives you a right to life?

Notice 18th-century Scottish pastor John Cairns on this. "Does the law as a rule of life oblige believers to yield even perfect obedience to its precepts? We ought not to infer from this that it can either justify them before God or condemn them. To justify or to condemn a man belongs to the law as a covenant, but not as a rule of life. To be under the law as a rule of life is the privilege only of believers who were already justified freely by grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and who are thereby placed forever beyond the reach of condemnation. The law as a rule cannot justify believers for their obedience to it, for they were perfectly justified in the sight of God before they began their course of sincere obedience. And besides, their obedience is far from being perfect."

In other words, obedience is not the condition for obtaining your right to eternal life. But notice the precision that Cairns gives us. He rightly points out that scripture makes a distinction between the law as a covenant and the law as a rule of life. As a covenant, the law promises justification on one condition: perfect obedience. And in that sense, it either justifies or condemns. Only Christ fulfills that condition. He merits eternal life and then he's able to justify—justify those who are in him. Which is why Paul tells us that the believer isn't under the law covenantally anymore, but it is our rule of life. Not as the thing that determines your standing before God, but as the rule that guides the life of someone whose standing has already been secured. That's why he says the law as a rule cannot justify, because justification has already happened before any obedience even begins. So yes, the covenant includes obedience, but the believer's obedience is not what secures their right to eternal life. Christ has already done that. And Cairns highlights what Ryan actually needed to press in this point. Because while it is true that Eric's not arguing that one is under the Mosaic covenant, his position reintroduces a covenantal structure where law is operating covenantally again. Same problem as the Seventh-Day Adventists, I might add. If you know, you know. And while I won't open the covenant theology can of worms, as tempting as that is for a reformed guy, this is the issue that needed pressed harder.

But let's return to the question that Ryan kept asking: "Is anything required?" It's not nearly precise enough. He needed to ask, "Required in what sense? Required as the ground of your right to life [snorts] or required as the response of somebody who already has it?" And once again, you can see the deeper issue underneath all of this. Not whether grace is present, but what grace is actually doing, what it's understood to be by both parties. Because grace doesn't just make a promise. It does bring you into a real relationship with a real structure and real obligations, without those obligations ever becoming the ground of your acceptance.

In his monumental work on the covenants, Dutch reformed theologian Herman Witsius clarifies the issue well. He writes, "Jesus is possessed of an obedience even to the whole of the law of God, which enjoined him to have a perfect love for the glory of his Father and for the salvation of his brethren. By that obedience, the collective body of those who belong to him are constituted righteous, that is, are judged to have a right to eternal life, no less than if everyone had performed performed that obedience in his own person. It would likewise be false to infer that if Christ performed obedience for us, we ourselves are under no necessity of obeying, because no demand can be made on the principal debtor for what the surety has promised in his room. Our obedience may be considered either as it is a duty of the rational creature with respect to his sovereign Lord, or as it is a condition of acquiring a right to eternal life. In the latter respect, Christ accomplished it for us, and therefore under that relation it neither is nor can be required of us, as if for want of perfect obedience, we could be excluded from eternal life."

Now, I know that was a lot, but what is he saying? Obedience can be viewed in two ways: either as duty or as the condition for obtaining the right to life. And he shows us that Protestants argue that Christ has already fulfilled the latter, which doesn't eliminate obedience outright, but it removes it from the equation as the condition by which your right to eternal life is obtained. That belongs to Jesus Christ alone as the ground and meritorious cause. We can't take that from him without diminishing his work. And this is where the Roman Catholic position runs into problems. Because once obedience is brought back into the covenant as part of what secures your standing before God, that obedience is being assigned a role that it can't actually fulfill. Because why? It has to answer the law's demand. And the law does not ask for your best sincerity. It doesn't merely demand progress. It demands perfect and complete obedience. That's the issue. Our inherent righteousness cannot withstand the holy and righteous judgment of God, nor function as part of the grounds or basis for our standing before him. We must cling to the righteous merits of Christ alone for that. He is sufficient, friend. Trust him.

But now they ripple into assurance of salvation. And watch how this plays out.

>> So I think that's very clear. So that's why the marriage picture is not that helpful. It's in relation to salvation. Um, in in a sense that God does not make our salvation contingent on me making a promise or me being obedient to him. It's just trusting his promise. He'll keep his promise. So that's why I can't be lost. If I'm trusting that he died for my sin, how could I go to hell if all my sins, past, present, and future, all cleared by my Savior on that cross?

>> Oh, that's presumption. But can I just ask you something?

>> No, it's trust. That's what faith is, man. I have it. You may know it, but I do.

>> It sins against the virtue of hope. You don't have hope. You have 100% metaphysical absolute certitude which the Bible absolutely doesn't talk about.

>> What is hope, Ryan? Ryan, what is the theological virtue of hope? What is it? What is hope?

>> Well, when the Bible speaks about hope, are things that we are look forward—looking forward to.

>> That you don't promise to us? Sure. But that doesn't mean like maybe fingers crossed. That's that's many people today like in our English language say, "I hope so," like fingers crossed. But that's not like with God. When he promises me something, I can be 100% sure he's going to live up to his promise and give and give what he—

>> Okay. So then, "whoever believes shall not perish but have eternal life." If I have my faith in Christ, then I'm not going to perish. I've got eternal life. That's called trusting God. Then if you think you might still perish in the end, you're not trusting God. How do you trust in something that you know you can't lose? Where's the fidelity? Where's the trust? Where's the love and the freedom there? You just—you have it and you can't be lost. You're not in heaven yet, dude. You don't see God face to face yet. How can you presume that you are—are one of the elect? How can you presume that?

>> Because you've read the Bible.

>> Because you've read the Bible. Cuz God brought me to the right Bible.

>> So God—God brought me to faith. And it says that "Jesus Christ will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." This doesn't sound like the end.

>> What does Christ say? "Unless you persevere until the end"—

>> He will sustain you. He'll sustain you. That doesn't sound like maybe, fingers crossed, I don't know if you're going to get to heaven in the end. No, he's saying God will sustain you.

Okay, so Ryan says salvation is not contingent on obedience. It's grounded in God's promise. And because of that, he says, "If I trust that promise, I cannot be lost." And Eric's immediate response: "That's presumption." And right there, you have the entire debate on this point coming into focus. Can present faith yield present certainty of final salvation, or must certainty always remain future-oriented? That's the whole debate. Now, Ryan is right about something important. He's grounding salvation in God's promise, the finished work of Christ, and the sufficiency of the cross. And that's exactly where it should be grounded. But listen closely to how he expresses it. This is where the lack—lack of depth and precision strikes again. He collapses the logic into: "If I trust the promise, then my my final salvation is certain." And what's missing is any explanation of how that certainty is grounded, how it's recognized, and how it's sustained. So instead of a carefully structured assurance, it comes across as a direct inference: "I believe, therefore, I can't be lost." And that lack of precision is exactly what Eric reacts to, and rightly so. He makes a very specific claim in reaction. He argues that what Ryan is describing is not faith, but a violation of hope. Because in his framework, certainty belongs to the end, not the present. See, he says, "You haven't persevered yet. You don't see God face to face in beatific vision yet. You don't know with certainty if you were elect." So the claim certainty—uh—uh—um, excuse [clears throat] me, sorry. So the claim certainty, present, present—that's presented in his view is presumption. He says, "Well, what you're presenting is just basically presumption. You're just presuming this to be the case."

And this is where everything we've seen so far comes together. Because if you misunderstand grace, you're going to misunderstand merit. And if you misunderstand merit, you're going to misunderstand covenant. And if you misunderstand covenant, you won't properly slot assurance. Turning again to Thomas Watson, notice how he corrects Ryan. "What is assurance? It is not any vocal or audible voice, or brought to us by the help of an angel or revelation. Assurance consists of a practical syllogism, in which the word of God makes the major, conscience the minor, and the Spirit of God the conclusion. The word says, 'He that fears and loves God is loved of God.' There is the major proposition. Then conscience makes the minor, 'But I fear and love God.' Then the Spirit makes the conclusion, 'Therefore, thou art loved of God.' And this is what the apostle calls the witnessing of the Spirit with our spirits that we are his children."

So, Watson gives us the more technical, formal structure of assurance. When Protestants historically spoke about assurance, those of us that did, they did not mean a guess, a feeling, or even just a bare claim and assertion. They meant something far more structured. The word speaks, our conscience responds, and then the Spirit confirms. Meaning, assurance is not you looking inward and saying, "I think I'm saved," or "I've this, so therefore this." It's looking outward to God speaking in his word. Your life reflecting that reality, and then the Spirit bearing witness to it. So Ryan is right to say that assurance is grounded in God's promise, but he presents it as if certainty follows immediately from belief itself, instead of showing how that certainty is grounded in the promise, confirmed through the Spirit, and then evidenced in the life of the believer. And that lack of structure is what makes his position sound like presumption.

But at the same time, Eric's position goes too far in the other direction because he treats present certainty of final salvation as something that can't exist at all. As if faith must remain in the category of hope, never certainty. But that doesn't align with how scripture speaks. Like 1 John 5:13, "I write these things so that you may know that you have eternal life." The question there then is, what degree of certainty did John mean by the words "know" and "have"? But looking at Witsius again, he clarifies the real issue for us. "As this is fixed and settled with respect to God, so the believer may also attain to a certain assurance thereof and from infallible marks know that he is one of the chosen. If it was not so, Peter had to—Peter had to no purpose admonish believers to make their calling and election sure, that is, to endeavor by evident signs to be fully persuaded in their own mind. Vain also would have been Paul's glory. First Thessalonians 1:4, 'Knowing, brethren, beloved, your election of God.' For by the same evidences that Paul could have known this of the Thessalonians, the Thessalonians could have known it with respect to themselves. In fine, believers could not possibly in faith give thanks to God for their election unless they could be assured of it in their own mind. And yet they do give thanks to God for it" (Ephesians 1:3-4).

So notice, according to scripture, assurance is not only possible, it's necessary because scripture calls believers to rest in Christ, rejoice in salvation, and give thanks for what God has done. And none of that makes sense if certainty itself is inherently presumptuous. But that immediately raises another question. If assurance is real, if it's grounded in God's promise, if it's confirmed by the Spirit, then what do you do with the actual experience of the Christian life? Because we all know that Christians don't live in a straight line. They fall, they sin, they struggle. So the question becomes, what happens to assurance when that happens? Both sides broke down here. Ryan speaks as if assurance is flat and constant. Once you believe, nothing can shake it. Eric speaks as if assurance must always remain uncertain because you haven't reached the end yet. But neither of those actually—actually account for what scripture describes.

Notice how the Canons of Dort historically argued assurance. First, regarding the warning: "By such enormous sins, however, they very highly offend God, incur a deadly guilt, grieve the Holy Spirit, interrupt the exercise of faith, very grievously wound their consciences, and sometimes for a while lose the sense of God's favor until when they change their course by serious repentance, the light of God's fatherly countenance again shines upon them." [clears throat] So Ryan's articulation here does not clearly account for this. And I'm going here because again, folks, Protestants historically that are known for assurance are the Reformed. Dort is very clear in arguing that scripture shows that assurance can be interrupted. Not because God's promise has failed, but because sin clouds your experience of it. Your conscience is wounded, and certain sins can be committed which cause one to be worthy of a deadly guilt which grieves the Holy Spirit and highly offends God. And unless a person returns in humble repentance, they have no reason to have a conscience at rest. You should not have assurance. If you're out committing adultery, if you murder somebody, you should not have a—a conscience at rest. It's not just, "Well, I believe, so therefore—" No, your actions demonstrate that you didn't believe. You have abandoned faith. And until you come back to Christ in humble repentance, you don't have assurance. You shouldn't have assurance. And that's a good thing. God designed the conscience this way. So assurance is not this untouchable, constant state where once you believe, you simply remain certain no matter what. That's not how the Christian life actually works.

But notice carefully that Dort doesn't say that what is being lost is God's favor itself, but the sense of it. Not the reality of salvation, but the experience of assurance. But if that's all you had, then Eric would be right because assurance would always remain uncertain. It would rise and fall endlessly. Which is why Dort doesn't stop there. It also notes, "This assurance, however, is not produced by any peculiar revelation contrary to or independent of the word of God, but springs from faith in God's promises, which he has most abundantly revealed in his word for our comfort, from the testimony of the Holy Spirit witnessing with our spirit that we are children and heirs of God" (Romans 8:16). And lastly, "from a serious and holy desire to preserve a good conscience and to perform good works. And if the elect of God were deprived of this solid comfort that they shall finally obtain the victory and of this infallible pledge or earnest of eternal glory, they would be of all men the most miserable."

This is the other side of the equation because Dort explains why assurance, even when shaken, is not destroyed because it is grounded in God's promises, the testimony of the Spirit, and the evidence of grace in the believer. So even when the sense of assurance is lost, the foundation of it can remain. Ryan misses the first half. Eric misses the second. And yet again, you can see the deeper issue underneath all of this. Not whether grace is present, but what grace is actually doing and what grace actually is. Okay. Assurance is not a bare inference from belief. It is grounded in God's promise, confirmed by his Spirit, evidenced in the life that he produces, and sometimes it's shaken, yet restored through repentance. Which means it's neither presumption nor perpetual uncertainty. It is something far more stable and also far more realistic.

Ryan is using grace primarily to mean God's unearned favor received as a gift in Christ. Whereas Eric is using grace more broadly to include not only God's favor, but what that grace produces in you: transformation, cooperation, and obedience. So the talking past one another makes sense. And this is why on this channel, I care far more about analyzing what makes arguments sound compelling, far more than simply trying to win them. Because what we just heard wasn't just disagreement. It was a misalignment from the very beginning. Two people standing on different floors trying to talk through the ceiling. One is asking, "What does this mean in its technical category?" whereas the other is answering, "What does this sound like at first glance?" So nothing lands. And that's the part that should sober you, Protestant or evangelical. If you can't accurately represent the opposing position in front of you, you're not going to be able to understand why it's wrong. All you're doing is shadowboxing your own mind. The issue is not whether grace produces something, but what role that something plays. I understand why Eric crashed out. He was trying to engage at a more granular level of the discussion, and then he was never met there. But here's what needs to be said: Ryan is not a clear or careful representation of historic Protestant theology. Not because he's insincere, but because what we just saw is what happens when the categories aren't there. Okay? And when the categories collapse, you don't just get weaker arguments. You start defending positions the reformers themselves rejected. Positions the entire Reformation tradition formally denies. So if what we heard is the spirit of Protestantism, then it's only a shadow of it, not the substance.