Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Catholics R Christians! DUH! (vs. Steve Christie)

Catholics R Christians! DUH! (vs. Steve Christie)

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:11 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Catholics R Christians! DUH! (vs. Steve Christie) 2026-06-06T00:11:37-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo credit: Steve Christie (right); image for the video, “Justification by Faith: From Catholicism to Protestantism | Steve Christie, RN | #047” (9-22-24), on Kyle Dean’s YouTube channel.

Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Steve Christie runs the BornAgainRN YouTube channel, where he produced the video, A Response to Dr. Gavin Ortlund ‪@TruthUnites‬: “Are Catholics Christians?” (12-20-24). As of 4-6-26, it has 3,748 views and 671 comments. I think it deserves a thorough refutation, and so this is my reply. His words will be in blue.

*****

As a former devout Roman Catholic, who was raised & educated Catholic through college & converted to being Protestant, I would respectfully & adamantly disagree with Dr. Ortlund that Catholics are Christians, based on the authority of God-breathed Scripture, which I provide examples from Scripture in this video response to back up this assertion.

We’ll see what he comes up with.

0:33 It was towards the end of my college education that I got saved and I converted to being a Protestant [sic], and I got saved because I believed in the biblical gospel and became part of the family of Christ, which I later realized that I wasn’t [sic] at the time prior to this moment.

Steve will have to redefine and distort the biblical gospel in order to make such a claim, and that’s the fundamental self-contradiction that runs through anti-Catholicism.

1:15 A Christian is someone who follows the true Christ and the true gospel.

Of course. We have to define our terms. Steve won’t be able to sustain the notion that Protestants are Christians and Catholics somehow aren’t. But it’s important to observe and understand the claims that anti-Catholics (i.e., those who deny that Catholicism is a species of Christianity) make.

1:22 [This] is the reason why Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons and others are not actually Christians.

Those two groups are Christological heretics and blasphemers who don’t believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, nor believe in the Holy Trinity. Of course, Catholics do believe exactly as Protestants believe about those things. So Steve’s task will be to demonstrate and document that we believe in a false Christ. Good luck in that endeavor! You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

3:37 Catholics believe in initial justification which happens at the moment of water baptismal regeneration while Protestants believe in an eternal justification which happens at the moment of the profession of faith.

That’s untrue as a blanket statement. In his Large Catechism (1529), Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, wrote:

The power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. . . . to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ’s kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . . When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . . (Augsburg Publishing House [Minneapolis], 1935, sections 223-224, 230, pages 162, 165)

This included infants:

Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle. (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A. T. W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, revised edition, 1970, 197)

Luther, in fact, took an even stronger view of baptism than Catholics do, believing that no one could ever undo its effects by a later rejection and/or serious sin. Lutherans adhere to Luther’s Large Catechism as part of their confessional Book of Concord. Steve might quibble that regeneration is different from justification. It wasn’t in Luther’s mind. D. Patrick Ramsey, pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC) in London, Kentucky, examined the issue in his article, “Sola Fide Compromised? Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Baptism” (Thermelios, Vol. 34, Issue 2, July 2009), and noted (against his own opinion, by the way):

One of the main burdens of Jonathan Trigg’s recent book on Luther’s theology of baptism, which is based upon his doctoral dissertation, is to demonstrate that “the doctrine of justification by faith is intimately related to—indeed predicated upon—Luther’s understanding of the abiding covenant of baptism” [Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther (Leiden: Brill, 2001), p. 2]. Although it may appear that there are tensions in his thought, “Luther’s baptismal doctrine, properly understood, is one of his sharpest expressions of justification by faith” [Ibid., 226; see also 151]. Similarly, Paul Althaus maintains that Luther’s “doctrine of baptism is basically nothing else than his doctrine of justification in concrete form.” [The Theology of Martin Luther (trans. Robert C. Schultz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 356].

Further support comes from Anthony Lane. In his discussion of baptism, one of the key issues involved in the Catholic-Protestant dialogue, Lane faults R. C. Sproul for interpreting the sola fide formula as directed against baptism. After noting that sola fide, as understood by Luther and the other Reformers, was directed against works but not word or sacrament, Lane bids us to remember that “Lutherans believing in baptismal regeneration are some of the most ardent proponents of justification by faith alone.” Justification and baptismal efficacy are two separate issues and therefore belief in baptismal regeneration need not conflict with one’s doctrine of sola fide [Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 187].

Anglicans also affirm baptismal regeneration, as do the Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ, who believe in adult baptismal regeneration. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism (who never technically left Anglicanism), believed that baptism brought about both regeneration and justification (I compiled a book of his quotations, published by a Methodist / Wesleyan house in 2014):

But “as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, to justification of life.” And the virtue of this free gift, the merits of Christ’s life and death, are applied to us in baptism. “He gave himself for the Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. v, 25, 26); namely, in baptism, the ordinary instrument of our justification. Agreeably to this, our [Anglican] Church prays in the baptismal office that the person to be baptized may be “washed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and, being delivered from God’s wrath, receive remission of sins, and enjoy the everlasting benediction of his heavenly washing.” (A Treatise on Baptism; in Coll. iii, 226; 11 Nov. 1756)

So this is the dilemma that Steve already has created for himself, in the first four minutes of his video: one that I pointed out to Reformed Baptist anti-Catholic apologist James White in our very extensive written debate on this same issue, way back in May 1995 (that he prematurely departed from: ignoring my last 36 single-spaced pages of reply), and he’s considered by many other anti-Catholics to be the best anti-Catholic debater. It’s a reductio ad absurdum.

If Steve wants to contend that Catholicism is not Christian, in part based on this criterion, having to do with baptism, then Luther and Lutheranism, Anglicanism (the church of C. S. Lewis), Wesley and Methodism, Churches of Christ, and Disciples of Christ, all fail the test of true Christianity as well. But anti-Catholics almost never claim that other fellow Protestants aren’t Christians. That would be bad “PR” and bad form, after all.

In the end it reduces to an exceedingly unlikely scenario where only Calvinists, Baptists, fundamentalists, and low church non-denominationalists are Christians, whereas the vast majority of Christians today and throughout history (including the above-mentioned groups) supposedly are not, and were and are hellbound (Luther, Wesley, and C. S. Lewis would be in hell, having denied the gospel, so Steve would have to consistently argue). It’s simply not convincing reasoning, to put it mildly.

4:17 Catholics tend to combine justification and sanctification . . .

We not only “tend” to, we do, period, because the Bible combines them. See:

50 Unanswerable NT Passages Against “Faith Alone” [2-21-26]

NT: 70 Specific Good Works Contribute to Salvation [3-6-26]

Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 120 NT & 30 OT Proofs [from 26 out of the 27 NT Books] [8-26-24; revised and expanded on 1-18-26]

Meritorious Works: 50 Biblical Proofs (Bible Passages On God’s Rewarding and Being Pleased by Grace-Originated Meritorious Works of the Regenerate) [10-4-24]

Salvation Caused by Actions: 80 Bible Passages (. . . Proving That “Faith Alone” is a False Doctrine) [10-5-24]

4:32 . . . which is why they believe that that salvation can be lost and and justification can be lost . . .

Indeed, because, again, the Bible teaches it (start to see the common theme here?):

Falling Away (Apostasy): 150 Biblical Passages (+ Catalogue of Sixty Traits That Apostates Formerly Possessed When They Were in God’s Good Graces) [11-19-24]

And of course, most Protestants now and throughout history believed that one could lose their salvation, as well (Arminians and Wesleyans and many other groups). Are they all suspect as being counterfeit Christians on this basis, too?

4:41 Catholics don’t believe in being able to earn salvation . . .

I sincerely thank Steve for this true statement. We believe that all is by God’s grace, through our faith, which then organically and inevitably leads to grace-filled good works, done in faith, per the teaching of the book of James:

Justification in the Book of James (Different from Paul?) [8-30-23]

Reply to James White’s Exegesis of James 2 in Chapter 20 of His Book, The God Who Justifies [10-9-13]

4:59 If you read Romans chap 7 and 8 justification is a moment of salvation while sanctification is a long life process . . .

That’s not true even in those chapters, since Paul writes,

Romans 8:15-17 (RSV) For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” [16] it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, [17] and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Justification and salvation are processes, too, according to the Bible. See, especially, Abraham’s several justifications:

Salvation as a Process: 75 NT Passages [11-16-24]

Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23]

Abraham’s Justification By Faith & Works (vs. Jordan Cooper) + Catholic Exegesis Regarding St. Paul’s Specific Meaning of “Works” in Romans 4 [3-1-24]

5:30 Romans chap 1:16 the Apostle Paul writes “for I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is a power of God for salvation to everyone who believes to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” So it is a gospel that saves and those of us who are in the family of Christ when we believe the the gospel we realize that the gospel that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead which proved you know, his atonement was sufficient that that is what actually saves us. And he reiterates this later in his epistle to the Ephesians 1:13 when he writes, “the gospel of your salvation having also believed you were sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of Promise” so here even emphasize the gospel that saves is seals and this supports the idea of eternal salvation that salvation cannot be lost because it’s entirely the work of God.

The Catholic Church teaches all of this, too, of course, excepting the false doctrine that salvation and grace can’t be rejected and lost by a rebellious person. This idea is not a necessary component of the saving gospel and saving grace, since the Bible contradicts it at least 150 times, and inspired, inerrant revelation can’t contradict itself. St. Paul strongly teaches the same thing, refuting the error. Here are fifteen proofs:

Romans 11:20-22 . . . They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. [21] For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. [22] Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

1 Corinthians 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:5-6 Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. [6] Now these things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Galatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel

Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Philippians 3:11-13 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. [13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; . . .

Colossians 1:22-23 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, [23] provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, . . .

1 Timothy 1:19 . . . By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith,

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

1 Timothy 5:8 If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

1 Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.

2 Timothy 2:12 . . . if we deny him, he also will deny us;

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

Eternal security or perseverance of the saints is not part of the biblical gospel. But if Steve is right and it is, then the great majority of Protestants, who agree with Catholics on this, ain’t Christians, either.

6:22 that’s the difference between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics do not have that assurance. At any moment they could lose their their salvation.

Again, this is false as a blanket statement, since only a minority of Protestants believe in eternal security. And this is a caricature of the Catholic view, too, as I explained in a recent article:

The “hope” and “confidence” we have in Christ are not the same thing as “absolute assurance” or “eternal security.” Elsewhere I . . . have written about the Catholic notion of a very strong moral assurance or confidence of salvation, provided we persevere and repent if in mortal sin, and the related notion of examination of conscience (1 Jn 3:21: “if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God”).

We’re very confident, for example, and have every hope that tomorrow we will continue to breathe and that our hearts will be beating as they are today. But we’re not absolutely certain of that. We could suddenly die tonight, after all.

Catholics view salvation in the same way: we have a very strong confidence in that, provided that we examine ourselves and determine that we aren’t in mortal sin. But since we don’t infallibly know the future, short of a direct revelation of God, we can’t be certain that we won’t ever fall away (nor can any Protestant who makes the claim of absolute assurance or eternal security). But an examination of conscience can make us abundantly assured, confident, and hopeful that right now, in this moment of time, we are in God’s good graces, and would be saved if we were to die.

I wrote similarly in another article:

The degree of moral assurance of salvation we can attain to is very high. The point is to examine ourselves to see if we are mired in serious sin, and to repent of it. If we do that, and know that we are not subjectively guilty of mortal sin, then we can have a joyful assurance that we are on the right road.

I always use my own example by noting that when I was an evangelical Protestant, I felt very assured of salvation, though I also believed (as an Arminian) that one could fall away if one rejected Jesus outright.

Now as a Catholic — these past 34 years — I feel hardly any different than I did as an evangelical. I don’t worry about salvation. I assume that I will go to heaven one day, if I keep serving God. I trust in God’s mercy, and know that if I fall into deep sin, his grace will cause me to repent of it (and I will go along in my own free will) so that I can be restored to a relationship with him.

We observe St. Paul being very confident and not prone to a lack of trust in God at all. He had a robust faith and confidence, yet he still had a sense of the need to persevere and to be vigilant. He didn’t write as if it were a done deal — that he got “saved” one night in Damascus and signed on the dotted line, made an altar call and gave his life to Jesus, saying the Sinner’s Prayer or reciting John 3:16. . . .

We see that the biblical record gives us what is precisely the Catholic position — neither the supposed “absolute assurance” of the evangelical Protestant or Calvinist, nor the legalistic, Pharisaical, mechanical caricature of what outsider, non-experienced critics of Catholicism think Catholicism is, where a person lives a “righteous” life for 70 years, then falls into lust for three seconds, gets hit by a car, and goes to hell (as if either Catholic teaching or God operate in such a superficial fashion).

One can have a very high degree of moral assurance and trust in God’s mercy. St. Paul shows this. He doesn’t appear worried at all about his salvation, but on the other hand, he doesn’t make out that he is absolutely assured of it and has no need of persevering. He can’t “coast.” The only thing a Catholic must absolutely avoid in order to not be damned is a subjective commission of mortal sin that is unrepented of. We have to be vigilant to avoid falling into serious sins that will bar us from heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-6; Revelation 21:8; 22:15). . . .

Holy Scripture backs up Catholic claims at every turn. We have a very strong assurance and faith and hope, yet this is understood within a realistic paradigm of perseverance and constant vigilance in avoiding sin, that could potentially lead us to damnation.

6:43 Catholics actually believe in a different gospel than Protestants do . . .

We do not. We follow the gospel that the Bible actually teaches. The Bible defines the gospel, and we know what it is because we have a record of the apostles preaching it immediately after Pentecost. St. Peter’s first sermon in the upper room (Acts 2:22-40) is certainly the gospel, since 3000 people became Christians upon hearing it (2:41)! In it he utters not a word about “faith alone.” He preached:

Acts 2:32-36 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. [33] Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. [34] For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, [35] till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ [36] Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

He instructed the hearers, rather, to “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (2:38). So, immediately after the resurrection, at the very outset of the “Church Age,” an apostle teaches sacramentalism and baptismal regeneration: anathema to most evangelicals. He also says, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” That’s the gospel! St. Paul defines the gospel in Acts 13:16-41 as the resurrection of Jesus:

Acts 13:30-33 But God raised him from the dead; [31] and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people. [32] And we bring you the GOOD NEWS that what God promised to the fathers, [33] this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.’

And to the Corinthians Paul reiterates that the gospel is His death, burial, and resurrection:

1 Corinthians 15:1-8 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you THE GOSPEL, which you received, in which you stand, [2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast — unless you believed in vain. [3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, [4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, [5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. [6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. [7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. [8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

This is why it’s so absurd when anti-Catholic Protestants accuse Catholics of denying the gospel. We completely agree with them on all the things that the Bible itself proclaims as the gospel. It’s not a mere [novel Protestant] soteriological theory. It has to do with what God did for us, so that we can be saved, and about how we must necessarily receive it and respond to it. The explicit scriptural proclamations and definitions of the gospel strikingly exclude “faith alone,” while other actions by Jesus and the apostles contradict it by force of example.

Conclusion?: The gospel is – as Paul teaches – the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. This is the “good news.” The prophets foretold these events, not a fine-tuned theory of application of those events to the believer. How could a mere theological abstract reasonably be called “good news”?

8:50 So the answer to this question, “would I excommunicate Augustine?” [is] yes, but only insofar [as] he was preaching a false gospel such as water baptism or regeneration with the idea that in order to be saved you have to be water baptized, in order to receive the Holy Spirit and if you don’t, then you spend eternity in hell, because this actually adds to the gospel of believing in the atonement of Christ and and Jesus’s resurrection from the dead.

Well, I compiled the book, The Quotable Augustine, too, in 2012, so the answer will be easy to locate there (I went through this same argument with James White 31 years ago), and St. Augustine will now end up in hell — along with pretty much all of the Church fathers — as the result of his supposedly unbiblical and non-Christian sacramental beliefs, since he wrote the following:

. . . born again by baptism; the generation by which we shall rise again from the dead, and shall live with the Angels for ever. (Explanations of the Psalms, 135:13 [135, 11])

As regards the question of baptism, that our being born again, cleansed, justified by the grace of God, should not be ascribed to the man who administered the sacrament, . . . (Against the Letters of Petilian the Donatist, iii, 50, 62)

Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, “Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” [John 3:3] Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism ii, 43 [XXVII] )

. . . that life of the Spirit, in the newness of which they who are baptized are through God’s grace born again . . . (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism ii, 45 [XXVIII])

. . . the question of baptism, . . . justified by the grace of God, . . . (Against the Letters of Petilian the Donatist, iii, 50, 62)

By all these considerations it is proved that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man’s salvation is made complete through the two together. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, iv, 25, 33)

The form of the sacrament is given through baptism, the form of righteousness through the gospel. Neither one without the other leads to the kingdom of heaven. (Against the Letters of Petilian the Donatist, iii, 56, 68)

. . . that sacrament, namely, of baptism, which brings salvation . . . (Epistle 98 [1]: to Boniface [408] )

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation,” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than life. . . . For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: “He saved us by the washing of regeneration?” [Titus 3:5] or from Peter’s statement: “The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us?” [1 Peter 3:21] (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism i, 34 [XXIV] )

. . . the baptism of infants . . . is given to them not only for entrance into the kingdom of God, but also for attaining salvation and eternal life, which none can have without the kingdom of God, or without that union with the Saviour Christ, wherein He has redeemed us by His blood. (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism ii, 1 [I] )

Steve’s position entails claiming that Martin Luther, Lutherans, Methodists, John Wesley, Anglicans, people in the Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ, St. Augustine, virtually all of the Church fathers, and C. S. Lewis are non-Christians, and likely went to hell.

13:04 Luther and Calvin . . . began to see that there were things that were wrong about them including the Church of Rome rejecting the gospel of justification by faith alone . . .

Luther didn’t think that the Catholic Church had rejected the gospel. He wrote:

The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures. (Concerning Rebaptism, written against the Anabaptists in January 1528; translated by Conrad Bergendoff and published in Luther’s Works, Vol. 40, pp. 229-262; this section from p. 232)

John Calvin thought that baptism regenerated and was altogether necessary to be a Christian and enter the kingdom of God, and he also believed in and practiced infant baptism (Institutes, Book IV, 16:3, 5-7, 11, 17, 22). Therefore, he, too, is a non-Christian and probably went to hell, by Steve’s reasoning:

We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. (Inst., IV, 15:3)

Paul proves us to be the sons of God, from the fact that we put on Christ in baptism (Gal. 3:27). (Inst., IV, 15:6)

All who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ are at the same time regenerated by the Spirit, . . . we have an earnest of this regeneration in baptism. (Inst., IV, 15:12)

Baptism . . . certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of the Spirit, and communion with Christ. (Inst., IV, 15:16)

God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, so we have said that he performs the office of a provident parent, in continually supplying the food by which he may sustain and preserve us in the life to which he has begotten us by his word. (Inst., IV, 17:1)

Baptism being a kind of entrance into the Church, an initiation into the faith, . . . (Inst., IV, 18:19)

There never can be a sacrament without a promise of salvation. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, 18:19)

Calvin accepted the validity of Catholic baptism, as did Luther (which is why neither got “re-baptized”):

In the present day we deny not to the Papists those vestiges of a Church which the Lord has allowed to remain among them amid the dissipation. . . . baptism, which, consecrated by his lips, retains its power in spite of human depravity; secondly, He provided by his providence that there should be other remains also to prevent the Church from utterly perishing. (Inst., IV, 2:11)

Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism. Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered. (Inst., IV, 15:16)

And he thought that whether a person was baptized by immersion or sprinkling, was “not of the least consequence” (Inst., IV, 15:19). So if Calvin was one of Steve’s heroes, he ain’t gonna be any longer after all of this, since a good Christian like Steve can’t have pagan, nonbelieving, hellbound, Bible-despising people like Luther and Calvin as heroes and examples.

13:28 Faith alone, which Luther and Calvin and the other reformers accepted . . . was later anathematized at the council Trent in 1546.

Faith alone was, because it’s unbiblical, and hence was never taught by anyone since Augustine or since Paul, respectively, until Philip Melanchthon came up with it by pulling a rabbit out of a hat in the 1530s, according to Protestants Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler, but the gospel as biblically defined was not. And monergism in God’s initial justification was definitely proclaimed:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

John Calvin lived through the entire Council of Trent, and assuredly he disagreed with a lot of it, as he wrote about in his Antidote to Trent. But when he read the three canons above, he wrote in this treatise, “To Canons 1, 2, and 3:, I say, Amen.” He also responded to Canon XIX (“If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema”) with “Amen.”

And to Canon XXII (“If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema”) he gave another “Amen.” It takes a lot for Calvin to not have anything to say in disagreement, concerning any Catholic statement!

14:19 [Catholic apologist] Jimmy Akin earlier this year said that there’s no more anathemas. I don’t think that’s something that’s infallibly been declared by Rome . . .

As Jimmy wrote in his superb article entitled “Anathema” (This Rock, 4-1-00), 26 years ago

Vatican II did not use the term anathema in any of its documents. . . .

The penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. . . .

1. An anathema sentenced a person to hell. This is not the case. Sentencing someone to hell is a power that is God’s alone, and the Church cannot exercise it.

2. An anathema was a sure sign that a person would go to hell. Again, not true. Anathemas were only warranted by very grave sins, but there was no reason why the offender could not repent, and those who repent aren’t damned.

3. An anathema was a sure sign that a person was not in a state of grace.

So yes, the Church did authoritatively remove them, 43 years ago now, in its canon law (this is not dogma, and so can change), and it was implied 61 years ago by their total absence in Vatican II. So we’re not doing that. Rather, it’s anti-Catholics like Steve and James White who consign Catholics, the Church fathers en masse, the Orthodox, millions of Protestants, including Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and C. S. Lewis, to non-Christian status and presumably an eternity in hell (or at the least a distinct danger of same).

He understands that we don’t do that, but mocks it as a sort of wishy-washy, relativistic “inclusion” (14:19) and being allegedly theologically “liberal” (14:28). So we can’t win for losing. For much more on this issue of anathemas, see:

Catholic Salvation: Explanation for Protestants . . . With Many Links for Further Study, and Clarification That Catholic Anathemas Against Fellow Christian Protestants Are No Longer in Force [2-25-26]

Dialogue: Definition of “Christian” (vs. Reformed Pastor) (+ Did Trent Anathematize all Protestants?) [6-5-10]

Bible on Authority to Anathematize & Excommunicate [2009]

Anathemas of Trent & Excommunication: An Explanation [5-20-03, incorporating portions from 1996 and 1998; abridged on 7-30-18]

Only Catholics Issue Anathemas Against Dissenters? (vs. James White) [3-12-04]

17:45 Scripture doesn’t support that [sic] Catholics are are Christians . . .

He goes on to talk about faith alone, which I have already refuted with 150 Bible passages, linked above.

23:49 What happens is when you become a genuine believer in Christ it’s not just saying, “well I believe Jesus died for my sins”; rather, you are divided and removed from the rest of the world and then you’re reunited with the rest of the body of Christ and that’s when you become a Christian. But in Roman Catholic theology this happens at the moment when an individual is baptized in in water and if you’re not you’re not part of that body of Christ you are not you’re not a brother and sister of Christ.

Also according to the Church fathers, the Orthodox, Luther, Calvin, Anglicanism, Methodism . . . So again, if we’re kicked out of Christianity, all of them must go with us, following Steve’s reasoning. I didn’t make the rules of logic what they are.

24:19 Vatican II doesn’t even say that we’re brothers and sisters in Christ.

Really?:

In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared . . . for which, often enough, men of BOTH SIDES were to blame. However, one CANNOT CHARGE WITH THE SIN OF SEPARATION those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with RESPECT and AFFECTION as BROTHERS. For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. . . .

All who have been justified by faith in baptism are INCORPORATED INTO CHRIST [footnote cites Council of Florence, Session 8, from the year 1439]; they therefore have a right to be called CHRISTIANS, and with good reason are accepted as BROTHERS by the children of the Catholic Church. (Decree on Ecumenism [Unitatis Redintegratio, 21 November 1964, section 3)

It’s the Council of Trent, in its Session VII [March 3, 1547], Decree on the Sacraments, Canon III (“If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.”) — not Vatican II — that taught that Protestants are incorporated into the Body of Christ through baptism. See along these lines:

How Catholics View Protestants [9-4-03; rev. 10-9-03 and 1-5-05; abridged on 11-14-16]

How Protestants Can be Brethren in Christ (Christians) and [Partial] Heretics at the Same Time, According to Trent [1-4-14]

Catholicism & Non-Catholic Salvation (Vs. Gavin Ortlund) + How Early Protestants Widely Damned Other Protestants Who Held Different Theological Views [2-9-24]

Baptismal Ecumenism: A New Evangelistic Paradigm (Rod Bennett) [8-11-17]

This is the familiar tactic of trying to wrongly make out that we are so against Protestants, so therefore, they are all the more justified in denying that we are Christians. But we’ve never denied that they are Christians, going back at least as far as Trent in 1547. Anti-Catholic Protestants (a tiny minority among all Protestants, by the way) wrongly project their anti-Catholic attitudes onto us. Thus, even this tack is based on a demonstrable historical falsehood.

24:42 [Catholics think] Protestants are brothers and separated brethren who are heretics and schismatics at the same time,

Yes, precisely as most Protestants think about us and about fellow Protestants with whom they disagree: the others are Christians and brothers and sisters in Christ, but we think they have some errors within that Christian status, which might be called “heresies.” It’s not mutually exclusive.

and yet we’re supposed to say that that Protestants and and Catholics are both Christians.

Indeed, because the biblical and historical evidence doesn’t permit any other possible conclusion, as I have been showing. It’s simply impossible to maintain that only a small minority of Protestants are Christians (I’ve shown how Steve’s reasoning excludes the majority of historical and present-day Protestants from Christianity) and that the vast majority of Protestants and all Orthodox and all Catholics are not.

25:36 Catholics can be Christians, but in spite of being Catholic not because they are Catholic, so I want to emphasize that point . . .

Yes, of course. This is the classic playbook canard of “to be a Christian you gotta be a bad Catholic (i.e., disbelieve several things in Catholicism). But if you are a good Catholic (i.e., believe all that the Catholic Church teaches) you can’t be a Christian or be saved.” This is wrongheaded and false.

27:30 Roman Catholics based on Scripture, they’re not Christians because they believe in a different Christ since they believe in a different gospel.

None of this has been even remotely shown — not to the slightest degree, and it never can be because it’s a falsehood. We believe in the biblical, historical person of Jesus Christ and the biblical gospel. Jesus flatly denied faith alone (which is not the gospel, anyway) on many occasions; particularly in His exchange with the rich young ruler and in the judgment scene of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.

32:10 (directed towards Gavin Ortlund) Catholics are not Christians. They’re not our brothers and sisters in Christ, and if you would like to discuss this further, I would be happy to and open with it . . .

We’ll see how “open” he is to discuss it with me.

***

Steve commented in his combox:

Dave, once again, I think you’re misunderstanding the purpose and context of my response to Dr. Gavin Ortlund, which isn’t strictly that Roman Catholics aren’t Christians, but more specifically that as a Protestant, it would be incorrect of Dr. Ortlund to believe that Protestants AND Roman Catholics are BOTH Christians BECAUSE they belong to different spiritual families, since they believe in different gospels. If I get a chance, I will take a look at your blog, and hopefully it doesn’t misrepresents the context and purpose of why this video. [sic]

However you define the purpose and context, it doesn’t affect my argument. The fact remains that you don’t believe Catholicism is Christianity, and Dr. Ortlund does. We do not believe in a different gospel, if that is defined by the Bible: not Protestants 1500 years after Christ, with a different slant on it (faith alone) than what ever came came before. I say that we believe in the same gospel (as properly defined), but that the add-on Protestant novel tradition of faith alone is massively unbiblical and anti-biblical (I provided several hundred Bible passages proving that).

*****

Photo credit: Steve Christie (right); image for the video, “Justification by Faith: From Catholicism to Protestantism | Steve Christie, RN | #047″ (9-22-24), on Kyle Dean’s YouTube channel.

Summary: I systematically dismantle the claims of anti-Catholic Steve Christie that Catholicism isn’t Christian, utilizing the Bible, Church history, and many Protestant counter-examples.

Previous Post

April 4, 2026

Venerating Men & Angels: Worship? 20 Bible Passages