Trent Horn often offers to do dialogues with people that make responses to his videos. I would encourage Jordan B Cooper to accept any such offer. I think that would be very fruitful to further dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans.

@robertotapia8086

5 ай бұрын

Totally agree AMEN, they definitely should dialog and talk about various topics would love to see it happen.

Even though I'm a Catholic I must admit I am always impressed by the quality of your work, Dr. Cooper.

@robertotapia8086

5 ай бұрын

I'm also Catholic and I like listening to Dr. Cooper and is views. Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷

@ImTiredOfThisChurch

5 ай бұрын

And I am also a Catholic and I don’t like listening Dr. Cooper at all

@jeremyrushton8310

5 ай бұрын

​@@ImTiredOfThisChurchyet, you're here

@ImTiredOfThisChurch

5 ай бұрын

@@jeremyrushton8310 oh yes…I can be wherever I want without your permission young lady

@thorpypoo

5 ай бұрын

I don't believe you or else you wouldn't be here to comment.

It is people like Dr. Cooper and Dr. Ortlund (among many others) who are actually helping to bring unity in Christendom. The problem with a “one true church” perspective is you waste time arguing with those you should consider allies. Not to say our disagreements aren’t important, but we are all Christians and should honor God and take on the world together.

@tonywallens217

5 ай бұрын

We can be united in some things and disunited on others. Lutherans are not presbyterians for a reason. And Protestants are not Catholics for a reason. Both sides rightly attempt to bring about unity by saying what they think is true, and that means that both sides will claim that the other is false in certain things. It’s not just the Catholics arguing (that’s why this response video exists) and arguing is a good thing when done charitably.

@N1IA-4

5 ай бұрын

@@tonywallens217 Did Jesus start a visible Church on earth or not? Yes or no?

@tonywallens217

5 ай бұрын

@@N1IA-4 I believe so, I’m catholic

@LoganJP0120

5 ай бұрын

With all due respect, for those of us convinced of there only being one True Church, such as the Orthodox, Catholics, and Orientals, getting people into that Church is just as important as finding common ground and working together, perhaps even more so. Protestant and Catholic ethics also differ on fundamental subjects, such as Catholics being entirely against Contraceptives and sterilization, while most Protestants deem them ethical. It's just simply two incompatible visions for most issues.

@tonywallens217

5 ай бұрын

@@LoganJP0120 good point, a Church united in mission but divided in faith and morals can’t properly shepherd when “stuff” hits the fans.

This awesome! I love Trent. He’s awesome for Christianity, he is super respectful and knowledgeable, he seems really nice, etc. My only gripe with him is that it sometimes seems like he critiques low church Evangelicals as a stand-in for “Protestants,” so it’s nice to see a high church Protestant like Dr. Cooper have dialogue here!!!

@rolandovelasquez135

5 ай бұрын

Many intelligent RC apologists like Trent Horn, Jimmy Akins, et.al. have realized that Martin Luther, et.al., were absolutely correct on many key doctrines. The actions of this very brave priest (Martin Luther) remind me of how, during the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church was phenomenally corrupt and a very few, very devout, very brave Roman Catholic men ‭‭("men of whom the world was not worthy"), dared to stand up to that phenomenally corrupt official Roman Catholic Church. They never intended to leave but were expelled, persecuted and some were even executed by that same official, very powerful Church. It was not a break from Christianity (Christ), but a restoration of the same. I thank the Lord God Almighty for the Protestant Revolution.

@thundersmite2162

5 ай бұрын

@@rolandovelasquez135 When?

@cranmer1959

5 ай бұрын

If being nice is the measure of truth, then I suppose the devil is very nice, too. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Cor. 11:13-15 KJV)

@fighterofthenightman1057

5 ай бұрын

@@cranmer1959 Dude, quit being so weird. You can say people are nice and leave it at that. Do you behave like this in real life? I feel bad for you.

@ThomasCranmer1959

5 ай бұрын

@@fighterofthenightman1057 I speak the truth in person as well as online. Compromising with false teaching is not biblical.

Great stuff, Dr. Cooper! I'm really happy to see you engage with Trent Horn on this most important matter 👏 This video, together with the response by the Scholastic Lutherans channel, makes for a pretty solid response from the Lutheran side of the equation.

Let's go!!!! I am so pumped to watch this

Thank you Dr. Cooper. This was very helpful.

Yeah I watched Trent for a while but he wastes too much time about protestants while ignoring the bigger issues. He lumps all Protestants together, ignores that Lutherans hold to many things that he does, etc. He means well but doesn't really do anything

@cephasmwila7537

5 ай бұрын

What bigger things did Trent horn miss

@Dilley_G45

5 ай бұрын

​@@cephasmwila7537 like the synodal thing? The pope? Current pope justifies Luther and the reformation as he, justn like in 1517, thinks he's higher than scripture.

@BoondockBrony

5 ай бұрын

Literally every thing high church protestants have@@cephasmwila7537

@TheCounselofTrent

5 ай бұрын

@@Dilley_G45 I'm not sure how the Synod or other controversies are "the bigger issues." My recent videos have also addressed Islam and atheism and other important moral issues.

@Dilley_G45

5 ай бұрын

@@TheCounselofTrent that's good. My point is, there are many different groups that could be labeled as "protestant". Yet many Roman catholic and Orthodox channels lump them all together. And make general statements. And that not only isn't helping. For example Lutherans have more in common with Roman Catholics than with most protestants. Real presence, sacraments, Baptism etc. Shouldn't we try to work together as far as we can instead of hanging on to 16th century animosity? Rome no longer says Galileo is going to hell for a heliocentric solar system

Oh nice! I was going to do one on this but I've been doing too many Trent Horn videos lately lol. I'll share this

@TheCounselofTrent

5 ай бұрын

I am actually interested in having you and Dr. Cooper on to dialogue about sola fide. However, I think a low Church Protestant or Evangelical would also be helpful. It is a very large perspective that shouldn't be ignored. I have a debate next week so perhaps we can work on scheduling a dialogue after that if you two are interested.

@anglicanaesthetics

5 ай бұрын

@@TheCounselofTrent Hi Trent--I'd be happy to! That timing works for me as well.

@DrJordanBCooper

5 ай бұрын

@@TheCounselofTrent that could be worthwhile.

@VickersJon

5 ай бұрын

@@DrJordanBCooperThis would be wonderful.

@robertotapia8086

5 ай бұрын

​@@DrJordanBCooper Please let's make this happen we all need this. Your Catholic brother Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷

SO HAPPY YOU DID THIS!!!!!

Really good stuff! I had a professor in undergrad who used to say something like, "A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext" (you probably know who I'm talking about haha!)

Have you considered reprinting that book you wrote? I remember purchasing it and was impressed (it is now in the library of my former Presbyterian church).

@DrJordanBCooper

5 ай бұрын

The book is still available from Wipf and Stock.

Dr Cooper, what’s a good book on “Sola scripture”?

Would love a video on the approach of Sola Scriptura in the Fathers, as well as maybe breaking down the epistemological reasons for Sola Scriptura as well. I think good arguments from the Fathers as well philosophical arguments are needed to be justified in our beliefs.

@DrJordanBCooper

5 ай бұрын

I have thought about this quite a bit. It would take a bit of prep time.

@matthewschraith8434

5 ай бұрын

@@DrJordanBCooper for me personally, it’s one of the things I’m studying and I’ve kind of combined Sola Scriptura, Epistemology, Metaphysics of Truth, Church/Apostolic Authority, as well as Church History in one term called “Ecclesial Epistemology.” I think those all relate to each other in some way and are necessary to further ecumenical conversations.

@matthewschraith8434

5 ай бұрын

@@DrJordanBCooper I would definitely appreciate a video on that!

@Animangamer

5 ай бұрын

@drjordanBCooper , I also would appreciate this video as well. Thank you for your time and efforts.

@jermoosekek1101

5 ай бұрын

@@matthewschraith8434Anthony rogers has a good one!

Dr Cooper you use the word "mortal" sin, I wasn't aware that Lutherans use that term so I googled it and basically what I am understanding is the Lutheran definition of mortal/venal sin is different than the Catholic definition of mortal/venal sin, FYI I found nothing in the index of the Book of Concord, maybe you could do a quick video on this?

@DrJordanBCooper

5 ай бұрын

I address this in an upcoming video on Confession and Absolution. It is quite different from the RC view.

Clement has an anticipated objection. Always make sense of the anticipated objection.

Which Church Father, agreeing with Jordan on justification on by faith alone, would Jordan invite to his Church, to give a homily to his congregation?

Thanks for the video! Could you make a video on the historical case for Christ?

@DrJordanBCooper

5 ай бұрын

There are others who are probably more qualified than I am in that area.

I’d be interested in how the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church differ on justification. I’m sure there is some difference given how much development the RC went through post split.

Of all of the arguments against any particular Catholic position I've listened to on KZread, only the Lutheran arguments have been persuasive. I don't think sola fide is biblical. But I'm a Catholic so maybe my reading of the Bible throughout my life has curbed my thinking on the theory. I've read our joint ecumenical paper on faith and justification, so I think there are more agreement with us than, say, you guys and some Calvinists on KZread.

When Catholic apologists talk about "justification by faith alone" at the beginning of the Christian life, one must ask: what do they mean by faith and how does it justify by itself? Is it an infused virtue and justifies because of its inherent goodness of the virtue? Or does it justify alone because it lays hold of Christ and his righteousness? And why does baptism save? Because it delivers Christ's complete salvation to the hand of faith or because it works some type of internal transformation that is promoted by all kinds of graces conveyed by sacraments and sacramentals such as holy water, candles, and ashes? Questions, questions, questions. That is the frustrating thing about "ecumenical dialog" whether it happens with the LWF or on KZread. People use the same words and think "hey, we all agree!" Because we refer to the same biblical text, we're all going to be using the same words. But as Luther recognized, heresy is not in the words but in the meaning of those words.

@Alfredo8059

Ай бұрын

Catholics believe the perfect love of God (charity Rom. 5:5) and the perfect works of God ( Eph 2:10) avail for justification before God because they are not deficient in righteousness. They comefrom Christ's perfect righteousness. Faith alone, before or apart receiving the love of God, is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2). Is there any biblical figure declared to be righteous before showing love in his/her heart?

Trying to understand the differences between different views on justification is a lot harder than it sounds. It seems like Roman Catholics and Lutherans can agree that cooperation with grace in one's sanctification is necessary after an initial justification (for salvation). It seems that an area of disagreement is on whether that cooperation should be called works or faith.

@SonOfTheLion

5 ай бұрын

Roman Catholicism folds sanctification into justification with the notion of final justification. A Lutheran would hold that we can do good works but only as a result of our ongoing sanctification, itself a result of justification by faith. The Roman considers these works part of earning final justification not as a product of it. Would a Roman Catholic affirm you are saved only by initial justification?

@DrJordanBCooper

5 ай бұрын

For us that cooperation does not in any way contribute toward our righteousness before God. For Rome, that cooperation increases justification.

@JW_______

5 ай бұрын

@@SonOfTheLion It seems that all Christians agree that there is a coming, future actualization, realization, or completion of salvation at the resurrection (call it glorification, or Christification, or deification in the E.O. use of the term), whereby man's sinful nature is completely removed and we are able to be in God's presence and live (reunited with God). Some Christians believe that we have a gaurantee of that final salvation when we put our faith in Christ - others would say that we must persevere in our faith. There's disagreement also on whether faith means just belief or if true faith is a faith that works. (If we love God we seek to obey Him and to grow in virtue and holiness - not that salvation can be earned by this, as we can only fall short). As soon as we start to do a good work for our own sake instead of for God's sake it's no longer truly a *good* work.

@JW_______

5 ай бұрын

@@DrJordanBCooper I think I'm confused about what is the difference between virtue and righteousness? It seems that virtueous character is something that can be learned and built up in a person, albeit with the ever present possibility for set back and decline in virtue as well. But perhaps what is meant by righteousness before God is the reminder that all of our righteousness is as filthy rags compared with God's holiness.

@justfromcatholic

5 ай бұрын

@@SonOfTheLion According to 2 Th. 2:13 God saves us through sanctification. If salvation is a process that includes faith (Eph. 2:8) and sanctification, then so is justification. The phrase "justified by faith" appears four times in New Testament (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). New Testament was written in Greek and the one in Rom. 3:28 is in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense. Both tenses do not indicate once for all justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense. Catholics believe our justification comes from God's grace. We do NOT earn it per your false accusation. It is grace through Christ that enables us both to have faith and to do what is right (1 Jo. 3:7), through which we are made righteous (Rom. 5:19) - part from Christ we can do nothing (John 15:5)

I'm a bit confused. How can Dr. Cooper say that Lutheran's believe baptism saves and yet still believe Faith Alone?

@miguelz8721

5 ай бұрын

Because Baptism is God's work Not man's work .

@j.g.4942

5 ай бұрын

gotta have faith in something. Baptism is where God promised both union with Christ and reception of the Holy Spirit, we receive that through the faith He gives; that's the original meaning of 'sola fide' from at least the Reformation on.

@rodrigofernandes5242

5 ай бұрын

Good point. Not only baptism saves, but lutherans also have the confession with a priest as a sacrament necessary for salvation. They also believe in "Sola Fide" and "Sola Scriptura". Interesting, right?

Great response. Trent's entire video is pretty much like "this church father says that we are justified by faith not works, but in this other section he says that works are necessary, therefore he must not believe in sola fida". As if the two are mutually exclusive. Lutherans have always taught that works are necessary, but faith alone is what justifies. While sola fide may not be formalized in the early church exactly the way it is in the reformation, the early church father's writings on justification sure do resemble the Lutheran view more the Roman Catholic view.

@Alfredo8059

2 ай бұрын

Luther conflated his own faith and Abraham's obedient faith. Faith alone, before or apart receiving God's perfect love, is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2)

Sect. IX.-THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, "Free-will" is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert "Free-will," must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them.

LEZ gooooo

Need sola scriptura in the fathers too

@cephasmwila7537

5 ай бұрын

Protestants point to st Augustine

@labxnair

5 ай бұрын

yeah, I do think apostolic father citations would be better though. And I would argue Catholics can validly use Augustine just as much like with the Bible canon or "I wouldn't have believed the gospel without the authority of the Catholic church", reminds me of Anglo-Catholics where I'm like are you papist or not@@cephasmwila7537

@my.apologies

5 ай бұрын

It’s there in the fathers as long as you don’t expect a “zero tradition” version often put forward by evangelicals today. The reformation idea of Sola Scriptura is represented by Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Cyril of Jerusalem to name a few.

@jamesrey3221

5 ай бұрын

"Church Fathers" are "Fathers" of the Catholic church. They are mostly bishops and saints of the Catholic church.. St. Ignatius the bishop of Antioch (110AD) whose was the disciple of St. John the evangelist for nearly 20 years. “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Augustine: 397 A.D. "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."

@jamesrey3221

5 ай бұрын

Cyril bishop of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 350 A.D. “And if you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is, nor merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”.

I’ll die a convert to the Catholic faith. However, It sounds like we may have more in common than what I thought. I was the doubting Thomas. I’m Catholic because of the saints and miracles.

In many ways it seems the various main branches of Christianity are talking past each other. One group says “sola fide” and the other says “facta fide.” None deny works are vital to faith, or at a minimum give evidence of one’s confession. None would deny that one who has no good works evidently lacks saving faith and regeneration; especially, if they have no inner call to repentance. If these are true, then faith and works are so inseparable as to be meaningless. St. Paul was not speaking against “faithfulness” or “faith-works,” but against “works of the law” which can deceive someone into believing they are pleasing God, when inside they are prideful, hypocritical, lustful, etc., and thinking God accepts a them in their unrepentant state. But “faithfulness,” or said another way “working faith,” is vital to one’s salvation. The works working with the faith makes faith come alive and profitable unto justification. Without faith-works, head faith dies, and one falls away.

How does Sola Fide account for Christ’s teachings on the final Judgement? For instance, why doesn’t Christ’s righteousness cover the other five virgins (Matthew 25: 1-13). They were looking forward to His coming, they waited for Him and they even went to buy more oil for the procession. Or the people Christ talks about in Matthew 7:21-23? They received the gifts of the Holy Spirit like might deeds and prophecy, but they still ended up in hell.

@KnightFel

5 ай бұрын

They boasted in their works. They never said they trusted in Christ. The foolish Virgins lacked oil (Holy Spirit).

@peterw1177

5 ай бұрын

@@KnightFel I do not see anywhere in Scripture where it says that they boasted in their work. Jesus doesn't say anything like that. That is your own addition. Jesus calls them evildoers. If the oil is the Holy Spirit, then what about the people in Matthew 7? Did they receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit without receiving the Holy Spirit? It can't be that one thing works in one case and then it doesn't work in another. Contradictions are not a sign of truth.

@TharMan9

5 ай бұрын

@@peterw1177It seems to me that the reconciliation of the two passages you cited can be found in James 2:14 & 17 (ESV): “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? ... faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” The foolish virgins had faith without works, but the false disciples had something like works without faith. The Protestant Reformers taught that we are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that stands alone. So, we are justified by faith alone in Christ’s work on the cross, but everything we then do should be in response to the Holy Spirit’s continuing work of sanctification in our lives.

@justfromcatholic

5 ай бұрын

@@TharMan9 But according to 2 Th. 2:13 God saves us through sanctification. If salvation is a process that includes faith (Eph. 2:8) and sanctification, then so is justification. The phrase "justified by faith" appears four times in New Testament (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). New Testament was written in Greek and the one in Rom. 3:28 is in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense. Both tenses do not indicate once for all justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense.

@TharMan9

5 ай бұрын

@@justfromcatholic There seems to be two concepts of sanctification going on in the New Testament, one that it’s an initial work of God in our lives (much like justification), and the other that it’s an ongoing process. In Protestant theology the second sense is the one that is dealt with more often. At the same time, although justification is usually seen as a one time event, it really isn’t accurate to leave it at that because it underpins every moment of sanctification. The two cannot be separated, but the one does depend on the other in our salvation.

12:40 We're in Christ ("God Is Our Righteousness" Jer 23:6), and He is in us--God is a covering that emanates out from within our innermost being, so there's no issue reconciling infused righteousness with righteousness being a garment/covering. Those who don't remain in Christ (and He in them) are "naked" for not retaining God as their righteousness, as they have "fallen from Grace" and have landed back under the knowledge of good and evil (of which the Law is but a species).

I think real catholicity is: 'A sinner poor, at mercy's door.'

Mortal sin? I thought it was the case that if we see our sins as venial they are in fact mortal.

13

I really could go for LCMS or confessional Lutheranism ... If it just weren't so ... European and boring. Now I realize that what's most important is Truth regardless of which ethnic groups have it and regardless of how much or little it appeals to me. And tbh I feel like (conservative, confessional) Lutherans and (conservative) Anglicans (39 Rules) are most consistent with the Bible. We can also see their views in the Church Fathers. But as an African-American, not to be shallow, but I need to be in a fellowship that has at least _some_ diversity. Like, I need to look around in my congregation and see at least *someone* who looks like me. Call it a shortcoming, if you will. I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But it's not much different than your "5 Reasons Why I'm not Eastern Orthodox," where you stated, "Maybe I'm just to WASP-ey to be Eastern Orthodox..." Culture matters. Ethnicity matters. There is neither Jew nor Greek in the Church, but there is ALL. I just haven't see the ALL in ANY American Lutheran Church I've ever attended. So, that's partly why I headed East to the Orthodox Church. I love that there are a half dozen or more ethnicities at my church on any given Sunday. Darker skinned AND lighter skinned people. People from Europe, Middle East, Africa and even the Mediterranean. That means something.

Trent?

@ninjason57

5 ай бұрын

Horn

@Dilley_G45

5 ай бұрын

@@ninjason57 lol I was referring to "Tren" in the title

Just read the fathers for yourself. Don’t take Cooper or Horn’s word for it.

@charliek2557

5 ай бұрын

They are free online

@NevetsWC1134

5 ай бұрын

Reading the fathers and studying Jewish traditions made me catholic

I'm not a Roman Catholic partially because I'm not convinced of their claims to historical continuity and I'm still exploring the topic of justification in history in an attempt to find out who is right. I remember watching Trent's video and thinking that many of the quotes he cited could be interpreted within a Protestant paradigm. However, I've heard you say here and in the past that you think RCs today who speak the language of an initial justification by faith are contradicting the Council of Trent but this is what the Council of Trent says in Session 6, Chapter 8: "but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace."

@sknc7541

5 ай бұрын

As for imputed vs. infused righteousness, here is the Anglican scholar William Witt on the topic "The crucial dividing issues at the time of the Reformation concerned (1) whether justification was a forensic declaration or a “making” righteous; (2) whether the formal cause of justification was the finished work of Christ apart from human works (alien righteousness) or the inherent righteousness by which Christ’s work was appropriated (infused righteousness or merit); (3) whether there is a clear-cut distinction between justification and sanctification, with sanctification being a consequence of justification, or, rather, whether justification and sanctification were understood to be the same thing."

And what authority do the "Fathers" have? I don't recall Luther bowing to the "Fathers." Have Lutherans forgotten Luther? You are ceding the high ground to Horn. Sola Scriptura!

@j.g.4942

5 ай бұрын

The Fathers are one of the preeminent authorities under Scripture, they are quoted and respected in many ways through Luther and the Lutheran Confessions (yet of course subject to Scripture). Lutherans are already on the high ground, under Scripture and the Incarnate Word. Sola Scriptura!

@Athabrose

5 ай бұрын

Luther and the Lutheran confessions quote and work from the fathers incessantly. I can’t get past a Sunday school lesson or sermon at my parish without a church father being quoted. Insofar that the fathers are subservient to scripture they are a valuable part of the continuing church.

Bottom line brothers: a man cannot start his own church for any reason. Only God Himself can do that. Peace be with you.

I'm getting my definition of semi-pelagianism from the Bible, the final authority. Furthermore, Augustine, at the end of his life did teach double predestination, and so did Luther. Same logic proves that your view is semi-pelagian. Grace provided to all and such grace is resistible means that election is conditioned on the sinners response. You cannot have it both ways. If God decides who is regenerate and who is not regenerate, then the sovereignty of God trumps your anthropocentric sovereignty of man over God. The golden idol of free will is proof enough that you're a semi-pelagian and your position is self-contradictory.

Luther referred double imputation as glorious and blessed exchange where through faith alone Christ righteousness is imputed on/credited to us while our sins (past, present and future) is imputed on/credited to Christ. Catholics do NOT believe in double infusion - we do believe the righteousness of God through Christ is infused in us, through which we are made righteous (Rom. 5:19). Our sins are neither infused nor imputed on Christ. What Luther meant by imputing our sins to Christ is as it were Christ who committed those sins - Christ was NOT simply covered by our sins. In Luther's own words (emphasis in capital its mine): In the same way John the Baptist called Christ “the Lamb of God” (John 1:29). He is, of course, innocent, because He is the Lamb of God without spot or blemish. But because He bears the sins of the world, His innocence is pressed down with the sins and the guilt of the entire world. WHATEVER SINS I, YOU, AND ALL OF US HAVE COMMITTED OR MAY COMMIT IN THE FUTURE, THEY ARE AS MUCH CHRIST’S OWN AS IF HE HIMSELF HAD COMMITTED THEM. In short, our sin must be Christ’s own sin, or we shall perish eternally. ...... With gratitude and with a sure confidence, therefore, let us accept this doctrine, so sweet and so filled with comfort, which teaches that Christ became a curse for us, that is, a sinner worthy of the wrath of God; that He clothed Himself in our person, laid our sins upon His own shoulders, and said: “I HAVE COMMITTED THE SINS THAT ALL MEN HAVE COMMITTED.” Luther: Lectures on Galatians 1-4, 1535, Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, page 278, 283 - 284 In contrast Catholics believe that Christ did die for our sins as our substitution, but our sins are NOT imputed on Him. His atonement was prefigured in the Old Testament in yearly atonement made by the High Priest (Lev. 16). According to Leviticus 16 once a year the High Priest chose one of two goats as sin offering (or sin, חַטָּאָת) to atone the sins of all Israelites (Lev. 16:8-9). That goat was sacrificed, and its blood sprinkled on and before the mercy seat (Lev. 16:15) and on the horns of the altar (Lev. 16:18). The sins of all Israelites were imputed on the second goat, which was not sacrificed but released in the wilderness as scapegoat (Lev. 16:8, 21-22). In the New Covenant Christ is the High Priest (Heb. 4:14, 9:11) and He offered Himself as sin offering or sin (Heb. 9:12). While He died to atone our sins on the cross, our sins are not imputed on Him, just like the sins of all Israelites are not imputed on the first goat in Lev. 16:8-9.

Semi-Pelagianism affirms a synergistic view of regeneration. Since you apparently reject irresistible grace, this make you clearly in the semi-pelagian camp. The Calvinist view is that salvation is all by God’s grace. You, otoh, believe that you merit regeneration and justification by your synergistic work of the will cooperating with a generic and universal grace. The difference is your effort to believe, not God's grace raising you from spiritual death.

@Godfrey118

5 ай бұрын

From the formula of Concord Epitome: We reject also the error of the gross Pelagians, who taught that man by his own powers, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, can turn himself to God, believe the Gospel, be obedient from the heart to God’s Law, and thus merit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. 10 3. We reject also the error of the Semi-Pelagians, who teach that man by his own powers can make a beginning of his conversion, but without the grace of the Holy Ghost cannot complete it. 11 4. Also, when it is taught that, although man by his free will before regeneration is too weak to make a beginning, and by his own powers to turn himself to God, and from the heart to be obedient to God, yet, if the Holy Ghost by the preaching of the Word has made a beginning, and therein offered His grace, then the will of man from its own natural powers can add something, though little and feebly, to this end, can help and cooperate, qualify and prepare itself for grace, and embrace and accept it, and believe the Gospel.

@Godfrey118

5 ай бұрын

From the conclusion of the Council of Orange 529, which is the council to condemn "semi-palagianism", double predestination is specifically argued against: According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him

@ThomasCranmer1959

5 ай бұрын

​@Godfrey118 The Council of Orange is semi-pelagian. God does not "inspire" anyone to believe. That is synergistic. God monergistically causes the dead sinner to believe. The sinner is passive in regeneration. What is more, regeneration precedes faith, and faith is required for baptism. Baptism is the outward sign and seal of what has already taken place.

@ThomasCranmer1959

5 ай бұрын

​@@Godfrey118Obviously, if God foreknows who will be chosen and who will be rejected, it is God who ultimately determines both.

@ThomasCranmer1959

5 ай бұрын

​@@Godfrey118Pelagianism is the correct spelling.

On 1 August 1521 Luther wrote to his deputy, Phillip Melanchthon: " .....No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small?" (Luther’s Works, Vol. 48, page 281-282). What he wrote will make followers of Free Grace Gospel happy. But Luther changed his mind and taught what is known today as Lordship Salvation Gospel. In Luther's words: Christ did not earn only gratia, “grace,” for us, but also donum, “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” so that we might have not only forgiveness of, but also cessation of, sin. Now he who does not abstain from sin, but persists in his evil life, must have a different Christ, that of the Antinomians; the real Christ is not there, even if all the angels would cry, “Christi Christi” He must be damned with this, his new Christ. Luther: on the Councils and the Church, 1539, Luther’s Works, Vol. 41, page 114

Scriptural support of penance is in Eze. 33:14-16 (ESV, emphasis in capital is mine): "Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and DOES WHAT IS JUST (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) AND RIGHT (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666), if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) and right (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666); he shall surely live. Contrary to what Dr. Cooper said in the video, indulgences are NOT payment for forgiveness of sin. An indulgence is remission of temporal punishment of ALREADY FORGIVEN sins. In Catholic teaching there are eternal and temporal punishments, corresponding to deadly (mortal) and non-deadly (venial) sins of 1 Jo. 5:16-17. Eternal punishment means eternal death in hell. The punishment of deadly sin is both eternal and temporal, while that of non-deadly sin is temporal. If we repent from deadly sin, God graciously cancel the eternal punishment, but its temporal punishment remains . Temporal punishment also remains after repenting from non-deadly sin. “Doing what is just (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) and right (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666)” in Eze. 33:14-16, which a sinner must do after turning from sin, corresponds to this temporal punishment. They may come in the form of acts of charity, alms (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666), prayer, and other forms of penance. To Protestants such things violate “solus Christus” as they “add” what Christ already accomplished on the cross - He was already punished for all our sins, being imputed on Him as if He were the one who committed those sins.

"Sola Fide" doesn't work : God's (justifying) righteousness is revealed from faith to faith (Ro 1:17), so that the rule is "let every man be fully convinced in his own mind" (Ro 14:5), and breaking that rule is "sin" by which a Christian is (not justified but) "condemned" (Ro 14:23)--those "in Christ" have no condemnation, but those who don't walk in faith are condemned, because they're not remaining in Christ (1 Jn 2:28), because of not obeying Christ (faith works by love, and He commands "love one another"--ie, walk in faith) (1 Jn 3:23,24).

Trent in his apologetics videos does try to throw the widest net so to speak. Protestantism being what it is will always have those which will not fall in the net. No matter how many videos he or any Catholic makes, there will always be the Protestant who say wait! That's not my tradition's position! You have mischaracterized me! Let's be honest about this at least... I mean he spent a good amount of time mentioning your work. You have done nothing, if you merely reassert the same position from your book.

Semi Romanist Lutheran

@drewpanyko5424

5 ай бұрын

...why would you say that? I'm curious....

@ThomasCranmer1959

5 ай бұрын

@drewpanyko5424 Because Cooper has said in other videos that he is: 1) A high church Lutheran. 2) He has no problem worshipping with Anglo-Catholics, who share his views of the two sacraments. 3) He says in this video that the issue of justification is a matter of indifference to him in regards to the Romanists. 4) He openly admits his semi-pelagian views on soteriology. 5) He does not consider Lutheranism to be Protestant. Calvinism seems to be the most consistent Protestant theology, though the semi-Calvinists are more in agreement with Cooper on the common grace issue. Luther himself was more in agreement with the Protestant Reformers on predestination and foreknowledge. Luther is, in fact, considered the father of the Protestant Reformation by most Calvinists.

@drewpanyko5424

5 ай бұрын

@@ThomasCranmer1959 thank you. I don't recall hearing Dr. Cooper claim semi-Pelagian views on soteriology, but your points are well taken. God Bless....

@Godfrey118

5 ай бұрын

​@@ThomasCranmer1959I gotta say I've listened to a lot of Dr. Cooper and he has never supported semi-pelagianism. Catholic, Arminiam, Reformed and Lutheran doctrines each have exhaustively proven that they are not pelagian or semi-pelagian. Dr. Cooper even has videos critiquing Dr. Flowers Provisionism.... Where Cooper argues that is if Semi-pelagian

@imherwerdio6852

5 ай бұрын

​@ThomasCranmer1959 sir, the rhetoric of which you are engaging in sounds no different than the conservative, exclusivist, more fundamentalist factions of both apologists and other Roman Catholics of such orientation.

Faith + striving You Lutherans have no shame. You cannot condemn the Catholic position while you yourself support a version of faith + works. And you cannot have "muh sola fide" if you preach faith + striving. Unsurvivable levels of cringe.

@j.g.4942

5 ай бұрын

The pope condemned our position and Lutherans haven't changed on this. So yes we have no shame in holding the apostolic teaching even if the pope has condemned it.

@dave1370

5 ай бұрын

You must have no shame when you know that Lutherans don't think that works merit anything regarding justification.

@Catholic-Perennialist

5 ай бұрын

@@j.g.4942 If you're citing a condemnation from the 16th century, you aren't living in reality. The joint declaration made between Rome and various Lutheran bodies is more relevant. And there is no material difference between faith + striving vs. Faith + works. It's a denomination built on semantics.

@N1IA-4

5 ай бұрын

As a former Lutheran, now Catholic, I totally agree with you. JBFA and Sola Scriptura has been painfully absent from early church history....and Jordan attempts to cherry-pick various Fathers to find it SOMEWHERE. It really is a fool's errand because Catholicism could have never existed beyond "cult" status if it got justification and SS wrong, like Protestants think. It also would have been pulverized out of existence by despots in the first thousand years of Christianity. Of course, none of that happened. I'd like to challenge Jordan to show any Protestant-ish communities anywhere in early church history (certainly if these fathers believed JBFA and Sola Scriptura, it would have resulted in communities, or at least pockets of like-minded believers). They can show no evidence of this....because there were never any.

@invaderzimrocksify

5 ай бұрын

Antinomianism is cringe, which is the conclusion to a lack of striving

When does the reformation stop.