Well said Dr. Cooper. As a classical Protestant I find the overshadowing of shallow American evangelicalism frustrating. Thanks for giving us classical Protestants a voice. Looking forward to the next video on this.

Thank you for your perspective Dr. Cooper. As a former charismatic protestant who converted to EO I've felt myself often tempted to write off Protestant voices as not valid because they're too wrapped up in the world and the culture to have any much theological standing left, and I think my view was warped by a lot of leftover bitterness towards the church I was raised in. Your channel has helped tremendously.

Jordan, I think the reason why Protestantism is mostly disregarded in those conversations is because of what the world sees as Protestantism. More specifically, the heredox, or even apostate positions of the mainline denominations that are no different, and in many ways, a full embracing of the culture and the heathen worldview; they really have no legitimacy at the table. Unfortunately, those of us who are orthodox are often overlooked or lumped in with those religious organizations that have Christians in their names but are far from it.

@harrygarris6921

Жыл бұрын

What is protestant orthodoxy though? Only confessional lutheranism? Even among the more traditional denominations of mainline protestantism you see disagreement on fundamental basics like the nature of God, sin, and salvation.

@redeemedzoomer6053

Жыл бұрын

I agree, it's why we need to retake the mainline denominations

@augustinian2018

Жыл бұрын

@@harrygarris6921Basically, it’s agreement 1) that the doctrines of God and Christ of the ecumenical councils are correct because they accord with scripture, 2) that scripture is the highest visible source of authority in the church (but not the only authority in the church) 3) that the canon of scripture and its stabilization described by folks like Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius in the 4th century is pretty much correct, even if we can’t have epistemic certainty it’s correct (just as we can’t have epistemic certainty that we will persevere to life’s end with a living and active faith), and 4) that one’s right standing with God is underserved and graciously granted only on account of living and active faith. Later splinter groups would diverge from this and take other positions exaggerating some of the four points above (e.g., like that scripture is the only source of authority in the church and that one’s perseverance in faith is certain, etc). And the impact the Scottish Enlightenment had on American Evangelicalism in the 18th century is another story entirely. Just like the church fathers, classical Protestants disagree on a lot of the specifics of how everything works out in practice. E.g., Gregory of Nazianzus’s understanding of the Trinity differed from Augustine’s, yet both are commemorated by classical Protestants, Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox alike despite Gregory and Augustine’s theological differences. The diversity of thought in Protestant Orthodoxy is similar despite the hot-blooded temperament exemplified by many of it leading figures (were they really all that different from folks like Cyril of Alexandria in the early church in this regard?). The Reformed doctrine of God and Christology leans heavily on Leo the Great and Augustine, whereas Lutherans look more to Cyril of Alexandria and John of Damascus (for Christology, at least). The differences between the Reformed and the Lutherans are much the same as the differences between the early church fathers whose reading of scripture informs their theology. Just as Augustine and Prosper of Aquitaine quibbled with Vincent of Lerins and John Cassian in the early church about the nature sin and salvation, so to Lutherans and the Reformed also quibbled in the Reformation. That said, I’ll grant that the Reformation went too far in many places even in the 16th century-it’s one of the reasons I’m Anglican and lean toward the new perspective on Paul.

@vngelicath1580

Жыл бұрын

@@harrygarris6921 Classical Protestantism is just an umbrella term to refer to historically verifiable confessional documents and the scholastic methodology developed out of those confessional foundations. So, 1) Lutheranism (Book of Concord; Martin Chemnitz, Johann Gerhard, etc.) 2) Anglicanism (Book of Common Prayer/Formularies; Thomas Cranmer, Richard Hooker, etc.) 3) Reformed Church (Belgic Confession/Westminister Confession; John Calvin, John Knox, etc.) Maybe, the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition... but it's a sort of an off-shoot of Anglicanism (same with London Reformed-Baptists via the Puritans). And that's it. That's the 'Classical Protestant' tradition. Reformation rooted confessions and a scholastic method to explicate and develop it. 3 1/2 branches in total.

@harrygarris6921

Жыл бұрын

@@vngelicath1580 Thank you, that's a helpful list.

I am a Catholic, but in terms of Protestant cultural commentators Paul Vanderklay is great. I watch him all the time. Also, I suppose Andrew Klavan of Daily Wire is Protestant as well

@educationalporpoises9592

Жыл бұрын

Andrew Klavan is great.

Perhaps because this is for the most part something in the English Language world and THAT world is fundamentally Protestant already. The recession of Modernity fundamentally challenges aspects of Protestantism.

@StarStrife100

Жыл бұрын

As much as people want to talk about science vs religion, it’s really science’s younger brother technology that has wiped out Christendom and advanced modernity. The printing press, the automobile, and the pill have had far more influence than any set of disembodied ideas about what theology to protest and why. I think I see the distinction between Protestantism and Non-Protestantism as primarily about the integration of and participation in these technologies (or not), all of which are being rapidly dissolved by the internet and AI (eg recession of modernity). For example, what does it mean to be “Classically Protestant” when the primacy of the spoken word (podcasts, KZread) over the written word can be applied at scale? Or how do we understand participation in the Christian life when I can join a 12 step meeting or Bible study with a click of my mouse?

@schatzi321

Жыл бұрын

@@StarStrife100 That makes a lot of sense. It's another example of how the concept of "garments of skin" that Pageau often hints at can lead to a further fall from the garden. It's also a similar pattern to eating the forbidden fruit. All of these technologies carry consequences that take generations to unfold and lead to the furthering of the fall of man.

@andrewrackliff8223

Жыл бұрын

@@StarStrife100 In some ways it's because it becomes more real for you. All this philosophical thinking, for most people, is just noise. For your everyday average human who has no other interest in this, the church traditions and other such things made it more alive and real for them. The pill on the other hand made a lot of the claims of modernity much more real than their philosophical opponents. Because now you could just do what you want, and there is no consequence. And if the people in support of the pill say that there is no consequence and the other people just want to control you and what you do because they're bad, who you going to listen to? Technology effects the here and now much more than philosophical ideals do. At least in a more concrete way, and that's what a lot of humans look for when they're going about their day today.

Who makes the table? America is so deeply Protestant it can’t perceive the water. Non Protestant voices stick out in the culture war because their messages are often unusual to American culture.

@BoondockBrony

Жыл бұрын

That's why Orthodoxy is becoming almost the new "Young Restless and Reformed Movement" you see a lot of people converting to Orthodoxy despite not having any ethnic connection to the church, which is what Eastern Orthodoxy was for most of it's history in the West. I think Catholicism is a close second mostly because it is Protestant enough but comes off as more educated since their priests match the occupational look one has with them. Unlike some Protestant pastors who look like car dealers.

Right, only a small segment of the RC is "fighting this fight" and those trads feel like the rebels faithful to the "true church".

@PaulVanderKlay

Жыл бұрын

Hence making those Trads performative "protestants". Protestantism fundamentally retconned the church. People turning to Orthodoxy are also being performatively "Protestant" even as they embrace Orthodoxy.

@PaulVanderKlay

Жыл бұрын

5:30 so you really need to fork the term 'Protestant".

@DrJordanBCooper

Жыл бұрын

Precisely!

@joelreinhardt2084

Жыл бұрын

This all sounds like Peter Leithart to me... you and @DrJordanBCooper should have a three way discussion with him about "The Future of Protestantism".

@australopithecusafarensis8927

Жыл бұрын

@@PaulVanderKlay The “Trads” if you’re referring to Taylor Marshall etc are preying on people’s fears and encouraging rebellion. The wolves. The equivalent of QAnon. Your actual faithful parish Catholic like my friends aren’t railing against the Pope or engaging conspiracy theory.

It's made me happy to see you start engaging with the Little Corner of the Internet and I hope you continue to explore their ideas. I'm a born and raised church-going LCMS Lutheran albeit often find myself one in name only. I very readily admit that listening to Paul Vander Klay, Jonathan Pageau, random Orthodox and Roman Catholic youtubers as well as reading the Eastern Church Fathers (St. Maximus the Confessor, Ephrem the Syrian) and GK Chesterton really encouraged me to consider going to church again. I decided to stay with the LCMS (despite my own heterodox views) due to it being my family's tradition and that we do practice the Divine Liturgy. That being said, even after years of attending a relatively High Church congregation, I still often find myself desiring more of the mysticism, narrative, and symbolism you find in the older Christian traditions. I feel like there's a strong argument that Sola Scriptura (even if it was just part of the overall trajectory) did play a pivotal role in the march towards modernism; elevating the Word (mind, theory, intellect, knowing, etc.) to be magnitudes more important than our feeble yet deeply meaningful attempts and rituals to embody the narrative of our Creator. The non-denominational Protestant Mega Church with its stripped down liturgy and secular aesthetics wouldn't exist without Sola Scriptura. I appreciate your use of the term "Classical Protestant" although I think we should get rid of the term "Protestant" as it defines itself in opposition rather than Communion with the other liturgical traditions.

That was very interesting. You brought up some good points. Food for thoughts. Thank you.

Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Jordan Petersonism thrive because they claim a perennial and mystical heritage. My Protestant to Catholic convert friends like things like Eucharistic adoration or Rosary, which often feel very mystical, ritualistic, or 'eastern' in a way that Protestantism does not. My Baptist Protestant upbringing was very much about just believing the right things and avoiding sin, but people in the modern world find mysticism and ritual appealing in a way that most mainstream Protestant denominations don't know how to provide.

@harrygarris6921

Жыл бұрын

People throughout human history have found mysticism and ritual appealing. It's not just a modern thing. The modernist movement in which most thinkers in society rejected much of an existence of a spiritual world at all and only focused on material things, which unfortunately most protestant denominations were highly influenced by, is the view that is an outlier from a historical perspective.

@HenryLeslieGraham

Жыл бұрын

jordan petersonism??? lol i loled XD

@gethimrock

Жыл бұрын

This is a great observation and one of the best comments on this video. As a Catholic myself I would say though that is the cost of Sola Scriptura, losing the tradition that developed over time because it was guided by the Holy Spirit

@collinlynch4569

Жыл бұрын

Historically speaking it makes perfect sense. What better way to entice Pagans to convert and believe you? It was be way easier that to actually minister to them and have conversations on the fate of their souls.

Nearly all of the “coming home” conversion stories I’ve seen on you tube, are touted as a “Protestant” converts to Catholicism. Then you learn the church background of the person and find out that in most cases, he or she comes from a generic evangelical non-denominational background and the person is absolutely clueless on classical Protestantism. When I point out that this person is an evangelical Christian but is not a Protestant Christian, I typically get all kinds of push back as if the distinction is meaningless. For me as a Confessional Baptist, the distinction is absolutely appropriate.

@aadschram5877

Жыл бұрын

Top 5 numbers “coming home” conversion stories with Marcus Grodi: 1) Anglican/Episcopalian-181 2) Evangelicals-180 3) Baptists-164 4) Presbyterian/Reformed-161 5) Lutherans-97

@pat1442

Жыл бұрын

This is actually a kind of fair critique. They do rarely give a lot of time to high church protestantism, but they are usually considering things like the papacy, sola scriptura, sola fide, and deciding the RCC is right on those issues which would rule out all prots even the classical ones.

@paulsmallwood1484

Жыл бұрын

@@pat1442 The problem is that rarely do I see a Catholic apologist accurately define Protestant doctrines like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide (which actually existed before the Reformation) . Instead you get very misleading caricatures. I am not sure if they are doing this on purpose or they are just too lazy to do proper research. BTW I didn’t say high church Protestantism. I said classical, historic Protestantism which would include the Reformed tradition which is low church.

@pat1442

Жыл бұрын

@@paulsmallwood1484 That's true, Catholic apologists target less sophisticated understandings of sola fide and sola scriptura. They do it because those are the easier understandings to refute, and because the majority of protestants have an unsophisticated Baptist/nondenom understanding. There are plenty of refutations of the more robust definitions, they just dont get as many clicks, so you dont see people like Trent Horn engage in them or in your suggested feed in general. The classical vs high church distinction is fair. I just see a lot of protestants accuse coverts of running to the rituals and the beauty without considering the high church, but you're saying they're running to a robust intellectual tradition without considering the classical traditions. That's also a fair critique, but I think the same thing applies, if they are convinced of the papacy, justification by works, and tradition, then it would rule out classical protestantism even if they didnt do a deep dive.

@paulsmallwood1484

Жыл бұрын

@@pat1442 Will have to disagree as friends on this for sure the Papacy is a big hurdle (but it’s also a big hurdle with the Eastern Orthodox) however works and tradition are not alien to classical Protestantism and would not automatically rule it out. Classical Protestantism is intellectually robust and would satisfy the more intellectual among us so Roman Catholicism does not have a monopoly on this. Not getting enough clicks is no excuse for being lazy or misleading.

Have you had a conversation with Brett Salkeld who wrote "Transfiguration"? I had a few conversations with him on my channel. He is the diocene theologian from Regina. This would be an excellent conversation to have with him.

@DrJordanBCooper

Жыл бұрын

I've been planning one, but I have to make it through his book first.

Thank you for saying this!!! It needed to be said

It’s a fair distinction to refer to only the Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans as the “classical Protestants,” and you were clearer on this as the video progressed. I think I heard you say earlier in the video that you really only identify them as the “Protestants” as well. Even if you don’t grant the title of “Protestant” to the local mega church, aren’t there a few other notable traditions that would be thought of us as Protestant? I’m thinking of the Methodist tradition, smaller groups like the CMA, and some larger groups like the various Baptist and Pentecostal denominations. I wouldn’t think of these as “classically Protestant” but certainly I would think of them as “Protestant.” How else would they be categorized? So as long as you add the modifier “classical” I think it’s fair to use going forward. I don’t think it would be fair to write off the other groups I mentioned as not even being Protestant. I would very much like to see “classical” Protestants given more of a seat at the table. I think you’ve been great in dialogues with some of Rome’s more fair and balanced representatives, so I’d love to see more in this area. You’re a great representative of classical Protestantism and by going out and talking to Catholic and other types of apologists you can be a huge part of the solution to show people the historicity and reasonableness of your positions.

@ethanhocking8229

Жыл бұрын

I think we’re talking about two primary divisions within Protestantism: Evangelicalism and Confessionalism. Generally, I would say that the churches that have a strict or rigid pattern of liturgy are confessionalist, while the ones that don’t are evangelical. Any “local megachurch” is evangelical. And I think that the evangelical tradition is very much Protestant. I don’t think there is any other way to classify it.

@Not_Uncle_She0

Жыл бұрын

@@ethanhocking8229 I think I’d agree with you. I just think it’s best to be both precise and accurate in our categorization/labeling.

@ethanhocking8229

Жыл бұрын

@@Not_Uncle_She0 I agree.

@j.g.4942

Жыл бұрын

@@ethanhocking8229 I feel the division is more continental and British/North American; or perhaps state church and free church. The Salvos, Baptists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, American Evangelicals, Puritans, Pietists, Adventists all come from Reformation churches and tend to disregard the tradition and history of the Church (is that the American definition for 'Evangelical'? I'm from the Australian Lutheran tradition which holds to the Confessions of the evangelical church, the Book of Concord)

@echidnanation8239

Жыл бұрын

Would Presbyterians fit into classical Protestantism?

For the first time ever in our nation’s history we don’t have a Protestant on the Supreme Court… I think it’s indicative of a severe lacking in Christian education and not just higher education. We’ve relied way too heavily on the public school system from back when we were culturally Protestant as a nation. We haven’t filled the void as our culture has eroded. Hopefully we will change this rapidly.

@doubtingthomas9117

Жыл бұрын

Isn’t Gorsuch an Anglican? I thought I had read or heard that he was.

@brentthompson9508

Жыл бұрын

I think you are correct. I believe he grew up Catholic. My apologies.

@chriscoke2505

Жыл бұрын

@@brentthompson9508 Protestantism is from Satan. It’s not worthy of these efforts by unfortunately deceived believers to try and revive what is a Protest movement, a rebellion against God. It’s not of God. The reason why non denoms are able to exist despite lack of content is they at least stand for something, a watered down Christian faith, rather than merely being the Satanic rebellion movement.

@conceptualclarity

6 ай бұрын

​@@doubtingthomas9117Gorsuch was in a woman- pastored crazy left Episcopalian church in Colorado

I'm a Baptist-turned-Catholic, and what lead me to convert was ultimately the paper-thin theology I was being taught by fellow Baptists/Protestants. If it wasn't mentioned in the Bible, no one cared about it at all. I was never taught Church history, never knew names like Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo, and was never handed down any sort of tradition or beliefs that could be traced back thousands of years. That, and anytime I asked difficult questions, I got a vague answer or no answer at all. Then I visited a Catholic parish and found people who knew what they believed, why they believed it, practiced what they preached, and were eager to teach. Yes, Rome has reformed a great deal in recent history, but Catholicism (and I imagine Orthodoxy as well) feel much closer to Christianity as it should and ought to be practiced than any of the thousands of flavors of Protestantism we have today. I imagine one of the main reasons Catholicism and Orthodoxy have been leading the charge in the struggle for Western morality is precisely because those churches teach not only sacred scripture, but sacred tradition as well. You're never going to know your arrow is bent unless you have a straight arrow to compare it to. Tradition is that straight arrow. Compared to Protestants, Catholic and Orthodox Christians have a much more resilient and comprehensive set of beliefs and practices compared to most Protestant denominations, and that thorough knowledge of belief lends itself well to public discourse.

@robertdelisle7309

Жыл бұрын

I seems to me that low-church Protestants ie. Baptists hold the scriptures above tradition and at the expense of tradition. Inversely, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox hold tradition above and at the expense of scripture. I agree with you that Baptists/evangelicals know little about church history, but it is also true that most RC and EO know little about the Bible; they are more familiar with their catechisms. Instead of viewing tradition as the “straight arrow”, I would view scripture, which is God-breathed, as being the “straight arrow”. We know the scriptures were written by men as the Holy Spirit enabled them to write the words of God. We cannot say the same for tradition which can appear in history generations after the Apostles (ie. The Assumption of Mary). Apostolic traditions are hit and miss, as some are practiced and believe in while others have been ignored. For instance, Irenaeus said it was an apostolic tradition that Jesus was 50 years old when he died. No one believes that today. Many of the practices of faith in the RC and EO churches that Baptists/evangelicals ignore are absent from the scriptures and developed after the Apostolic age. For instance there wasn’t a Monarchical Episcopate in Rome until 150AD, 90 years after Peter had died. Instead there was a plurality of bishops in Rome. The Papacy was a development after the Great Schism because prior to this, the Church was lead by a council of Bishops from each city that had an apostolic founding, as is still the case in EO. The Bible speaks of two offices, which are Elders/Bishops and Deacons. Elder and Bishop were terms used synonymously to identify the same office. Around 150AD, a distinction was made between Bishop and Elder in office and in hierarchy. Later still, the elder became a priest as the idea of priesthood developed in the early third century. The earliest instruction for baptism outside the Bible is found in the Didache, which is dated to be within the first century. It’s instructions for baptism would rule out any infant baptism taking place. Once baptism was viewed as having a regenerative power, parents who were often faced with infant mortality wanted this grace given to their infant children. These practices were a development. So rather than a straight arrow, sacred tradition, with its accretions, looks more contorted when compared with scripture.

@arlypaulmigueldamuy5221

Жыл бұрын

@@robertdelisle7309 "...at the expense of Scripture."???? Daily masses at Catholic churches read Old Testament, New Testament, and Gospel passages which are all the same readings wherever you are on earth.

@robertdelisle7309

Жыл бұрын

@@arlypaulmigueldamuy5221 yes I am aware that the mass does scripture readings, that is not what I meant. I mean that there are dogmas in the RCC that are not found in scripture. For instance: 1)the idea that grace is a substance that your soul is infused with. Scripture describes grace as being unmerited favor and not a substance 2) the idea that you can increase your grace by doing works. Scripture makes it clear that grace and works are mutually exclusive concepts. You cannot work for grace because grace would no longer be grace but a wage that you are due. 3) Purgatory. 4) praying to the dead and for the dead. 5) Indulgences. 6) The treasury of Merit. 7) salvation is faith plus works. 8) The distinction between mortal sin and venial sin. That only mortal sin will damn you and not venial sin. 9) That sin has two consequences, an eternal and a temporal consequence. That Jesus’ sacrifice only paid for the eternal consequence of sin but you are to pay for the temporal consequence of sin in this life and later in Purgatory. 10) The priesthood. 11) The Immaculate Conception 12) The perpetual virginity of Mary 13) The Bodily Assumption of Mary 14) That Mary is a mediator to all believers. That all prayer to God passes through her and that all blessings from God pass through her to us. 15) Penance. That we must do works of penance before God will forgive us. 16) Confession to a priest to obtain forgiveness. The scriptures say we must go to God for our forgiveness through the only mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ. I’ll stop here.

@chriscoke2505

Жыл бұрын

@@robertdelisle7309 you’re reciting Protestant dogmas in contrast that aren’t in scripture.

@robertdelisle7309

Жыл бұрын

@@chriscoke2505 what Protestant dogma did I cite that is absent from scripture? I actually cited many Roman Catholic dogmas that aren’t found in scripture.

I think this is just such a time when Confessional Lutherans should be joining the wider cultural conversation, but I question whether there is really a desire among them to do so. I don’t think it hinges on perceived Catholic or Orthodox prejudice against us so much as a very strong strain of almost “anabaptist-like” quietism that holds us back from really wanting a seat at the table. Put another way, if we are not at the table, the fault lies completely with us.

I posed this question to a friend of mine (I am Eastern Orthodox, he is high church Anglican), and he highlighted a potentially important idea: that the word "Protestant" is itself misleading and causes people to conflate at least two different groups. His idea, summarized here: "If you dig deep enough, it turns out that 'evangelical' is an incredibly vague term. A more interesting framework is *confessionalism*. Some evangelicals - Tim Keller is a good example - are totally on board with the confessions. Others - Hillsong people - are not. So for me the true divide is between confessionalism and individualism. "Authentic Protestant traditions are always about recourse to a doctrinal confession. The Lutherans have the Book of Concord, Presbyterians have Westminster, Anglicans the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Prayerbook, Baptists the 1689, etc etc etc. These documents clearly define what it means to be a Protestant, and a Protestant of a particular stripe. If there is a 'Mere Protestantism,' I think you can discover it in what all these documents have in common, and what is different between these confessions and, say, the confession which emerges from the Council of Trent. "Two groups within Protestant denominations are pretty stridently opposed to confessionalism - the mainliners and the charismatics. I think, though, that in betraying the confessions these groups are moving away from the Reformation and into something new and different (and imo worse). "Authentic, confessional Protestantism is a 'faith of my fathers' thing, whereas this other kind of Protestantism I’m critiquing is all about private interpretation in a hyper-individualistic way. Sometimes that hyper-individualism manifests as liberal squishiness, and sometimes it manifests as altar calls and the 'anxious bench' and intense revivalism / moral perfectionism." If this idea is correct, then it makes more sense why "Protestants" would be kept at arms length in certain conversations. It is much easier to justify keeping "Protestants" out of the conversation because it is difficult to know prima facie what kind of Protestant will be brought in. Are they representative of a tradition, confessional Christianity, that is pointed towards order and out of individualism? Or are they representative of a tradition, non-confessional individualist Protestantism, that is a symptom of modern decline? This idea doesn't solve the issue of including Protestants in more conversations, but perhaps it can lower some barriers to entry if adopted.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

If Jeremiah II had thought as you do, his dialogue with Martin Crusius might have gone as smashingly as Michael the Deacon's (Abba Mikaʾel) with Luther, which ended in fellowship. To be fair, their conversation can't have been fluent, as Mikaʾel and Luther's unnamed assistant both spoke broken Italian. Unfortunately Mikaʾel probably died before returning to Ethiopia, or even to the Oriental embassy in Italy. So nothing long-term came of any of it.

@shahstormaggedoni5854

Жыл бұрын

This is really helpful. Perhaps the clarification could be made by resurrecting in popular discourse the term 'magisterial protestant' to pick out the adherents of confessional orthodoxy?

"Roman Catholic" is a sect of Catholicism. The formal name for the Catholic Church is The Holy Catholic Church. (as it was written in the Apostles Creed) for example Byzantine Catholics are just as Catholic as Roman Catholics. To learn more about Catholicism and scripture please read "Rome sweet home" and Crossing the Tiber". So that when you are conversing with Catholics you can have better quality conversations. God bless you and may God bless His Holy Catholic Church. I pray that one day our Protestant brothers and sisters would return home to God's Holy Catholic Church (which is the Only Church started by Jesus Christ Himself) I too was a former Protestant that after learning the history of Christianity returned home to the Holy Catholic Church. Also, all Catholic teachings can be summed up in the Holy Bible which was compiled by the Holy Catholic Church and in the Catechism as well as in the councils. If any Pope, Bishop or Priest, or anyone else Sins or says something against Church teaching you can simply look to these documents and correct them and lovingly point them back to Jesus. That's why Jesus established the confessional. Because all of mankind are sinful men and all are in need of salvation.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

That this comment got two likes in two hours is evidence that Papists are cluess about themselves. "... and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that *the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing."* -- Humani Generis The official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church, not in fellowship with Rome, is the "Orthodox Catholic Church." So we have two (2) distinct Churches (without union) each believing themselves to be precisely the Nicene "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." If we call you Roman Catholic, we're just calling you what Humani Generis and other encyclicals call you. Geez.

@danielfedele

Жыл бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel the reason why I made the correction was because it is these kinds of errors that Protestants make that keep them from understanding the history of their Christian faith and it is these errors that keep people from full knowledge of the truth and returning home to their Holy Catholic faith. I too was a Protestant for a little while and after learning the history of the church and Christianity I realize that THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH is the ONE TRUE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. With Charity I need to clarify something for you... from the time Jesus said "Peter Upon This Rock I will build MY Church" up until the 1100's there was only ONE Holy Catholic Church. Then in the 1100's the Eastern Church's and Bishops separated themselves from the West. (Prior to this the Eastern churches were in full communion with Rome, and for both the west and the East churches that were part of the Holy Catholic Church they can trace all of their Bishops and Priests back to the apostles themselves for example: Peter the Apostle was the first Bishop of Rome. Do you know who the current Bishop of Rome is? Pope Francis.) Please read "Rome sweet home" and "Crossing the Tiber"... so that you can better understand church history and the roots of our Christian faith as well as the proper understanding of scripture as the apostles and Jesus taught it.

@australopithecusafarensis8927

Жыл бұрын

@@danielfedele thanks for bearing witness to Christ before these

@Good100

Жыл бұрын

I've gotta be honest: when I read a comment like this, it sounds puffed up with pride. You're talking down to Dr. Cooper as if he simply hasn't read as much as you, and were it not for his ignorance, he would come home. "Rome Sweet Home" and "Crossing the Tiber" are both books for casual audiences that contain sweetened condensed versions of things that Lutherans and Catholics have debated for centuries, and which Dr. Cooper and many other Protestant scholars have studied in great detail. It seems highly presumptuous to think that, because you read these books (and I myself have read the first one), you have uncovered this hidden knowledge that those like Dr. Cooper have not. And then you follow it with boilerplate Roman Catholic slogans that, if you wished, you could easily read Protestant critiques of. Even on KZread, people like Dr. Cooper and Gavin Ortlund have given very detailed and extensive explanations of the Protestant concerns with your statements, grounded in church history and the Bible both. Do you really suppose no Protestant has ever heard "Peter Upon this Rock..." or "until the 1100's there was only ONE Holy Catholic Church," and has never bothered examining if such arguments actually were as airtight as you claim? How is it persuasive to hear someone come in boasting of his discovery of the One True Church when he speaks as if he has no knowledge of the concerns of the Protestants he is addressing? It only makes you seem like one of the kind of person who is constantly persuaded of his own correctness at any given time, having no perception of the greater depth of the conversation he has wandered into.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

@@Good100 Yes, and it's only made worse by the fact that he's just plain wrong about his own denomination.

Excellent point. I think you raise an interesting point. I know that these dialogs are happening to perhaps some extent at Gospel Coalition, but perhaps without the emphasis and the language of "meaning crisis" which accompanies these talks in Catholic/Protestant and even secular/agnostic circles. I would also point out that First Things, a Catholic publication does include some Protestants. And to be fair I'm guessing you're asking why aren't these discussions happening in Protestant circles on KZread. If I were to guess the root of this discussion comes out of the work of Charles Taylor. Taylor's is a critique of the Protestant reformation in some sense as I understand it. I'm curious if some Protestants worry about being critical of the cultural and historical movement which gave birth to them. To be fair, I think Protestant KZreadrs have gone in the direction of self-help versus culture, history, and philosophy. James KA Smith certainly wrote a number of books (mostly his summary and cultural translation of Taylor) and articles in this vein. Carl Trueman wrote two volumes on this issue. I don't recall if he quoted Taylor or not, but I'm guessing he did. I imagine you swim in these intellectual waters, but perhaps some of your audience isn't familiar with them. I still think the urgency and importance of what you are outlining is a significant point and one which should be addressed, in fact it begs to be addressed.

In the Bay Area, I worked with many Roman Catholics who literally organize "pro-choice" rallies.

@loriwilson7220

Жыл бұрын

the difference is that Catholic teaching opposes abortion. Catholics do not always live their faith. Protestants do not have unified teaching saying abortion is a moral evil.

@thomasc9036

Жыл бұрын

@@loriwilson7220 Protestants do not practice nominalism as RC does. We have denied the single authority. I have no hesitation in saying that many Protestant denominations are heretical. However, that was one of the main drivers behind Protestantism. If any church leadership became false, then reform it or separate from it.

Very good start, thank you. It strikes me that the reason there is a revival of interest in the Catholic and Orthodox has a lot to do with a revival in the sciences of the need to return to the Greeks. To that end, both these traditions have deep interconnections with Aristotle and Plato or the other way around. So, as someone who cannot say what the Classical Protestant position on the Greeks might be (idk of Hooker has a lot of sway) it seems to me that the cultural conversation is going to bring to the fore the question of which doctrines get it right as regards the truths of pagan philosophy. Any thoughts from you, Dr. Cooper as regards Protestants and the Greeks would be really appreciated. Closing thought: how much of the current conversation is really about Aristotle and Plato vs. Jesus Christ?

@DrJordanBCooper

Жыл бұрын

Those who I describe as classical Protestants are philosophical realists, meaning that they tend to have a more positive view of Plato and Aristotle.

@julesjgreig

Жыл бұрын

@@DrJordanBCooper Thanks, Dr. Cooper.

It’s probably because nondenominational Protestantism is becoming the biggest world religion. Classical Protestantism deserves a seat at the table. I’m becoming Catholic coming out being a lifelong Evangelical but your channel is a fantastic resource and I wish more Protestants and Evangelicals would pay more attention to this.

@zzzaaayyynnn

Жыл бұрын

That's it: nondenominational Protestantism creates a tsunami of misinformation that distorts how people see classical Protestantism.

@electric336

Жыл бұрын

Have you considered Lutheranism?

@duncescotus2342

Жыл бұрын

Some push toward uniformity is good, in that unity cannot be had without agreement, but I see the mainline groups being revitalized. If Lutheranism is a minority now, there's a good reason. It got squashed by Calvinism in the Reformation. Only in German speaking lands and Scandinavia did Lutheranism stick. Everywhere else, a more radical, and legalistic Reformation took hold. Luther was seen as not going far enough. For example, he wouldn't conscience the smashing of works of art. He had left Melanchthon in charge, a brilliant mind, but no leader. Calvin's persnickety all consuming neocatholic (universally applicable) system, the "Geneva model" was seen as state of the art. It managed to do something that no other system did--balance church and state. Partly for this reason it sticks and remains throughout the Enlightenment period, but by no means in its original form. By 1776 many Puritans in the states were unitarians. People had gotten exceedingly tired of waiting for the inner witness to tell them they were in fact saved. Baptists had taken the ball and run it to many new end zones, particularly among the uneducated, and the formerly Presbyterian Scots Irish of Appalachia and into the South, where Anglicanism had held sway. Methodism, itself an Anglican offshoot, revitalized all the dead churches in the so called Great Awakening. Lutheranism comes into play incidentally, with German settlers, and anecdotes like Wesley's encounter during a storm at sea with some Moravian pietists*. Lutheranism had gone somewhat mystical during all the years Calvinism was being digested. There was overlap with the previously hated Anabaptists. Luther, Calvin and the Catholic Church had all considered them heretical. *I'm not sure if they were Lutherans exactly, but Wesley called them "the Germans." A man named Roger Williams, the same who founded Rhode Island and who is credited with bringing the separation of church and state into our national consciousness, is the New World's first Baptist of note. Somewhere in his very interesting life, he gets baptized. He had already been kicked out of Massachusetts for fomenting heresy. But being a strict Congregationalist, when he died, his church went to another pastor, who may or may not have agreed. Such is the "Protestant" experience. I do agree that Luther needs to be understood. He saw himself largely as a new Jan Hus, one who wanted to reform but not destroy the Church. Practical frustrations made him a rather bitter man. Calvin, in his sad but delusionally expansive way, was able to ride a kind of mediocre middle ground, just enough truth and clarity to satisfy many. The more I read up on it, the more bizarre it all sounds. Has truth ever prevailed? why is it so messy? Thank you or anyone for listening to my raving. May revelation, peace, joy, and power in the Gospel abound to you and your household of faith this holiday season according to the promise: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your house."

@johnflorio3576

Жыл бұрын

Welcome home!

@kylesalmon31

Жыл бұрын

How do you go from being evangelical to then trusting your works? I don’t mean that disrespectful,but obviously Protestants oppose the Catholic Church.

The Reformed have a pretty outsized outreach but its mostly been a theological campaign aimed at outreach to non-Reformed evangelicals or Catholics and unbelievers. We don't have many figures engaging in cultural discussions (at least not many respectable voices lol). ACNA type Anglicans tend to be on a similar track, mostly trying to generate interest in them and regain some of their former size. From my vantage point the Lutherans seem somewhat isolationist. I don't doubt there's local outreach and evangelism done but there's just no prominent Lutherans I can think of that have a big reach outside of their own circles (except maybe you and Dr. Rosenbladt). All the big names I can think of are all Reformed or reformed adjacent theologians or pastors and only a few like Mohler regularly engage with cultural questions at all. I would point out that the Crossway, Zondervan etc publishing effort puts a lot of Protestant voices out there on a whole host of issues. I also think of Betsy DeVos and the ongoing relevance of Kuyperianism in American politics. So its complicated I guess. Its not as though the Daily Wire folks are the only conversations in town.

Yo! Pastor Cooper.. Would you list the books you publish/sell, the price, and a brief description of them in your store window on your You Tube page..

An excellent challenge for classical Protestants to correct the narrative of ushering in modernity and contribute to the conversation around the real cultural issues with a robust philosophical and theological pending. Thanks, as I am an Anglican, and have bemoaned the lack of solid resources around this discussion. Rome heads the way in such modern immersion, such as Raymond Brown and J. Fitzmyer in liberal Protestant biblical criticism. My son graduated from a Jesuit university… really very little Catholic foundations there. Liberal Protestant profs were department heads! This issue could be a book in the making for you. So much to cover and uncover.

I think there are a few prominent voices, like Tim Keller maybe, that are impacting the public conversation. And frankly it seems to me that your videos are getting some widespread traction as well. I know several Anglicans and Methodists who listen to your channel. I think (in the English speaking world, and Britain especially) there are some Anglican voices that could have a bigger impact if they weren’t so busy trying to change the faith to appease the culture. I agree entirely, however, that cultural captivity is not a uniquely Protestant problem.

@BoondockBrony

Жыл бұрын

Yeah Tim Keller RIP btw was one of the very few classical protestants that actually was an intellectual for most people. I stated this in my post. Regardless of synod differences, classical Protestants are now seen as liberal to average people, I have heard so many people just see Lutherans as "Politically Liberal Catholics with no Pope" and those are their actual words, not mine.

You made the point I was thinking: Rome was plenty able to fall into modernism/liberalism without any protestant assistance. If you read Luther's account of going to Rome, and especially with regard to the illicit behavior of many of the priests, it's quite obvious that Rome could not use the Reformers as an excuse for it's gross immorality in the 15th and 16th centuries (and even Catholics like Erasmus lamented the course that Rome had taken). ADDENDUM: Francis Schaeffer described what you're getting at as being "co-belligerent" vs. "allied." He called for Christian "co-belligerence," i.e., that Lutherans would agree with Catholics on abortion, sexuality, etc., while being clear that there is still serious disagreement on justification, as opposed to blind alliance that tosses out all significant doctrinal disagreement in the name of unity (like evangelicals suddenly seeing Mormons as full-fledged Christians in order to vote a particular party or candidate into office).

Okay. Honest feedback time. I will apologize for sounding harsh. I mean this in the most honest way, but I’m going to be direct. But please don’t imagine a nasty tone, because there is none. You ask why protestants aren’t viewed as a valuable part of the larger cultural conversation. …and then you proceed to focus your entire conversation on ecclesiastical what-about-ism, instead of making a point about what Protestants have to offer in the cultural conversation. If you want a seat at the table, then perhaps focus your energy on bringing something of value to it. I’m not saying, at all, that Protestants haven’t been an incredibly valuable asset to bringing the word of God to people. But the constant anti-Catholic / Orthodox drum beat is the weakest form of self-validation. You derailed your entire point of the video by never even getting to it. (Unless your entire point was not being taken seriously, in which case you answered your own question by not having a point to make.) We are one body of Christ. We can disagree on things, but let’s start there.

I think it’s because Protestantism is largely the religious waters we swim in (in America at least).

Too many of these conversations regarding the different Christian traditions just turn into bashing sessions, tearing the other down. This seems to be the prevalent practice when it comes to theological / historical topics. On the cultural conversation, Catholics have no leg to stand on relative to Protestants - culturally there is as much abandonment of natural law in the supposedly unified Catholic Church as there is in the Protestant. As for the Orthodox - in the West they are the new thing and we don't know about all of their baggage, so they get a free pass. I have written often: sooner or later this cultural conversation (that in many ways was brought to the surface by Jordan Peterson) has to focus on natural law. But there is almost none of this used as the foundation to address the issues at hand - not even by Catholics, and not even by Catholics who openly look to Aquinas. It is as if the term "natural law" must never be stated. As to why Protestants aren't in the conversation? No one "invited" the many Catholic / Orthodox into the conversation. They just went into it.

I wonder how much of this is related to the circles we surround ourselves with. I've been wondering for a long time where are all the Lutherans at? I'm only really familiar with you and Fighting for the Faith. Maybe it's because I am a Reformed christian, but I can think of tons of Reformed, Reformed Baptists, and Reformed adjacent (broadly Calvinistic soteriology, but not confessional or conventional) voices off the top of my head throughout my lifetime: Doug Wilson, Sproul, Bahnsen, James White, Jeff Durbin, Todd Friel, MacArthur, Jon Harris, Allie Beth Stuckey, Steve Hays, Voddie Baucham, Phil Johnson, and many more. And there are many more that aren't Reformed or I don't know their denomination that are also speaking out. Its interesting how often they are labeled as being "mean spirited" or "divisive" and other name calling precisely because they are boldly defending the Christian faith against the false idols of modern society.

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I agree wholeheartedly that Protestants, especially confessional Protestants have much in common with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. I can say this with some minimal experiential authority in that I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church, became a Roman Catholic in college, and in the early 80s Eastern Orthodox. Since I began listening to your KZread channel, Dr Cooper, I have been amazed at the similarities of the AALC of which you are a communicant, the LCMS, and Eastern Orthodoxy as well as Roman Catholicism. So much so that I have discussed your videos so often with one of the priests at my Parish that I feel that I must constantly reassure him that I am not about to become a Lutheran (no disrespect intended) . Your position that as Christians we must and should cooperate with each other as much as possible, especially where we are in essential agreement but have Christian love and respect for each other in those areas in which we disagree. I have always maintained that I can at least fellowship with anyone who can say the Nicene Creed and end it with Amen! We should do more as Christians of rejoicing where we are in agreement and respecting those areas where we disagree.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

Amen! May all Orthodox catholics, Oriental Orthodox catholics, Assyrian Church of the East catholics, Lutheran catholics, Anglican catholics, and Roman catholics agree with this one day. Unfortunately, even the sacred Creed is a divider: 1. Filioque separates East from West 2. "one baptism for the remission of sins" separates out the rest of the protestants and evangelicals.

@oracleoftroy

11 ай бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel I'm curious why you are excluding Reformed Christians from your list? Continental Reformed: Canon of Dort Fifth Head of Doctrine Article 7 For in the first place, in these falls He preserves in them the incorruptible seed of regeneration from perishing or being totally lost; and again, by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain *remission in the blood of the Mediator,* may again experience the favor of a reconciled God, through faith adore His mercies, and henceforward more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Heidelberg Catechism Of Holy Baptism LORD’S DAY 26 1. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism that the *one sacrifice* of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee? Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, adding thereto this promise, that I am as certainly washed by His blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away. 2. What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ? *It is to receive of God the remission of sins freely,* for the sake of Christ’s blood which He shed for us by His sacrifice upon the cross; and also to be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin, and lead holy and unblamable lives. 3. Where has Christ promised us, that He will as certainly wash us by His blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism? In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”; “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” This promise is also repeated, where the Scripture calls baptism the washing of regeneration and *the washing away of sins.* Belgic Confession Article 34 (snipping because it is really long, but worth the read) ... Therefore He has commanded all those who are His to be baptized with pure water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, thereby signifying to us, that as water washeth away the filth of the body, when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized, when sprinkled upon him, so doth the blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost, internally sprinkle the soul, *cleanse it from its sins,* and regenerate us from children of wrath unto children of God. ... ... Therefore we believe that every man who is earnestly studious of obtaining life eternal ought to be but *once baptized* with this only baptism, without ever repeating the same, since we cannot be born twice. ... Presbyterian Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 28 1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, *of remission of sins,* and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His church until the end of the world. 7. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person. Westminster Larger Catechism 34. How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament? The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all fore-signify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, *by whom they then had full remission of sin,* and eternal salvation. 35. How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament? Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, *the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered* in the preaching of the Word, *and the administration of the sacraments of baptism* and the Lord’s supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fullness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations. 165. What is baptism? Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into Himself, *of remission of sins by His blood,* and regeneration by His Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ? The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ, *in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water,* to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in Him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves. I only point this out because my Lutheran Brothers tend to be a bit too quick to divide and dismiss the Reformed (especially since Martin Chemnitz) even where we hold mostly the same theology. Maybe it was oversight, maybe ignorance, maybe confusion between the confessional Reformed position and the more Zwinglian take Baptists (even Reformed Baptists) tend towards, but we fully affirm "one baptism for the remission of sins".

@Mygoalwogel

11 ай бұрын

@@oracleoftroy Well you know a lot more about Presbyterianism than I do. If presesnt-day Presbyterian churches begin to move back in that direction, I may some day reconsider lumping you with the other sects. I just attended my brother-in-law's PCA church while visiting. The jazz music made me want to order a round of drinks. But then they passed free wine around for anybody who wanted it without any concern for what that wine was supposed to be/mean/represent. And the speech gave me the warm fuzzies until he finally mentioned Jesus, and I recalled that I was theoretically in church.

@oracleoftroy

11 ай бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel _"If presesnt-day Presbyterian churches begin to move back in that direction, I may some day reconsider lumping you with the other sects."_ Move back? We always affirmed baptism for the remission of sins. I don't get the hostility Lutherans have towards us, but whatever, I can still appreciate their confessions and their rich history. But I really don't get the need to lie about our doctrines to justify that hostility. Our confessions are out there, read them some time. I'm sure every single Lutheran service is conducted to your exacting preferences without exception, right down to which decade of which century's musical style you prefer... but we both know that isn't true, so why bring it up? Your experience at one particular Reformed congregation isn't the universal experience you'll find across Reformed churches in general, or even the PCA specifically. I do wonder how it compares to Archangel Michael’s Lutheran Church in Finland which made headlines a few years ago for its Heavy Metal services... or are we supposed to not point out double standards? It's (D)ifferent when Lutherans do it? Or I wonder what your response would be to my experience of an ELCA church. I'm sure it would be rather enlightening regarding your consistency. Surely you wouldn't engage in any sort of special pleading that you wouldn't accept from us, right? Both of us reject the liberal aspects that creep into our denominations. I'm sure you mourn along with me the fact that Lutheran churches are more known for sporting rainbow flags than sound doctrine these days. I think it would be better for Lutherans and Reformed Christians to work together to fight the liberal forces attacking Christ's church, not do their work for them and divide the body of Christ for them.

New to this channel so I apologize if this is something already discussed… Do Classical Protestants have continual doctrine? I know they have confessions of belief but are those updated to address more modern issues? I ask because, this is just conjecture, but I think the reason you see youngish Catholics involved in the New Evangelization is because they grew up under the JP2 and Benedict papacies. Some might claim that has no effect but their theology was not only solid and sound but was also relevant in the fight against modernity (especially Theology of the Body). So Catholics are able to be outspoken in their counter-cultural beliefs and have the theological understanding to back those. I’m not saying Protestants don’t. I’m just wondering if they have something tangible to point to to back up their convictions?

There’s plenty if you don’t exclude them. Doug Wilson has been making a big impact and you can find him on the channels Canon Press and Blog and Mablog, recommend you reach out

If you want to talk about natural law, reach out to David VanDrunen. His recent book, Politics After Christendom, had a symposium as a response to it sponsored by the Journal of Law and Religion, including responses and critiques from several Christian traditions and even Judaism. IMO he's certainly the leading Reformed natural law theorist.

I think the Daily Wire has Andrew Klavan who is a Protestant, Anglican maybe (at least that's what I heard from Knowles' recent conversation with Matt Fradd). He actually does critique contemporary culture because he is a writer and novelist and understands a great deal about literature.

@daltonb1993

Жыл бұрын

Didn’t he also celebrate his son getting “married” to another man?

@levikowalczyk3197

Жыл бұрын

Yep.

Dr. Cooper, I think in these conversations theologians sometimes put a little too much historical emphasis on philosophical ideas. While philosophical schools and thoughts do impact history, I think that we are confusing cause and effect to say that nominalism “caused” modernity or the breakdown of the traditional order, etc. Obviously there is feedback between philosophical schools and the world around them, but I tend to think that larger historical trends and events do more to the philosophers than the philosophers do back to them. Maybe this is bias from my Marxist past. I likewise feel like saying if we just return to the ancient scholastic wisdom we can solve our problems is kind of magical thinking. The medieval worldview was made possible and reinforced by very unique political conditions. Religious doctrine was intimately tied up with concrete social reality (like the veneration of the saints drove many local economies). I also think there have been real advancements in philosophy since then, and that certain debates can be definitively bypassed or set aside. I think that the Vienna circle showed that nominalism vs realism is a false problem. It’s right to speak of God as the true, the good, the beautiful, etc. But I feel like we are sometimes throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we think saying this rightly requires returning to medieval patterns of thought. I know contemporary analytic theologians do not exactly offer the best case for more recent philosophical methods, but contemporary analytic philosophy and theology draws on methods that are more properly thought of as post-analytic in my opinion. There is an analogy between the evangelical vs. classical Protestant division and modern analytic philosophy vs. the Vienna Circle and the philosophers of common sense, such as Moore and John Wisdom. Unfortunately these voices have been largely unheard by contemporary philosophers.

Hi Dr Jordan, I’ve really enjoyed this clip and totally share your thoughts on desiring to see a sit down and discussion between the Catholic, Eastern and classic Protestant church. Unfortunately I just can not see this happening as both the church of the east as well as the Catholic’s have put themselves in a corner by anathematizing each other and especially the Protestants and they can’t be in error according to their own doctrine. It would truly be nothing short of a miracle (which obviously God can do) for this to happen.

@davidhall2197

Жыл бұрын

Oh, you mean the Book of Revelation's Harlot. It won't be a "miracle" that brings them together.

@jamesb6818

Жыл бұрын

@@davidhall2197 You need to revisit your eschatological views. Are you a SDA?

@davidhall2197

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesb6818 When it comes to eschatology, I'm never dogmatic. But, as far as I see, this current pope (a Universalist) is headed that route and promoting his crony archbishops with his same objectives. The Eastern Orthodox seems to be holding the line but the Reformation Age Protestant churches can't seem to grease up their apostate slide fast enough. Even the large Evangelical churches are slowly diving into the tar pit. I don't align myself with anyone but Christ himself. When it comes to peoples' opinions on scripture, I am a skeptic and a cynic simultaneously. Heck, I question mine, too. As far as being an SDA? Bwahahahahaha! You may as well have asked me if I was a JW. smh

Out of curiosity, where do you stick baptists on this scale from Classical Protestant to Evangelical Megachurch, or does it depend on what type of Baptist, because there is admittedly a very broad spectrum.

@anyanyanyanyanyany3551

Жыл бұрын

I think Dr. Cooper highly regards protestant denominations which stick to their historic confessional standards, for Lutherans, it would be the Book of Concord; for Anglicans, the Book of Common Prayer; for Baptists, it might be the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

@@anyanyanyanyanyany3551 That's true. He's also said unequivocally (with the Whole Christian Church on Earth) that, "If you cannot confess the Nicene Creed, you are not a Christian." Many baptists do reject the Nicene Creed, especially "one baptism for the remission of sins."

Overall agree with your comments so far. It's worth noting that Carl Trueman has been having quite an influence. Ben Shapiro has talked about him quite a bit. I believe Truman is Anglican?

@AnUnhappyBusiness

Жыл бұрын

Trueman is (or was) a Presbyterian. OPC. Carl Trueman is great but he certainly got Amie Byrd wrong. I believed we are speaking of the same Trueman

@DrJordanBCooper

Жыл бұрын

Trueman is great. Though his book has been widely read, I haven't seen him interviewed as much as I'd expect.

I do not know about non-denominational issues. But as someone who is thinking about the many church denominations, I wanted to see a non-denominational approach because of all the differences within denominations that do not seem to require a split. Are all non-denoms mega churches? I thought the heart of Protestantism or one of its hearts was Sola Scriptura and that is what the church I went to was called and sought to follow Christ. I think Mike Winger, prominent on youtube lately, is neither of the three Cooper listed, but Sola Scriptura and maybe even prima scripture is the mainstay. Would he still be considered Protestant or just not classic Protestant?

I really think someone like Jeff Durbin needs to be included in these conversations have you guys heard of him? He's a brilliant reformed pressupositional apologist and pastor, also James B Jordan the one who wrote the book through new eyes developing a biblical view of the world.

I have pondered this question myself.

Excellent and clear for the layman like myself.

This has crossed my mind before.

I tend to agree that Evangelicalism is somewhat different from Classical Protestantism. Evangelicals don't generally use the label "Protestant" to describe themselves but use terms like "Christian" or "follower of Christ." They usually only use the term "Protestant" when they need to distinguish themselves from Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. Evangelical theology is based more on the Bible and less on church tradition.

hey what do you use to edit, dr cooper?

I was hoping to hear more of your thoughts on EO. It seems to me that EO is the only major Christian tradition that does not shift to modernity easily.

@Dilley_G45

Жыл бұрын

Eastern Orthodoxy AND Oriental Orthodoxy

@LucasCLarson

Жыл бұрын

Except you have no way to measure any shift because the EO lack a consistent confession of faith.

@christopherlampman5579

Жыл бұрын

Not really sure what EO is when every EO church has different teachings/confessions/ doctrines. Literally just a series of national churches.

@Dilley_G45

Жыл бұрын

@@christopherlampman5579 no actually the national churches should have the same liturgy only different language. Like catholic church in one country and in another (if using the same rite....there are different rites). We have a church here which is Serbian but they have Russians and others who said its the same just in Serbian (and Slavonic). They don't notice any difference. I visit sometimes and it's nice. Just awfully quiet. Priest talks...two or three people chant the rest is quiet the whole time...no music.

@christopherlampman5579

Жыл бұрын

@@Dilley_G45 lol, 1/3 of the patriarchs are in schism with each other and you want to pretend it’s just some language differences. If I join EO today 1/2 of the Eos would redo my baptism. The other half claim it would be a sin for me to be baptized twice. 1/3 would let me use birth control, 1/3 would would call it a personal issue, and another third would call it a sin. Also, when was the last time the EO had a council?

The problem is partially that Protestants are a priori excluded due to association with the mega church types, but perhaps more practically, there has just been a dearth of good Protestant communicators in the internet spaces where these things are discussed. Enter Jordan B. Cooper and folks like Gavin Ortlund!

As a Protestant I definitely deal with the cultural issues, coming from a modified L'Abri perspective. (Reformed tradition) By the way Os Guinness has been at the table in the recent discussion with Jordan Peterson on the Book of Exodus. Also Alastair Roberts has had quite a few things to say.

Great question

As a protestant, I'm trying, but my word is it hard. I just recently received a comment saying that I don't believe in God, I just believe in the culture war. I don't know how to not care about culture, but obviously the balance of picking which things to comment on is where my struggle currently lies. I haven't ever deleted any past videos, because I want to look back on them to see my growth, but I already look back on some of those videos and think I didn't pick my topics well all the time. How do you handle topic selection?

@KennyBare

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't worry about the supposed culture war. It's all fake and gay and used to divide people.

Question here ? What is the reformed tradition? Or better yet who is or isn’t? Because baptists aren’t classically Protestant but many baptists are reformed or reformedish? If a church adopts a Calvinist theology but itself doesn’t come directly from a Calvinist or Zwingli church such as say the Scottish church or Dutch reformed We understand Anglicanism both in and out of communion with the Church of England . We understand Lutheranism- confessional , non confessional, and the broader Lutheran world federation … but reformed is hard to pin down. Gavin Ourtland is a reformed Baptist- is he in or out as far as traditional Protestantism , James white ? Etc

@BoondockBrony

Жыл бұрын

There's a reason I almost always use the term Presbyterian instead of "Reformed" and it's because Reformed can mean a lot, from Presbyterians to Reformed Baptists. to me Presbyterians are the OG reformed sect while baptists are the guys who want to be like Lutherans but still hate the Pope so they settle for us.

I don't think of Protestantism much because I see Confessional Lutheranism as falling more as a third pillar to the "Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran" umbrella, and Protestantism as something outside of Lutheranism. I associate the umbrella heavily with "revolutionary" philosophies such as what we see today with the "Left", a "Burn it all down" mindset I think was toxic then and now. I still find that there are alot of good Christians in Protestantism (by this definition), I just feel that the label doesn't describe my beliefs and therefore I don't put much thought toward it in the first place.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

Would you put Anglicans next to Lutherans in your magisterial umbrella? What about Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East? What about Old Catholics, Sedevacantists, Old Believers, and Old Calendarists? p.s. Not arguing with your classification. Honest question about these often unrepresented magisterial Christians.

@jeremyabrahamson2872

Жыл бұрын

​@@Mygoalwogel (Sorry for the novel-length answer! I don't know if your question is genuine, but I'll attempt to treat it as such!) Alot of my categorization is for certain over-simplified, yes. My point by-and-large is that Confessional Lutherans don't typically fall into the philosophy embraced by the concept of "Cultural Protestantism", to a point where they're functionally distinct from the umbrella and fall closer to Rome in teaching. Now obviously this isn't a critique on who is right, though of course I wouldn't be Lutheran if I thought they were wrong. Those other sub-groups (some of which I don't know) wouldn't be super relevant by nature of being sub-groups, and therefore being part of one of the major ones. (Read: Sedevacantism may still fall victim to the Papal Heresy Rome does, but is still functionally Roman Catholic in identity,) and also I'm not qualified to speak on them due to the aformentioned "not being super educated on the history of subgroups I'm not part of" that I mentioned. In reference to Anglicans that's a hard nut to crack, because historically I treat them as a Catholic family member, but most of the American Christian branches are either Anglican or Calvinist in heritage, and anything Calvinist I view as "fundamentally opposed to the historical Church." My understanding of Anglicanism is that most European Anglican Church bodies are more doctrinally conservative than those in America, but the American ones are broadly fully Protestant', i.e. Anti-Rome. I don't know enough about European Anglicanism to be an authority on that however. In America, the doctrine I've read is pretty wildly liberal, even among those who call themselves mainline Anglicans, so it's hard to even count them as part of the same church body if my understanding of the European view is correct. I'm open to being educated on that subject in a better forum if you have expertise. I would categorize the Anglican body writ large much the same way we draw distinctions between the ELCA (contains Christians, certainly not Confessional Lutheran) vs things like AALC and LCMS (Has problems, broadly Confessional.) Does that make sense? I may have non-answered the question by mistake, but I tried to take it seriously.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

@@jeremyabrahamson2872 I appreciate novel length answers. That's helpful for understanding your position. Thanks.

I think the major reason is that a lot of protestant academics and apologists just aren't on social media.

I honestly don't think anyone is intentinally excluding traditional protestants. I don't think Michael Knowles (in the thumbnail) or Matt Walsh were recruited for their shows at a Knights of Columbus fish fry. You don't see traditional protestants included in these conversations because traditional protestant institutions have not produced people that have become secular media personalities or for that matter supreme court justices, politicians or other conservative thought leaders that are driving these conversations. As was mentioned, the only protestant voices we tend to hear are from the evangelical tradition. That doesn't mean they are being excluded or supressed, it means they need to find their voice and speakup.

See you’re the kind of person I wish would have been on Jordan Peterson’s Exodus round table discussion. Good Protestant voices just don’t have the pull.

@DrJordanBCooper

Жыл бұрын

It's too bad. He does still follow me on Twitter so I'll keep trying.

Good question.

As a disillusioned Catholic I must say that I strongly agree with what you say at @2:30. There is a schizophrenic divide between Roman Catholic theory and practice, and what is happening "on the ground" cannot be simply ignored.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

Don't do anything rash, but the Lutheran evangelical catholic church door is always open.

@zipppy2006

Жыл бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel Ha! I am toeing the threshold of Orthodoxy. It seems to me, though, that the "situation on the ground" is rather dismaying in all of the Christian churches. The beacons of light seem to be individuals rather than churches. Although the Catholic Church cannot honestly claim unicity, I'm not sure anyone else can either.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

@@zipppy2006 I think both Romanists and Orthodox look for unity in the wrong place. Contrary to popular belief, Lutherans believe that the church is BOTH visible AND invisible, depending on what you mean. Who is a true Christian and who is a hypocrite is largely invisible. But the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Ecclesia is very much visible. The True Church: 1) Baptizes in the Triune Name. 2) Distributes the true body and blood of our Savior, Jesus Christ masked by bread and wine. 3) Absolves the sins of repentant sinners and witholds forgiveness from the unrepentant as long as they do not repent. 4) Preaches the true word of God which is a condemning Law to the unrepentant sinner, but life-giving Gospel to the broken and self-despairing sinner. 5) Rightly ordains ministers to fulfill 1-4. 6) Is full of disciples and hypocrites alike. 7) Carries the painful cross of discipleship in the forms of spiritual warfare against the devil (especially temptations) the world (persecution) and the Old Adam (sinful nature) still clinging to the baptized Christians. So Lutherans are free from Orthodox and Papal canons that declare our own assembly to be the only assembly. The True Church is wherever these 7 marks are.

@chriscoke2505

Жыл бұрын

@@zipppy2006 The Church can claim unity. It’s there in the structure. Lay down your life for the sheep. It’s not for us to question why, only ours to do and die

Megan Basham with DW is a pretty outspoken protestant too. However, most of her popular pieces are pointing out how big-box-evangelicalism fumbled the football during the height of that one illness.

Thanks for your excellent and thought provoking work. Have you come across Andrew Klavan of the Daily Wire? He attends a conservative Anglican church and his output suggests, to me at least, that he could be seen as a classical Protestant.

Well a lot of Protestants, at least in the US which seems to be having this cultural moment, have a different approach and likely aren't even interested in these sorts of conversations. I mean the only two Protestants I know that have the same approach as the rest of these guys, are you and Paul Vanderklay. Not coincidentally, the only two Protestants I listen to.

@foodforthought8308

Жыл бұрын

Gavin Ortland?

I think because most popular Protestants are Evangelicals or Fundamentalists and they typically go for a Bible only approach whereas Catholics and Orthodox are able to use science, theology, philosophy, and the Bible all together. I hope that made sense?

@Good100

Жыл бұрын

Fundamentalists can use those other things too. It's just that their focus is so deep on the fundamentals (as the name implies) that they don't appear in many of the cultural conversations besides "that sin is bad and sinful and needs to stop because the Bible says so," and then turn to trying to get the person saved. I have almost never been to a fundamentalist church where one of the primary themes of the sermon was not either salvation or assurance of it, even if the congregation was almost entirely regulars who had heard it all before. It's not that they can't touch any further theology. It's that they never want to go without the basics for fear that the one lost soul in the audience might not hear the gospel the one service they happen to show up.

There are quite a few thoughtful Anglicans out there, but I they are hampered by the fact that what is currently the largest Anglican denomination in the US, The Episcopal Church, is such a mess. This is probably somewhat similar for Lutherans, with the ELCA being considered the paradigmatic Lutheran denomination in the US. ACNA and LCMS may eventually surpass them, but that isn't what we have now.

@thursdaythursday5884

Жыл бұрын

Traditional Anglican and Lutheran commentators seem caught between the legacy mainline and the great mass of non-denom/Baptist/pentecostal evangelicalism.

@mj6493

Жыл бұрын

@@thursdaythursday5884 Yep, neither the mainline nor the non-de/bapt/pent/evangel's want anything to do with us.

We’re in there, just no one likes talking about us Ex: apologia, moscow idaho and such

Haven't finished the video, but I had to pop in and point out Andrew Klavan is an Anglican

@DrJordanBCooper

Жыл бұрын

Someone just told me that. I thought he was RC! Glad to hear that though.

@alexmanzewitsch714

Жыл бұрын

He's an extremely compromised Anglican at best. He certainly does not have a Christian worldview of sexual ethics.

@DrJordanBCooper

Жыл бұрын

@@alexmanzewitsch714 could you point me to where that is evident?

@alexmanzewitsch714

Жыл бұрын

@@DrJordanBCooper Here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/pn1qmqWvp8i_YdI.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/eY5ts7WSmKmndZc.html

@alexmanzewitsch714

Жыл бұрын

@@DrJordanBCooper Also: kzread.infojdDaVnmiGnk

Technological advancements had A LOT to do with modernity - the emergence of middle economic class and the rise of the liberated individual self. Some of those changes have been very good, some have been terribly bad. Sometimes when societies try to correct the errors of the past we go too far in the other direction. Protestantism may be further in the direction of modernity than Catholicism, but that doesn't mean that it's corrections of Catholicism were untrue. But listening to your full video, I realize that even in saying that, I may be ceding too much.

I look forward to your upcoming videos critiquing the narrative that protestantism leads to modernity/enlightenment secularism.

Wait - shouldn't the question be "why aren't more prominent Protestants engaging on this front?" No one's keeping you out

There seems to be a number of reformed traditions that are united, and though we may not be at the table, we are in the trenches.

@BoondockBrony

Жыл бұрын

I noticed a while back, when KZread atheism was attacking Evangelicalism, Reformed theology really took off. It was really interesting in hindsight to notice especially since a lot of the New Calvinism leaders either split from each other or just were revealed to be grifters.

I've seen a couple of comments mentioning Brian Holdsworth, but I legitimately have no idea what he has to do with this video.

Dr. What do you think would be a solution to avoid protestants being blamed for causing disunity?

@williamfarmer5154

Жыл бұрын

There was already disunity before the Protestant Reformation, because of the schism between Orthodoxy and Rome.

@charliego7375

Жыл бұрын

@@williamfarmer5154 do you think that was Jesus intention? To create so much confusion or do you think he wanted the church to be one.

@williamfarmer5154

Жыл бұрын

@@charliego7375 Certainly He wanted the Church to be one. The schism is extremely unfortunate, but it can't simply be undone.

@charliego7375

Жыл бұрын

@@williamfarmer5154 That’s y I posed the question to the dr. I was wondering if there’s an objective way to keep everyone unified specially protestants. He criticizes some denomination but how can he if they’re using the same formula used by Luther, Calvin, Swingle, etc.

@australopithecusafarensis8927

Жыл бұрын

@@charliego7375 the objetive way for everyone to be United is to obey the Pope that Christ appointed for that very purpose

Protestantism is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy hypostatized.

@australopithecusafarensis8927

Жыл бұрын

Good point

Catholic here, I think it’s a few different factors. All I know is that when I drive in a major metro area and see an Episcopal, Methodist, Anglican, or Baptist Church, unless it’s a black neighborhood I’ve seen a pride flag 100% of the time there. Now this might not be true in all areas but there are so many it’s hard not to get that image out of your head. I also think when the Churches all had more power in the US, it was the mainline Protestants who caved on the birth control pill, so they get labeled as the ones who either couldn’t see what the sexual revolution would lead to or didn’t care, which makes them disqualified from predicting the future of the culture.

Hey Dr Jordan, teaching is well-defined within the catholic church. The catholic noise contains, no doubt, individual errors and a lot, even in the wanderings of the Pope. The Holy Father knows it and is always staying in the vague to not enter into conflict visibly with the Deposit of the Faith. Infallibility is not the subject here. But the teaching of the church in morals and ethics is set strong, and the Catholic catechism is a thorn for all the heterodox in the Church. So it is unfair to consider that the fight of the age against modernism that happens violently within the Church has succeeded in redefining anything. The modernist virus is pervasive but has not prevailed. Let's remember the Arian crisis... James Martin can argue whatever he wants. It does not change doctrine and morals. He is deeply heterodox. One might argue that of the current Pope. Again, the Pope is to defend the deposit of the faith, not to change it whatever his desire is. The tragedy .... or blessing, is that we have a common ground in different Christian denominations to fight a common enemy: Modernism. Now I would really love to have an important discussion suggestion on whether Protestantism is inherently more friendly to it than the Roman Catholic church. This is really pivotal. It boils down to choosing between announcing our lord in the world or being of the world. Accepting the great commission in season and out of season. We should not expect it to be easy within the Catholic Church or outside... Many thanks for this channel. Fantastic content .... and tone.

I think the video is very indicative of the trap many Protestant thinkers fall into. When asking the questions if “Why do Protestants”, the answer invariably breaks down into a critique of the Catholic Church. Or it breaks down into who does or does not qualify to be in the Protestant tent. Both responses require a break from the question at hand for over half of the conversation. Within a few minutes of the video I forgot what the actual subject of it was actually supposed to be.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

1. The video is 14 minutes. You can't be Protestant because you can't keep ideas in mind for 14 minutes. 2. Why do Romanists* in DC and Rome commune Pelosi, but Romanists in San Francisco and its suburbs don't? Can you answer this question without either critiquing some aspect of the Roman Church or implying that somebody is more catholic than somebody else? *Call me Christian. I'll call you Christian. Call me Evangelical Catholic, I'll call you Roman Catholic. Call me just Catholic, I'll call you just Catholic. Call me just Protestant, I'll call you just Romanist. Sorry if it offends, but I'm not gonna speak against my doctrines just to avoid hurting your identity politics.

@I12Db8U

Жыл бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel Dude, you seriously need to chill. There's no need to break the 5th Commandment.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

@@I12Db8U Honor your father and your mother? Oh, you're using the Roman and Lutheran ordering. Lol. I see what you did there.

It seems like EO and RCC don't practice church discipline

The expecration of the Church is authoritarian. But it's also the accusations against her. ... So, which is it? Or, like the Trad movement, would they be ok if they were each person's puppets to each of their views. But authoritative heavy handed is not really the structure, although in a fictional idea against her. The Church really isn't designed for the intent of the control you think it says of itself. The Church has certain dogmas and doctrines that define our faith but leave a lot to individual people to work out. I was Protestant for 35 adult years. I appreciate the flexibility, and i understand the time given for bishops and regions to work out their own sees. Protestants have different measures of right and wrong for doctrines. .. Catholics don't have that. How people work out difficulties and cultural issues is up to the body and bishops also. Especially since they often are local specific. We tend to think Rome is Western as in American and English minded, but they really are a worldview vision

One thing I feel should be noted is that these traditions aren't faring equally well in different regions. In some places, Catholicism is likely answering cultural needs better. In others, it might be Orthodox or classical Protestant churches. Where I live, none of them are healthy. Go into your average traditional church and it is a husk of its former self. Nominal Catholics are everywhere and the vast majority of Protestant churches exist because of a petty split sometime in the past 100 years. Talking about the insufficiency of modernity and the need for traditional values isn't going to solve much in the church's current state. The churches here haven't lost their tradition. They've lost the heart behind the tradition and have grown comfortable. And people aren't going to listen to what a dying church has to say about culture, in the same way that it might be difficult taking health advice from an overweight nutritionist. That, in turn, will affect whether people listen to an online speaker from that tradition. What does seem to be working here is when a church seriously begins the work of getting their house in order: Advocating for participation in the church, serving each other and the community, prayer, confessing sin to each other, etc. In my church that has included times when the leadership of the church has made changes because they weren't living up to their roles as the Bible describes them. When the work is being done and God is moving, it's a lot harder to push the message aside like it's nothing. And that is true in churches of all denominations, including nondenominational (at least when they are grounded in scripture and not changing doctrine to suit their preferences). This isn't a quick solution for Protestants trying to engage cultural problems, but I do think it's an important first step for many of us.

Canon Press, Fight Laugh Feast Network, Protestants at Blaze Media: Am I a joke to you? P.S.: Anyone seen Wilson's Sexual By Design series?

I think the turn from confessional Protestantism into the mainline and what we see with evangelicals largely turning into what the mainline already is plays a big part in why we’re not at the table.

I was hoping for a clearer definition of 'classical Protestantism', but it seems to be just those denominations that agree with you on theological issues. Perhaps you can be more clear on who to distinguish classical Protestantism from other kinds of Protestantism?

@DrJordanBCooper

Жыл бұрын

My audience is familiar with what I'm referring to here, but I maybe should've been clearer in this video. Generally, this is Confessional Protestants which includes the Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed traditions. I would include some Confessional Baptists here as well who subscribe to the ancient creeds and Christological formulations of the early councils.

We have Andrew Klavan who is a Jew converted to Anglicanism. He is in Daily Wire.

Did I just hear that James Martin is the equalizer to why Protestants should have a voice in these discussions? Low bar. But ok. Don’t forget, Joe and Nancy are “ Catholic “.

I do wish Andrew Klavan was less of a political libertarian. He's an incredibly cultured Anglican, who has talked about the work he put in to find a truly Anglican, not woke congregation. But his hands off attitude on political issues like same sex "marriage" puts him at a disadvantage when Roman Catholics like Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles swing hard on these issues. He doesn't have the prior cultural currency, the reputation, that Ben Shapiro does to get away with being libertarian in an increasingly conservative, even reactionary, American right wing. On a funny note, both Walsh and Knowles have openly criticized Francis for absolutely opposing the death penalty in any scenario. I understand not everything the pope says is infallible in the Roman Catholic view, but it gets into another commenter mentioning that many Roman Catholics tend to be "preformatively protestant" against an increasingly un catholic Roman church.

Modern day pretestants are more removed from Rome than the traditional protestants like Lutheranism and Reformed churches. Protestants like Baptists, Methodists, Pentecotals have enjoyed further reformations. For example, in addition to the five solas they embrace an ecclesiology where the church is separate from the State. traditional Protestantism was till tied to the state and expected to wield state power to enforce church discipline. Another reformation is the rebirth of open air evangelism or revivalism which was shunnded by traditional catholics and protestants for decades. A more recent reformation is the Holy Spirit revival of the latter 19th century. Protestants of all traditions enjoyed a rediscovery of spiritual gifts and the experience of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

The answer to that question for conservative Presbyterians from my perspective is that it's more convenient for ministers to focus on doctrine and piety so they don't have to dirty themselves with a depraved culture and risk losing members because of politics.

Paul Vanderklay

Dr. Cooper you are completely wrong on the Unity in the Catholic Church. There is not just unity in the institution (the physical presence of the Church on earth) but in doctrine and morality as well. The Church's teaching must be assented to (different weight of assent for different teaching levels, e.g. Dogma, Definitive Doctrine, Undefined Doctrine, Discipline, etc) and those who dissent from said teaching, are just that, dissenters. The Unity in the institution of the Church is unity in the visible head, the Bishop of Rome, and all those Bishops in communion with him. Likewise since we have a physical Church with a physical heirarchy here on earth we have doctrinal and moral certitude on a vast number of issues because we have the Papacy which can define matters for us on faith and morals. For those issues that are not defined we can always clarify them at a later date if needed, as has been done time and again when the Church responds to a heretical group (like Luther and Co). The problem is there are a lot of dissenters who either openly dissent or dissent in their hearts, whether with bad or good intentions they are still dissenting whether they realize it or not. We have dissenters on the far left and on the far right but that does not mean you can't have unity on Doctrine or Morality. In fact, having dissenters shows the exact opposite because we know what the Church objectively teaches so we can label people who go against that as dissenters. Also if we were all honest, if I was to ask you in person does the Catholic Church believe Contraception, Abortion, Gay Marriage, LGBTQ Ideology, ect is admissible we would all say no. Likewise if I was to ask you does the Catholic Church teach the doctrine of Purgatory, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the Papacy, etc we would all say yes. Our unity as a Church is founded on Peter and his successors as Christ himself established it as such. So please be accurate when you make blanket assertions which are not at all accurate to the Catholic position.

Jordan Peterson had Os Guiness on his Exodus series, and I believe he’s an Anglican.

@DrJordanBCooper

Жыл бұрын

Glad he's on there.

Allie Beth Stuckey is the only one I know that seriously cares about Protestant issues too

Mainline Protestant denominations have been particularly invaded and even captured by Modernity as expressed in their liberal theology and in the rejection of traditional social norms. It is the low-church or non-denominational/“mega-churches” that have kept to an orthodox view on theology and social norms. High-church and low-church denominations both hold to the five solas of the Reformation so I don’t know why non-denominational churches are being dismissed as not being Protestant. I find it is the low-church Protestant Christians who are making contributions to culture in music, film, charity, social activism, and politics.

@1984SheepDog

Жыл бұрын

The reason he's not including the non denom types is because most of these churches have little to no care for church history and the traditions that have been handed down across the centuries. Dr. Cooper would also say that these communities have a vastly different view of the church than the classical protestants do. Should Christians restore the church where the gospel has been extinct for centuries (modern bapticostal types) vs reforming a church where the gospel has been minimized (classical protestant approach). I personally don't agree with either and am happy as a Catholic.

Its because Protestantism and Liberalism (the enlightenment philosophy of individualism and self-autonomy) go hand-in-hand. Catholicism and Orthodoxy are older than Liberalism so both are capable of offering critiques from their own foundations. Protestantism is both a product of Liberalism and the fertile soil that allows Liberalism to grow.

In the fight for the right to life from womb to tomb, the Catholics and Protestants are working shoulder to shoulder. I don't think the Protestants are left out of the cultural conversation. Apologists like Ravi Zacharias have fought aginst these issues publicly. In fighting for God's law embedded in nature and in the heart of man, the more people we have, the merrier we will be.

Dr. Cooper, are you LCMS? I am soon going to meet a LCMS missionary here in Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, the major (and basically only) "Lutheran" church in PR is the ELCA (barf).

7:45 According to Étienne Gilson (R.C. Thomist) Descartes owes much more of his thought to Montaigne than any Protestant… And Montaigne himself seems to have been motivated by trying to dunk on the Protestants during the religious conflict in France lol

You get Eric Metaxas

yeah i noticed this too, but also these Catholics arent even theologians, pageau is a painter, knowles is a provocateur, walsh is loud, while these men may all have talents in some area??? they arent academics/experts in their field (in most senses id argue I don't even think they have qualifications to speak about law or politics or biology), so why do we listen to them? it seems that they are just the loudest voices in the room, and they are charismatic so people listen to them, and because they arent beholden to even catholic piety, they put themselves in the limelight which is something most catholic priests/scholars wouldn't even do (excluding the ones on youtube), which means the classically liberal/conservative spokesmen choose them to speak on their programmes, and not those who as it were are actually fighting on the front lines (to quote walsh) of spiritual warfare, nor even those doctors of the church who attend to the needs of the flock.

@nanowasabi4421

Жыл бұрын

I think there’s something to be said for the fact that most people aren’t interested in deep theological study. Even among Christians, it’s sufficient for a lot of them to know that Jesus is Lord; they don’t feel like they need to know the ins and outs of less prominent doctrines. Also, it is important to have people stating these obvious truths that the world is trying to ignore. Even in a provocative way. I haven’t watched enough of Dr. Cooper to know how “on the front lines” he is in terms of cultural issues (I’ll trust you that he’s fighting important spiritual battles) but we need people who are brave enough to risk social ostracism to publicly reaffirm what Christians believe. So that’s another reason: it’s encouraging to hear brave people speaking up angrily when they see sin being touted as virtue, whatever their credentials are. If I could make a choice between Matt Walsh or someone more like Dr. Cooper (not sure on all his beliefs or attitudes, but he definitely seems respectful and polite) as to who should be the public face for Christianity, I’d probably choose Dr. Cooper. But people are obviously eager for more aggressive voices, and I have to accept that there are times when Godly aggression is called for.

@nanowasabi4421

Жыл бұрын

*A better comparison than Walsh and Cooper might be Walsh and Bishop Barron. They’re both Catholic, and I’m familiar enough with Barron to know for certain that I respect him.

@vngelicath1580

Жыл бұрын

@@nanowasabi4421 Dr. Cooper is much closer temperamentally to Bp. Barron. Cultural engagement doesn't have to be anti-credentialist provocateurism. The best argument for the Christian faith is Christians behaving in a well-ordered manner and taking the time to bring the necessary nuance to discussions of complex issues. The culture war is not won through a shouting match.

Dr. Cooper has giant hands. Just noticed. Also great vid.

@DrJordanBCooper

Жыл бұрын

Haha. It's just the way the camera is.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

Bigger than Trumps, anyway.