I'm a regular Orthodox listener and subscriber. The theology in this one and in your video laying out Chemnitz' treatment on the two natures of Christ was an absolute delight to listen to. I had had some frustrating conversations with Reformed who divide Christ's humanity and Divinity, and Chemnitz' exposition on Christology is simultaneously one of the most eloquent explanations of Orthodox theology and one of the best rebuttals against the Reformed take I have ever seen.
You ask, if this is worth it? Definitely! It‘s a lot of fun to listen to, and I get to learn a lot of stuff with which I never came into contact while I was studying at the university. So this is certainly enriching my knowledge and my everyday life. - Thank you very much, Dr. Cooper!
@@haroldgamarra7175 Fun as in: it‘s a pleasure and very enjoyable to educate myself and to listen to Dr. Cooper. In that sense? Yes, it‘s a lot of fun, actually.
I just want to say thank you for the work and effort you put into these lectures, that you'd give seminary level resources like this away for free is truly a blessing. When I get the chance I'll definitely be donating to Just and Sinner.
I literally love this channel. Thank you for representing Protestantism as such a guiding light. 😒 even though you don’t hold to Calvinism 🤣 I still admire your attention to detail
@@redeemedzoomer6053 right!!! Having a different perspective as in Lutheranism has both helped me realize that other traditions may have differences but they’re still brothers in Christ and also helped me engage Catholics.
Thank you for your lectures, Jordan. I am one of those non-Lutheran subscribers mentioned here! I have a question regarding one of your previous videos. As far as I remember, the title was Tradition vs. Sola Scriptura. You made an argument that we could see a parallel between how the ancient Israelites got their Bible canon and how the Christian Church did. The implication is that the canon doesn't make us believe that those pharisees were given the ultimate authority, and so, similarly, we shouldn't blindly trust Rome/Constantinople/etc. just because they claim they gave us the modern Bible canon. And you concluded that there's a lack of counterarguments to that. It was interesting to hear because I've heard some noteworthy arguments. Some of them were centered around the lack of strict parallelism between the nation of Israel and the Church as institutions, but the strongest ones, in my opinion, go like this: after the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, we live in a new anthropological reality, and the abundance of God's Grace present in the Church and among the apostles and their disciples makes it kind of harder to see the pharisees as being similarly gifted. Any thoughts on that? Thanks in advance! P.S. Sorry if my thoughts aren't clear, I'm an ESL person.
The problem of the canon in a protestant perspective is not that they should believe the Catholic Church has ultimate authority because they received the canon from it. It is that considering protestants believe the universal church can err, and, in fact, it erred by believing in many additions to the original deposit of faith, why on earth should they believe the church got the canon right? To believe so without a justification is just arbitrary.
@@thefuckinglindo The canon was not decided by the RCC. There was general consensus before the RCC claimed to have decided it. The Old Testament canon took longer. The Apocrapha was still being debated when Luther decided that Erasmus and Judaism were correct. Erasmus under pressure did include the Apocrapha with the notation that it is not Scripture. So did Luther. Other Protestants agreed with Luther, mostly without admitting it was agreement so at Trent the RCC took the opposite stance.
PLEASE can we get a video on the Filioque? 20 Lutherans fall to Orthodoxy every minute (source: I made it up) because Protestants have no resources against Eastern Orthodox apologetics
It just seems that way online. Also, there is a Lutheran channel, Scholastic Lutherans, and they have delved into this a bit, if you can’t wait till Dr Cooper speaks on it
27:17 That's one of the main problems with regard to the ongoing dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, for example. It seems like people broadly agree that there has been some miscommunication, and the differences are not entirely unreconcilable. But this question is among the hard ones. As far as I understand, Greek theology tends to argue that natures have a will, not the Person (Maximus the Confessor, etc.). That's why non-Chalcedonian theologians used to argue that Greeks divided Christ. But the other thing is... Can we really say people understood personhood the same way we do? People used to say 'hypostasis' and 'prosopon' in Greek, 'persona' in Latin, but it is not exactly the same thing. And, moreover, the definitions continue to evolve, and this complicates everything even further. It would be interesting to explore this topic as well: it seems like 'historic Christians' don't even agree on anthropology that much, or at least the language is confusing and ever evolving.
Dr. Jordan thank you for all that you do.Dr,if possible could you please let us know about the books for Exegetical Studies,Doctrinal studies and Historical studies in your blog or youtube.It would benefit those who might not join seminary but who wants to read in their free time as a hobby.Thank you Sir
Dr. Cooper, would you be amenable to doing a video that deals with the current dust-up in the LCMS over the latest edition of the Large Catechism released by CPH?
Hi Pastor Cooper, off topic from the video but I’d love to hear your thoughts on the Asbury Revival going on right now. It’s becoming a pretty big deal and as a Lutheran it just isn’t rubbing me the right way. I’d love to see a video on the Lutheran view of these “revivals”
Sadly the Reformed have a willful misunderstanding of Lutheran Christology. I am so thankful for all of these discussions because Im able to share them with Reformed folk who refuse to think at all but rather go on repeating the same mischaracterizations of Lutheran Christology.
Could you give a fuller explanation of 'enhypostasis' in this Christology series. Seems the most powerful objection to Trinity. Thanks for your efforts, I do appreciate.
Dr.Jordan, if possible could you please make efforts to make lutheran books more affordable in the coming future.They are too expensive ,especially for those who are living in the third world countries.Thank you
They same spirit that formed Christ in Marie’s womb is the same spirit that descended on him like a dove and is the same spirit that said “this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” so Christ being a sinner or struggling with human nature is stretch for me, sure he showed humanly nature by asking to have this cup passed from him, but it was written before hand by him that it was going to be that way and he would die on the cross, I just don’t understand this 😅, Christ is divine and can sympathize with us not because he struggled with sin but because he created us and everything in this universe. He does not have to sin to understand human nature, he revealed to us how bad our human condition is, before he became a human being….. did I miss the point of this video some one correct me .
Jesus was fully human and was tempted by sin but did not sin. As Paul says, he was "made sin who knew no sin" in order to cover our sins. His sinlessness in his human nature redeems our sinfulness.
I'm glad that you're going through these issues. You're helping me (and I suspect many others) to appreciate the fact that Lutherans and other Protestants are quite seriously divided. Many in the Reformed camp, for example, assume that Lutherans are basically on the same page as they are. But that's clearly not the case. In terms of their Christology, Lutherans aren't really on the same page with any other Christian communion. As you note, Eph 4:10 and Phil 2:5-11 associate his "filling" and exaltation with the ascension and not the conception. So you can't appeal to the communication of attributes in order to explain what's going on in these texts. The fact that these texts are focused on the ascension ought to make you re-think your interpretation.
Actually, as an Eastern Orthodox I find Dr Cooper's brand of Lutheranism astonishingly in agreement with Eastern Orthodoxy especially when it comes to the Early Church Father's though to be sure there are significant differences in other areas. I have really learned a lot from him that has helped anchor me in the Orthodox expression of Christianity (hopefully Dr. Cooper will take that as a compliment!) I am from a Southern Baptist background and though I value that to this day, the early Fathers were never mentioned.
@@philmattox8500 I'm pretty sure the Eastern Orthodox don't appeal to the hypostatic union as a grounds for saying that the flesh of Christ is omnipresent. As far as I can tell, that's a uniquely Lutheran theologoumenon. Have you heard of Joshua Schooping?
Bruh. The Reformed are going against Ephesus, and therefore against Chalcedon. “For this [heretical] saying denies openly the Unity according to which one is not worshipped in the other, nor does God exist together with the other; but Jesus Christ is [rightly] considered as One, the Only-begotten Son, to be honoured with one adoration together with his own flesh.” The flesh is worshipped with the divinity. “If anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only energized by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten is attributed to him as something not properly his: let him be anathema.” The glory of God properly belongs to Jesus as man. “If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this Together with is added [by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as ‘The Word was made flesh’: let him be anathema.” There is not one glory given Christ as creature and another as creator. We pay him only one glory. The 2nd Council of Constantinople also teaches this. “If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence of the united [natures], and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.”
I'm a regular Orthodox listener and subscriber. The theology in this one and in your video laying out Chemnitz' treatment on the two natures of Christ was an absolute delight to listen to. I had had some frustrating conversations with Reformed who divide Christ's humanity and Divinity, and Chemnitz' exposition on Christology is simultaneously one of the most eloquent explanations of Orthodox theology and one of the best rebuttals against the Reformed take I have ever seen.
You ask, if this is worth it? Definitely! It‘s a lot of fun to listen to, and I get to learn a lot of stuff with which I never came into contact while I was studying at the university. So this is certainly enriching my knowledge and my everyday life. - Thank you very much, Dr. Cooper!
you think this is funny?
@@haroldgamarra7175 Fun as in: it‘s a pleasure and very enjoyable to educate myself and to listen to Dr. Cooper. In that sense? Yes, it‘s a lot of fun, actually.
I just want to say thank you for the work and effort you put into these lectures, that you'd give seminary level resources like this away for free is truly a blessing. When I get the chance I'll definitely be donating to Just and Sinner.
I literally love this channel. Thank you for representing Protestantism as such a guiding light. 😒 even though you don’t hold to Calvinism 🤣 I still admire your attention to detail
I'm a Calvinist too and I watch him more than any Calvinist youtubers or podcasters
@@redeemedzoomer6053 right!!! Having a different perspective as in Lutheranism has both helped me realize that other traditions may have differences but they’re still brothers in Christ and also helped me engage Catholics.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 whoa didn't expect you here zoomer. Anyways hi
My fav Lutheran. From a Presbyterian ♥️
Thank you for your lectures, Jordan. I am one of those non-Lutheran subscribers mentioned here! I have a question regarding one of your previous videos. As far as I remember, the title was Tradition vs. Sola Scriptura. You made an argument that we could see a parallel between how the ancient Israelites got their Bible canon and how the Christian Church did. The implication is that the canon doesn't make us believe that those pharisees were given the ultimate authority, and so, similarly, we shouldn't blindly trust Rome/Constantinople/etc. just because they claim they gave us the modern Bible canon. And you concluded that there's a lack of counterarguments to that. It was interesting to hear because I've heard some noteworthy arguments. Some of them were centered around the lack of strict parallelism between the nation of Israel and the Church as institutions, but the strongest ones, in my opinion, go like this: after the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, we live in a new anthropological reality, and the abundance of God's Grace present in the Church and among the apostles and their disciples makes it kind of harder to see the pharisees as being similarly gifted. Any thoughts on that? Thanks in advance!
P.S. Sorry if my thoughts aren't clear, I'm an ESL person.
The problem of the canon in a protestant perspective is not that they should believe the Catholic Church has ultimate authority because they received the canon from it. It is that considering protestants believe the universal church can err, and, in fact, it erred by believing in many additions to the original deposit of faith, why on earth should they believe the church got the canon right? To believe so without a justification is just arbitrary.
@@thefuckinglindo The canon was not decided by the RCC. There was general consensus before the RCC claimed to have decided it.
The Old Testament canon took longer. The Apocrapha was still being debated when Luther decided that Erasmus and Judaism were correct. Erasmus under pressure did include the Apocrapha with the notation that it is not Scripture. So did Luther. Other Protestants agreed with Luther, mostly without admitting it was agreement so at Trent the RCC took the opposite stance.
É cada resposta que puta q pario...
PLEASE can we get a video on the Filioque? 20 Lutherans fall to Orthodoxy every minute (source: I made it up) because Protestants have no resources against Eastern Orthodox apologetics
It just seems that way online. Also, there is a Lutheran channel, Scholastic Lutherans, and they have delved into this a bit, if you can’t wait till Dr Cooper speaks on it
I am particularly fond of the Christology series.
27:17 That's one of the main problems with regard to the ongoing dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, for example. It seems like people broadly agree that there has been some miscommunication, and the differences are not entirely unreconcilable. But this question is among the hard ones. As far as I understand, Greek theology tends to argue that natures have a will, not the Person (Maximus the Confessor, etc.). That's why non-Chalcedonian theologians used to argue that Greeks divided Christ. But the other thing is... Can we really say people understood personhood the same way we do? People used to say 'hypostasis' and 'prosopon' in Greek, 'persona' in Latin, but it is not exactly the same thing. And, moreover, the definitions continue to evolve, and this complicates everything even further. It would be interesting to explore this topic as well: it seems like 'historic Christians' don't even agree on anthropology that much, or at least the language is confusing and ever evolving.
Dr. Jordan thank you for all that you do.Dr,if possible could you please let us know about the books for Exegetical Studies,Doctrinal studies and Historical studies in your blog or youtube.It would benefit those who might not join seminary but who wants to read in their free time as a hobby.Thank you Sir
I am from India. And i trust the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour!
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE ? I am searching for lectures on Christology.
Dr. Cooper, would you be amenable to doing a video that deals with the current dust-up in the LCMS over the latest edition of the Large Catechism released by CPH?
I did an interview on Issues Etc. last week on the issue, and I'll be recording another on Thursday.
@@DrJordanBCooper Thank you.
I was just thinking about this question the other day on the worship of Christ in his humanity. And how it relates to the hypostatic union. Intresting
Hi Pastor Cooper, off topic from the video but I’d love to hear your thoughts on the Asbury Revival going on right now. It’s becoming a pretty big deal and as a Lutheran it just isn’t rubbing me the right way. I’d love to see a video on the Lutheran view of these “revivals”
Sadly the Reformed have a willful misunderstanding of Lutheran Christology. I am so thankful for all of these discussions because Im able to share them with Reformed folk who refuse to think at all but rather go on repeating the same mischaracterizations of Lutheran Christology.
Brilliant!
Could you give a fuller explanation of 'enhypostasis' in this Christology series. Seems the most powerful objection to Trinity. Thanks for your efforts, I do appreciate.
Dr.Jordan, if possible could you please make efforts to make lutheran books more affordable in the coming future.They are too expensive ,especially for those who are living in the third world countries.Thank you
That's what our publishing house does. JSPublishing.org
They same spirit that formed Christ in Marie’s womb is the same spirit that descended on him like a dove and is the same spirit that said “this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” so Christ being a sinner or struggling with human nature is stretch for me, sure he showed humanly nature by asking to have this cup passed from him, but it was written before hand by him that it was going to be that way and he would die on the cross, I just don’t understand this 😅, Christ is divine and can sympathize with us not because he struggled with sin but because he created us and everything in this universe. He does not have to sin to understand human nature, he revealed to us how bad our human condition is, before he became a human being….. did I miss the point of this video some one correct me .
Jesus was fully human and was tempted by sin but did not sin. As Paul says, he was "made sin who knew no sin" in order to cover our sins. His sinlessness in his human nature redeems our sinfulness.
I'm glad that you're going through these issues. You're helping me (and I suspect many others) to appreciate the fact that Lutherans and other Protestants are quite seriously divided. Many in the Reformed camp, for example, assume that Lutherans are basically on the same page as they are. But that's clearly not the case. In terms of their Christology, Lutherans aren't really on the same page with any other Christian communion.
As you note, Eph 4:10 and Phil 2:5-11 associate his "filling" and exaltation with the ascension and not the conception. So you can't appeal to the communication of attributes in order to explain what's going on in these texts. The fact that these texts are focused on the ascension ought to make you re-think your interpretation.
Actually, as an Eastern Orthodox I find Dr Cooper's brand of Lutheranism astonishingly in agreement with Eastern Orthodoxy especially when it comes to the Early Church Father's though to be sure there are significant differences in other areas. I have really learned a lot from him that has helped anchor me in the Orthodox expression of Christianity (hopefully Dr. Cooper will take that as a compliment!) I am from a Southern Baptist background and though I value that to this day, the early Fathers were never mentioned.
@@philmattox8500 I'm pretty sure the Eastern Orthodox don't appeal to the hypostatic union as a grounds for saying that the flesh of Christ is omnipresent. As far as I can tell, that's a uniquely Lutheran theologoumenon. Have you heard of Joshua Schooping?
Bruh. The Reformed are going against Ephesus, and therefore against Chalcedon.
“For this [heretical] saying denies openly the Unity according to which one is not worshipped in the other, nor does God exist together with the other; but Jesus Christ is [rightly] considered as One, the Only-begotten Son, to be honoured with one adoration together with his own flesh.”
The flesh is worshipped with the divinity.
“If anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only energized by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten is attributed to him as something not properly his: let him be anathema.”
The glory of God properly belongs to Jesus as man.
“If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this Together with is added [by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as ‘The Word was made flesh’: let him be anathema.”
There is not one glory given Christ as creature and another as creator. We pay him only one glory.
The 2nd Council of Constantinople also teaches this.
“If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence of the united [natures], and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.”