Our website: www.justandsinn... This is a talk in a series on the five solas. This talk addresses the Christocentric principle in Lutheran theology and practice.
For Luther one can still know God through genral revelation but this genral knowledge can only bring one to a knowledge of the law not the gospel. Even among Turks, Pagans, Jews their could be people who had an outward civil Righteousness but their righteous works without faith in Christ was still only a mortal sin. The God we know from nature is the hidden God, try as we might we cannot find peace untill we look to God revealed in Jesus Christ. (sounds Barthian enough) Jesus reveals that we have a gracious God who accepts us a righteous for his sake. I think theirs alot of similarity between this and Barth although Barth goes farther than Luther in his "NO!" to natural theology. Barth is also operating with Reformed presuppositions in which God has not objectively tied himself to his word or Sacraments (alot of Lutherans blame this on the "finite cannot contain the infinite" principle but I also see here a stronger echo of Calvin's distinction between the genral and the effectual call) God can make scripture the word of God if he so chooses to do so but he is not bound to do so. Luther has no problem saying that God has bound himself in his promises to the Word of God (for Luther Word of God is not limited to Just the Scriptures as it is in some branches of fundamentalism) God always objectively works through the oral proclamation of the Gospel, the Scriptures, and the Sacraments (visible word) becuse they are all forms of the Word of God. It seems to me Barth's theology offers no objective promises to cling to other than the abstract idea of Christ, (in Christ God is "yes" but where do we find him?) whereas for Luther the Personal Word of God is always encountered in the Oral, Writen Word, and Sacramental word. Faith is created through the Word. One can resist the Holy Spirit working through the word, but one cannot create faith on their own outside the word.
Some good insights in tying sola fide to Christ alone, that it is all in Christ and to go where Christ has promised to be which is in his Word and Sacraments. The NT tells us that "faith comes by hearing the word of God" Faith then leans on Christ alone through grace alone which He has promised to us through His Word and Sacraments. Thank you Dr. Cooper.
My feedback on Dr. Cooper statement on the cult of saints. 1. James 5:16 says (ESV): "The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working". Saints in heaven can sin no more (sinning makes any losing righteousness as stated in Eze. 33:12-13) and is therefore their prayer have great power and are working as stated in James 5:16. If we can ask saints on earth, who are still sinners, to pray for us, then why not asking the saints in heaven who can sin no more to do the same? 2. Jesus Himself conversed with Moses and Elijah and so did John with the elders in heaven (Rev. 5:5, 7:13-14). It is two-way, not one way communication. 3. God and Christ is to be the centre of our life. If we replace that with others then it is idolatry. Those who replace God and Christ with wealth, power and sex or others are idolatrous even though they neither pray nor bow down to them. 4. Distraction from Christ: Even saints on earth (families and friends) can become our distraction and so do our works, our hobbies, our interests etc. 5. According to 2 Kings 13:20-21 bones of Elisha were able to bring back to life to a dead person. Obviously not all relics could do the same because it is God who works miracle through it and NOT up to those martyrs/prophets/saints in heaven.
Great point about the bones of Elisha. I'm reminded of a miracle Augustine recounts in _City of God_ in which two siblings were healed of horrible diseases after praying near the relics of St Stephen. I would be wary of appropriating James 5:16 to the invocation of saints, though. In context, James is encouraging people to pray, not to try and get the most righteous people around to pray for them. His recounting of the power of Elijah's prayer was not meant to focus on a quality in Elijah, but rather on a quality of prayer, that is, its fruitfulness.
Generally on board with this but how do we reconcile e.g. 8:00 ("God doesn't look at you and see how good your faith is") with e.g. the centurion in Matt 9, or the woman in Matt 15:28 ("Woman, your faith is great, let it be done for you as you have asked"?
I didn't know the history of the view of saints, so that was very informative. It wouldn't surprise me, if the Catholic church ever declared Mary integral to salvation with the push for egalitarianism in everything.
They already have, they speak to her and the language shows they credit her with agreeing to God to become the mother of God to the point that her choice trumped Gods will. There’s also been talk in the Middle Ages of coredemptrix. If you asked a catholic if Mary is integral to salvation they would say yes. Even during stations of the cross, every song is about how the crucifixion was Mary suffering grief. The vibe entirely is that Mary suffered for our sins along with Christ. Which is the logical outgrowth of having a sinless woman be pierced to the heart.
@@cooperthatguy1271 Any normal mother would grief to see her son suffering and dying. The Catholic Church never teaches that Mary suffered for our sins with Christ - that is your caricature. The problem with the teaching of the Reformers is imputation of your sins to Christ through faith alone whom God punished for those sins, instead of believers who commit those sins. The standard reason is to fulfill justice - Christ took the punishment the believers deserve because believers cannot perfectly obey the Law. The question is: why would God do injustice to fulfill justice? In human courtroom it will be injustice if a criminal is declared not guilty because his crimes are imputed/counted on other person, who then punished for those crimes he did not commit. Even if that person, say his mother, is willing to take the punishment, because a mother's love, human judge would not allow it. It is always injustice to punish innocent person for the sins committed by others. Human courtroom is not perfect, and injustice did happen and will happen. But the same cannot be said about God’s judgment in His heavenly courtroom. “Righteousness [צֶדֶק, Strong H6664] and justice [ִמִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941] are the foundation of your [God] throne (Psa. 89:14). Scripture even refer it as abomination in Pro. 17:15: “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.”
@@cooperthatguy1271 Shocking. Definitely gives more weight to the idea of Catholics not being Christians. I still think the average, lay Catholic probably aligns more with mainline, Christian beliefs, but it sounds like some are preaching a very different gospel from that of the apostles. I never realized they attributed any of the work of salvation to Mary at all until I saw an image of Mary standing on the serpent, and looked it up, since it's Jesus who crushes him, but they believe she's the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15.
@@litigioussociety4249 KJV translates Gen. 3:15 as "it shall bruise thy head" while Tanakh (Jewish Bible) English translation made by Jewish Publishing Society (JPS) of the same verse reads: "they shall strike at your head". In the past Hebrew was written in consonant only and later vowels were added as diacritical marks - the so called Masoretic text. Depending on the chosen diacritical mark you may end up with "he" or "she" or "they". "seed of woman" is also applied to Hagar (Gen. 16:10) and to Rebecca (Gen. 24:60).
@@justfromcatholic Looking at different versions, your New American Bible is one of only two that translates it that way that I saw. Apparently, it's the Vulgate that reads as she or they. The Vulgate has several such errors, so that's not an argument, unless like the KJV only people you're a Catholic who defends the Vulgate as divinely preserved. Regardless, the New Testament in no way would suggest Mary is the fulfillment of that promise, or that she's any fulfillment beyond being the mother of the Messiah. Jesus even literally silences the woman who praises his mother, so if it was going to say such a thing, it would be there.
Great talk, Dr Cooper! What a good way to start the weekend with a Just and Sinner video. I really enjoy these longer form videos and find these to be some of your best work. On a side note I am looking forward to the release of The Conservative Reformer on Monday!
Great talk! What are your thoughts on some of the arguments that have been arising lately that pseudo-Dionysius actually was the true Dionysius that accompanied Paul?
Audio is pretty muted after "Jumala ompi linnamme (Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott)" for the actual lecture/speech, maybe amplify it and/or normalize. This is a common issue especially with RUclips ads and it is pretty bad for retaining good hearing.
This "sola" turns out to be teaching that the water is wet. Noone has ever claimed any other Savior but the Lord Himself. However, Lord may work salvation through the people and that is attested in the Bible: (1 Tim 4, 16) Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this YOU WILL SAVE both yourself and THOSE WHO HEAR YOU. (1 Cor 9, 22) ...I have become all things to all men, that I MIGHT by all means SAVE SOME.
Except for Sola Scriptura, all the Solas could be affirmed by Roman Catholics in at least some sense Sola Fide - Romanists don't believe in justification by faith alone, but they affirm that only faith and repentance are neccesary to be brought into God's favor Sola Gratia - Romanists define grace a little differently, but they agree that salvation is entirely by God's grace and mercy Solus Christus - yeah, duh Soli Deo Gloria- yeah, duh
I was going to go to bed. Then Christ alone pops up in my subscriptions. Coffee and notebook are out and ready, time to study with Dr Cooper.
@zoomer9686 why would they?
@@zoomer9686 dude just send a link
13:11 this sounds very Barthian. (and I agree with it)
For Luther one can still know God through genral revelation but this genral knowledge can only bring one to a knowledge of the law not the gospel.
Even among Turks, Pagans, Jews their could be people who had an outward civil Righteousness but their righteous works without faith in Christ was still only a mortal sin.
The God we know from nature is the hidden God, try as we might we cannot find peace untill we look to God revealed in Jesus Christ. (sounds Barthian enough) Jesus reveals that we have a gracious God who accepts us a righteous for his sake.
I think theirs alot of similarity between this and Barth although Barth goes farther than Luther in his "NO!" to natural theology.
Barth is also operating with Reformed presuppositions in which God has not objectively tied himself to his word or Sacraments (alot of Lutherans blame this on the "finite cannot contain the infinite" principle but I also see here a stronger echo of Calvin's distinction between the genral and the effectual call) God can make scripture the word of God if he so chooses to do so but he is not bound to do so.
Luther has no problem saying that God has bound himself in his promises to the Word of God (for Luther Word of God is not limited to Just the Scriptures as it is in some branches of fundamentalism) God always objectively works through the oral proclamation of the Gospel, the Scriptures, and the Sacraments (visible word) becuse they are all forms of the Word of God.
It seems to me Barth's theology offers no objective promises to cling to other than the abstract idea of Christ, (in Christ God is "yes" but where do we find him?) whereas for Luther the Personal Word of God is always encountered in the Oral, Writen Word, and Sacramental word. Faith is created through the Word. One can resist the Holy Spirit working through the word, but one cannot create faith on their own outside the word.
In Christ alone my hope is found and He is my light my strength my song
Some good insights in tying sola fide to Christ alone, that it is all in Christ and to go where Christ has promised to be which is in his Word and Sacraments. The NT tells us that "faith comes by hearing the word of God" Faith then leans on Christ alone through grace alone which He has promised to us through His Word and Sacraments. Thank you Dr. Cooper.
My feedback on Dr. Cooper statement on the cult of saints.
1. James 5:16 says (ESV): "The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working". Saints in heaven can sin no more (sinning makes any losing righteousness as stated in Eze. 33:12-13) and is therefore their prayer have great power and are working as stated in James 5:16. If we can ask saints on earth, who are still sinners, to pray for us, then why not asking the saints in heaven who can sin no more to do the same?
2. Jesus Himself conversed with Moses and Elijah and so did John with the elders in heaven (Rev. 5:5, 7:13-14). It is two-way, not one way communication.
3. God and Christ is to be the centre of our life. If we replace that with others then it is idolatry. Those who replace God and Christ with wealth, power and sex or others are idolatrous even though they neither pray nor bow down to them.
4. Distraction from Christ: Even saints on earth (families and friends) can become our distraction and so do our works, our hobbies, our interests etc.
5. According to 2 Kings 13:20-21 bones of Elisha were able to bring back to life to a dead person. Obviously not all relics could do the same because it is God who works miracle through it and NOT up to those martyrs/prophets/saints in heaven.
Great point about the bones of Elisha. I'm reminded of a miracle Augustine recounts in _City of God_ in which two siblings were healed of horrible diseases after praying near the relics of St Stephen.
I would be wary of appropriating James 5:16 to the invocation of saints, though. In context, James is encouraging people to pray, not to try and get the most righteous people around to pray for them. His recounting of the power of Elijah's prayer was not meant to focus on a quality in Elijah, but rather on a quality of prayer, that is, its fruitfulness.
Hey Dr. Cooper, if you ever do recall the name of the figure you mentioned at 50:17 I'd love to hear of he whom you are referring to in that section.
Yes, please 🙏
Yes, it wouldn't be a proper Jordan B Cooper lecture if I didn't go away without at least one book to add to my reading list.
Generally on board with this but how do we reconcile e.g. 8:00 ("God doesn't look at you and see how good your faith is") with e.g. the centurion in Matt 9, or the woman in Matt 15:28 ("Woman, your faith is great, let it be done for you as you have asked"?
This is one of my favorite presentations by Dr. Cooper. He is really on target here.
Have you done any homework on Truglias work on Pseudo Dionysius? I've been studying his polemics and have found them quite weak.
Could you let me know if you get the name of the theologian you mentioned during the Q&A who condemned the adoration of the saints?
Claudius of Turin
@@DrJordanBCooper Awesome thanks!
I didn't know the history of the view of saints, so that was very informative. It wouldn't surprise me, if the Catholic church ever declared Mary integral to salvation with the push for egalitarianism in everything.
They already have, they speak to her and the language shows they credit her with agreeing to God to become the mother of God to the point that her choice trumped Gods will. There’s also been talk in the Middle Ages of coredemptrix. If you asked a catholic if Mary is integral to salvation they would say yes. Even during stations of the cross, every song is about how the crucifixion was Mary suffering grief. The vibe entirely is that Mary suffered for our sins along with Christ. Which is the logical outgrowth of having a sinless woman be pierced to the heart.
@@cooperthatguy1271 Any normal mother would grief to see her son suffering and dying. The Catholic Church never teaches that Mary suffered for our sins with Christ - that is your caricature.
The problem with the teaching of the Reformers is imputation of your sins to Christ through faith alone whom God punished for those sins, instead of believers who commit those sins. The standard reason is to fulfill justice - Christ took the punishment the believers deserve because believers cannot perfectly obey the Law. The question is: why would God do injustice to fulfill justice? In human courtroom it will be injustice if a criminal is declared not guilty because his crimes are imputed/counted on other person, who then punished for those crimes he did not commit. Even if that person, say his mother, is willing to take the punishment, because a mother's love, human judge would not allow it. It is always injustice to punish innocent person for the sins committed by others. Human courtroom is not perfect, and injustice did happen and will happen. But the same cannot be said about God’s judgment in His heavenly courtroom. “Righteousness [צֶדֶק, Strong H6664] and justice [ִמִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941] are the foundation of your [God] throne (Psa. 89:14). Scripture even refer it as abomination in Pro. 17:15: “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.”
@@cooperthatguy1271 Shocking. Definitely gives more weight to the idea of Catholics not being Christians. I still think the average, lay Catholic probably aligns more with mainline, Christian beliefs, but it sounds like some are preaching a very different gospel from that of the apostles. I never realized they attributed any of the work of salvation to Mary at all until I saw an image of Mary standing on the serpent, and looked it up, since it's Jesus who crushes him, but they believe she's the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15.
@@litigioussociety4249 KJV translates Gen. 3:15 as "it shall bruise thy head" while Tanakh (Jewish Bible) English translation made by Jewish Publishing Society (JPS) of the same verse reads: "they shall strike at your head". In the past Hebrew was written in consonant only and later vowels were added as diacritical marks - the so called Masoretic text. Depending on the chosen diacritical mark you may end up with "he" or "she" or "they". "seed of woman" is also applied to Hagar (Gen. 16:10) and to Rebecca (Gen. 24:60).
@@justfromcatholic Looking at different versions, your New American Bible is one of only two that translates it that way that I saw. Apparently, it's the Vulgate that reads as she or they. The Vulgate has several such errors, so that's not an argument, unless like the KJV only people you're a Catholic who defends the Vulgate as divinely preserved.
Regardless, the New Testament in no way would suggest Mary is the fulfillment of that promise, or that she's any fulfillment beyond being the mother of the Messiah. Jesus even literally silences the woman who praises his mother, so if it was going to say such a thing, it would be there.
Great talk, Dr Cooper! What a good way to start the weekend with a Just and Sinner video. I really enjoy these longer form videos and find these to be some of your best work.
On a side note I am looking forward to the release of The Conservative Reformer on Monday!
Great talk! What are your thoughts on some of the arguments that have been arising lately that pseudo-Dionysius actually was the true Dionysius that accompanied Paul?
Audio is pretty muted after "Jumala ompi linnamme (Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott)" for the actual lecture/speech, maybe amplify it and/or normalize. This is a common issue especially with RUclips ads and it is pretty bad for retaining good hearing.
And I love the intro music :)
Thank you! It was good to hear this today ❤.
This "sola" turns out to be teaching that the water is wet. Noone has ever claimed any other Savior but the Lord Himself. However, Lord may work salvation through the people and that is attested in the Bible:
(1 Tim 4, 16) Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this YOU WILL SAVE both yourself and THOSE WHO HEAR YOU.
(1 Cor 9, 22) ...I have become all things to all men, that I MIGHT by all means SAVE SOME.
Except for Sola Scriptura, all the Solas could be affirmed by Roman Catholics in at least some sense
Sola Fide - Romanists don't believe in justification by faith alone, but they affirm that only faith and repentance are neccesary to be brought into God's favor
Sola Gratia - Romanists define grace a little differently, but they agree that salvation is entirely by God's grace and mercy
Solus Christus - yeah, duh
Soli Deo Gloria- yeah, duh
@@BenjaminAnderson21 Except that I could not care less as to what Latin heretics believe by being Eastern Orthodox.
i cant for the life of me remember what the intro song is called does anyone know
A Mighty Fortress is our God