After being seriously dissatisfied with protestants in general and hearing some strong arguments for Catholicism, I was well on my way to becoming Catholic. Watching this series has put a serious spanner in my thought processes. It's deeply uncomfortable, but I thank you Jordan for giving a serious defense of Sola Scriptura that I was searching for. Most critiques of Catholicism are very underwhelming, which is very disappointing, but you have articulated the most formidable argument I have heard so far.
Have you looked into Orthodoxy? Jordan is a bright guy and a lot of these arguments are great against Roman Catholicism. But they broadly don’t address Orthodoxy at all.
Are we? To me, ultimately they fall under the same issue as Rome “sola ecclesia.” It all boils down to authority. Truth Unites has some decent responses to orthodoxy. Ive been studying orthodoxy for 3 years off and on and though I had to dig a little it seems there is enough out there to have a clear understanding. Much of Chemnitz arguments can apply to the East as well. A decent Patristic and historical understanding of developments are a good place to start. But as mentioned it boils down to authority. Rome and the East have to prove an infallible authority (tradition, magisterium, councils etc…)that is equal in weight and inspiration as the scriptures and quite simply they can’t. Along with scripture, The historical record goes against most of the unique claims of Rome and the East.
I agree alot of the arguments overlap but Eastern Orthodoxy needs to also be dealt with on its own. We prots lost alot of potential pastors, theologians, and faithful laypeople to the east.
@@Tiredhike From what I've heard from a few examples, in practice they hold to the Lutheran form of 'Sola Scriptura' and other 'Lutheran' teachings they say they reject. A great example is "The Lord of Spirit's Podcast", in particular "Who's in charge here" (at 1hr ish). They point to scripture to dispute a common understanding of a rope around the ankle of the high priest (a traditional understanding rejected by the standard of Scripture), and go on to make a practical theological point from scripture that is reflected in the church. It's been the most clearly "protestant" example in a podcast where every episode begins in Genesis, with context, moves through Scripture and with that basis continues into the life of the Church. They say they are guided by Tradition, or the 'mind of the saints', then go on to say that by definition it is in accord with Scripture. Yet if it is by definition in accord with Scripture, then Scripture is already their sole infallible norm which norms, the councils are then infallible norms that are normed (different to us, perhaps), and the Fathers and Saints are fallible norms that are normed. Partially their issues (as I see it) are that they fail to see how 'Greek, Slavic, Syrian' they are, while also allowing broad interpretation of practises without regular good teaching. Eg. I'm not convinced that the saints in glory/rest are able to hear our prayers or work for us (although Lutherans confess that they can/do pray for us); however, if it was revealed in Scripture that they could, it would not diminish Christ unless they were worshipped as gods rather than honoured as servants (both understandings seem prominent in the EO laity).
I really do not get your point at 27:00. The claim of “unanimous consensus” is not an anathema statement, and it is thus a matter of practice not subject to infallibility. It furthermore never claims that there is a unanimous consensus on each theological matter. This suggests that it is simply setting up a guidepost to follow on those few matters where such a consensus exists, with the earlier part of the statement being another helpful guidepost.
Dr. Cooper, have you seen the debate between Gavin Ortlund and Trent Horn on Sola Scriptura? It is on the Pints with Aquinas channel, along with a conversation between the two the next day, hosted by Matt Fradd.
At 14:00 into your video, you reference Chemnitz on p. 31 giving a citation of Jerome. Chemnitz references the same citation elsewhere on pages 39, 126, and 152 of his first volume. The problem I have with that specific reference to Jerome is that I cannot find it anywhere in Jerome's corpus. Can you produce the original Latin for this citation of Jerome? Simply put, I suspect (though I stand to be corrected) that Chemnitz is mistaken concerning this citation as originating from Jerome. Can you help?
@@Skyman505 I'm not an expert, but maybe the back and forth between Augustine and Jerome concerning Galatians does amount to what Chemnitz wrote: "Spiritus sancti doctrina est, quae Canonicis literis prodita est, contra quam si quid statuant Concilia, nefas duco."
@@Skyman505 yes, Jerome even starts going into other parts of scripture and provides multiple interpretations.edit: He does not provide them, but mentions that it is his practice.
Doing a critique on Easten Orthodoxy on this matter would also be helpful. I notice they use some similar arguments for a bit differently. A good book to get into the mind of the Eastern Orthodox way of thinking is called Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind by Eugenia Constantinou.
Nice 👍🏻 Or as I’ve said (with apologies to Newman 😉) … “If to be deep in history is to cease to be ‘Protestant’, then to be DEEPER in history is to cease to be PAPALIST.” 😎
Listening to your talk on Newman’s seedling development hypothesis and how incompatible it is with the canons of the Council of Trent, Newman’s argument sounds fairly similar to [though obviously not the same as] John Nelson Darby’s hypothesis of Dispensationalism. What are ages of dispensation for Darby are ages of development for Newman. Both are equally problematic. So basically, Newman is the Roman Catholic Darby! 🤔
I think one of the strongest arguments I've heard is that the Bereans used exactly a Sola Scriptura approach when validating what they've been told. It's hard to get around that from an Eastern or Roman view.
With regards to Bible translations, I really like the EHV by the WELS (I think it's North West Publishing House). It's similar to the NIV from the 80's that I grew up with. I don't mind the ESV. I'd be curious to hear Dr. Cooper's objections and complaints.
You might find these 2015 blogposts, and podcast, from Revd Cooper helpful. The root lies in the Ecclesiastical Text/Preservation of the Text argument: www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/we-shouldnt-exclusively-use-the-esv/ www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/a-review-of-the-modern-english-version/ www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-ecclesiastical-text-versus-the-critical-text/ Podcast on the Ecclasiastical Text: www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/this-weeks-program-the-ecclesiastical-text-and-textual-criticism/
I think at this point the only thing keeping me from peace of mind is the validity of Lutheran holy orders. Who has the authority to consecrate the Eucharist and such?
Do you know a good book that simply points out some of the strongest inconsistences in the Roman Catholic church? Also thank you once again for the video!
Regarding the Newman Hypothesis, my RC friends say it's completely consistent with the Tridentine view. They say that just because certain doctrines, that are later defined as Dogma, aren't being mentioned by every single Church Father, doesn't mean they were not believed in the past unanimously. Others tell me that the "unanimous consent" simply means something like "the vast majority" of Church Fathers; not that literally every single father affirmed a given teaching. How do you respond to this?
The Newman hypothesis is not that things are progressively defined as infallible, but that the church progressively develops new beliefs, beliefs that were not had, known about, or considered in earlier eras of the church. It is an entirely different paradigm.
@@bmide1110 "New beliefs" not that they are wholesale new, but that they are developments. Like the view on the Eucharist. It starts as a real presence (the acorn) and develops into Transubstantiation (the oak tree). That's how I've heard it described. Not that completely new and contradictory beliefs develop, but that variations on older ones develop in time.
What you are describing here is not just something being always believed but then later being defined as dogma. Whether or not it develops (like acorn to tree), if it wasn't believed by the fathers, you can't call its later dogmatic establishment as merely establishing what the fathers believed. You can't say, "they believed it but it wasn't dogma yet" when what you mean is "they believed the acorn so its right for us to believe in the tree."@@regelemihai
27:40 maybe no unanimous consensus on the issues themselves, but what about on the authority to develop doctrine itself? This bit confused me/left me with questions. Edit: I think I'm getting it. Trent made argument that its statements were those that had unanimous consent of the fathers, and doctrinal development is a cope to escape that obvious falsehood
Hi Rev Dr Cooper, could you tell me if you think the following is a correct assessment of Calvin’s doctrine? “Calvin was a second generation Lutheran - Rev Dr Gerald Bray”
Has anyone been able to find Chemnitz’s citation from Jerome on him rejecting councils that contradict scripture? I went lookin in the Latin of his Galatians commentary and could not find it. Unfortunately I have had the same issue with a few citations Chemnitz gives of the fathers…
don't lose hope these quotations get really hard to find sometimes, I've spent hours looking for some but I always find them, and if you do find it could you come back and let us know where it is, I'd love to know too😂
I would be interested in knowing why you don’t like the ESV. My Anglican church uses it. My own preference is the RSV, although you probably wouldn’t like that either. I like it because I can see the Hebrew better behind it.
rev dr cooper can you recommend any works that deal with biblicism? critiques thereof. I've heard a few reformed baptists (lol) speak about reformed biblicism, but I don't know what to make of it. it sounds just like tradition bashing/dismissal.
Mr. Cooper; what don’t you like about the ESV? English is a second language to me and I’d like to try a modern version that is still solid (I know NASB is good, but not the best for regular use, it’s too wooden)
@@alexlancaster5455 Yeah I like the NKJV, I used to have a copy, need to find it again. (it hasn't been a big concern because 80% of the time i just read the Bible in spanish, my main language)
Excellent discussion. Dr Cooper you should join Dr Ortlund (Baptist) in a debate-conversation on Sola Scriptura with our Roman-Catholic apologist brothers. SOLI DEO GLORIA.
He doesn’t need to… Dr. Ortland did just fine on his own debating Trent Horn on the subject of Sola Scriptura a few weeks ago. You can find the debate on Pints with Aquinas.
Does the quality the Latin vulgate undermine the argument of divine providence, if it was so widely used? And how well did people speak Greek and Hebrew during the renaissance? Or maybe both the greek and latin are more in accordance than we think, but our ability in both languages has suffered over time. It seems to me hubristic to "return to the original texts" while the language of those texts is ancient and foreign.
You have, in several places, claimed that Campbelites are not Protestant. This claim is vexed by the many sources that consider the Disciples of Christ a mainline protestant church body. I am very interested in how you qualify that claim (is the modern DoC no longer Campbellite in the 19th c. sense, are mainline 'protestants' no longer protestant in the sense you are referring, etc.) Thanks for the reply.
First, I don't know many who come from the Restoration/Stone-Campbell movement who take the name "Campbellite", but beyond that.... I understand the general critique. The churches that come from the Restoration Movement were in general growing in response to failures they saw within traditional protestant churches. As for your question about the Disciples of Christ, the very fact they are a denomination does make them at odds with much of the other Christian Churches/Churches of Christ which have no denominational structures.
@@joecoolmccall the disciples of christ (and the conservatives that left them) are ambiguously evangelical/reformed in their teaching (vestments are commonly worn by preachers and churches follow the lectionary in the DOC), yet still very Campbellite in their bible only view of church (what Dr. Cooper was referring to), and the DoC has taken the restorationist motto to it's liberal-idealist extreme "in essentials unity, in opinions liberty." (ironically a quote from Augustine): They are in communion with other ecumenical protestant denominations like the UCC.
Newman wrote his book on the development of doctrine while he was still an Anglican. And it was not subject to doctrinal review for that reason when he joined Rome. Post-Vatican 2, his "discovery" is hailed as the greatest thing connecting Catholic theology to the Enlightenment (per Bishop Barron). Hmm.
I've listened to a lot of arguments from Protestants (Baptist, Calvinist, Methodist ect) against Catholicism but Lutherans (or at least your channel) as well as orthodox seem to have a better grasp of Catholicism to defend against their claims.
Dr. Jordan, “The Latin Vulgate is the Official Text of Rome.” 110% FALSE! Let’s look at what Trent actually says and Pope Pius XII’s understanding: .. considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which OUT OF ALL THE LATIN EDITIONS, NOW IN CIRCULATION, of the sacred books, IS TO BE HELD AS AUTHENTIC,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, HELD AS AUTHENTIC; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. [Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books, 1546] POPE PIUS XII (1943): And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time [Divino Afflante Spiritu 21] WHAT IS POPE PIUS XII SAYING? 1. The Vulgate does not “in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts.” 2. Trent’s declaration “as all know, applies only to the Latin Church.” The Latin Church is not the whole of the Catholic Church. The Melkite Church, the Chaldean Church, the Maronite Church, etc. are part of the Catholic Church, but they are in the EAST. These Churches celebrated the liturgy and used Scriptures in other languages, such as Greek and Aramaic. The Greek speaking Catholic Churches used the Septuagint for the Old Testament and the original Greek New Testament. The Aramaic speaking Churches used Syriac Aramaic. POPE PIUS XII also made it clear that Trent did not give the Vulgate any special authority. “The special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.” Pope XII’s Encyclical “DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU” is available online if you would like to read it.
Divino afflante spiritu is a perfect example of what Dr. Cooper was talking about. Here Trent says X. 500 years later, a pope comes along and says--no it didn't really say that. I highly doubt that the fathers at Trent would have approved the document's naive embrace of the higher critical methods in the interpretation of scripture you find in Divino afflante spiritu--or maybe they would have: whatever makes scripture less clear and less certain and whatever hands scripture over to "expert" beyond the reach of the laity. Then the bosses can do their thing undisturbed. Still, while the encyclical allowed Catholic scholars to play "exegesis" with their Protestant and atheistic colleagues, I can see how traditional Catholics see the winds of modernism coming into the Church here, helped along by modernist Cardinal Bea, S.J., who would prove instrumental during Vatican 2 to promote ecumenism.
"It is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED ". Holy Scripture has spoken! No need for fallible Protestant Pastors to try and explain away what Holy Scripture clearly says! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
After being seriously dissatisfied with protestants in general and hearing some strong arguments for Catholicism, I was well on my way to becoming Catholic. Watching this series has put a serious spanner in my thought processes. It's deeply uncomfortable, but I thank you Jordan for giving a serious defense of Sola Scriptura that I was searching for.
Most critiques of Catholicism are very underwhelming, which is very disappointing, but you have articulated the most formidable argument I have heard so far.
Hi. Please read Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.
Have you looked into Orthodoxy? Jordan is a bright guy and a lot of these arguments are great against Roman Catholicism. But they broadly don’t address Orthodoxy at all.
This is good, but what we really need is a response to Eastern Orthodoxy, because we are severely lacking in resources against them
They lack resources regarding veneration of icons, praying to saints, mariology, and more.
Are we? To me, ultimately they fall under the same issue as Rome “sola ecclesia.” It all boils down to authority. Truth Unites has some decent responses to orthodoxy. Ive been studying orthodoxy for 3 years off and on and though I had to dig a little it seems there is enough out there to have a clear understanding. Much of Chemnitz arguments can apply to the East as well. A decent Patristic and historical understanding of developments are a good place to start. But as mentioned it boils down to authority. Rome and the East have to prove an infallible authority (tradition, magisterium, councils etc…)that is equal in weight and inspiration as the scriptures and quite simply they can’t. Along with scripture, The historical record goes against most of the unique claims of Rome and the East.
Yo redeemed zoomer! My theological RUclips worlds are clashing lol
I agree alot of the arguments overlap but Eastern Orthodoxy needs to also be dealt with on its own. We prots lost alot of potential pastors, theologians, and faithful laypeople to the east.
@@Tiredhike From what I've heard from a few examples, in practice they hold to the Lutheran form of 'Sola Scriptura' and other 'Lutheran' teachings they say they reject.
A great example is "The Lord of Spirit's Podcast", in particular "Who's in charge here" (at 1hr ish). They point to scripture to dispute a common understanding of a rope around the ankle of the high priest (a traditional understanding rejected by the standard of Scripture), and go on to make a practical theological point from scripture that is reflected in the church. It's been the most clearly "protestant" example in a podcast where every episode begins in Genesis, with context, moves through Scripture and with that basis continues into the life of the Church.
They say they are guided by Tradition, or the 'mind of the saints', then go on to say that by definition it is in accord with Scripture. Yet if it is by definition in accord with Scripture, then Scripture is already their sole infallible norm which norms, the councils are then infallible norms that are normed (different to us, perhaps), and the Fathers and Saints are fallible norms that are normed.
Partially their issues (as I see it) are that they fail to see how 'Greek, Slavic, Syrian' they are, while also allowing broad interpretation of practises without regular good teaching.
Eg. I'm not convinced that the saints in glory/rest are able to hear our prayers or work for us (although Lutherans confess that they can/do pray for us); however, if it was revealed in Scripture that they could, it would not diminish Christ unless they were worshipped as gods rather than honoured as servants (both understandings seem prominent in the EO laity).
Could you PLEASE do a video analyzing the Development Hypothesis? I would love to watch content on that
Greetings from New Zealand. Nice to have an upload at Sunday 10pm
Thanks for continuing Chemnitz on Trent. I love it. It’s super helpful.
Do you have a video on why you don’t like the ESV? If not I’d be very interested as currently it’s my go to.
Baptist here- coming from Dr. Ortlund’s channel. I enjoy your videos Dr. Cooper, thank you! I’m subscribed
I'd love to hear your thoughts on Christian B. Wagner's (Scholastic Answers) series on the Development of Doctrine!
I really do not get your point at 27:00. The claim of “unanimous consensus” is not an anathema statement, and it is thus a matter of practice not subject to infallibility. It furthermore never claims that there is a unanimous consensus on each theological matter. This suggests that it is simply setting up a guidepost to follow on those few matters where such a consensus exists, with the earlier part of the statement being another helpful guidepost.
Also definitely keep doing these! They're absolutely amazing and they provide so much clarity.
Dr. Cooper, have you seen the debate between Gavin Ortlund and Trent Horn on Sola Scriptura? It is on the Pints with Aquinas channel, along with a conversation between the two the next day, hosted by Matt Fradd.
I just ordered the Krauth book, thanks for publishing it.
At 14:00 into your video, you reference Chemnitz on p. 31 giving a citation of Jerome. Chemnitz references the same citation elsewhere on pages 39, 126, and 152 of his first volume. The problem I have with that specific reference to Jerome is that I cannot find it anywhere in Jerome's corpus. Can you produce the original Latin for this citation of Jerome? Simply put, I suspect (though I stand to be corrected) that Chemnitz is mistaken concerning this citation as originating from Jerome. Can you help?
Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to locate the quote.
@@DrJordanBCooper Thank you, I think it is one of those few times when Chemnitz is mistaken.
@@Skyman505 I'm not an expert, but maybe the back and forth between Augustine and Jerome concerning Galatians does amount to what Chemnitz wrote: "Spiritus sancti doctrina est, quae Canonicis literis prodita est, contra quam si quid statuant Concilia, nefas duco."
@@georgwagner937 Do you mean the exchange of letters between Augustine and Jerome regarding Peter in the epistle to the Galatians?
@@Skyman505 yes, Jerome even starts going into other parts of scripture and provides multiple interpretations.edit: He does not provide them, but mentions that it is his practice.
Doing a critique on Easten Orthodoxy on this matter would also be helpful. I notice they use some similar arguments for a bit differently. A good book to get into the mind of the Eastern Orthodox way of thinking is called Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind by Eugenia Constantinou.
To be deep in history is to cease to be Tridentine.
Nice 👍🏻
Or as I’ve said (with apologies to Newman 😉) …
“If to be deep in history is to cease to be ‘Protestant’, then to be DEEPER in history is to cease to be PAPALIST.” 😎
Listening to your talk on Newman’s seedling development hypothesis and how incompatible it is with the canons of the Council of Trent, Newman’s argument sounds fairly similar to [though obviously not the same as] John Nelson Darby’s hypothesis of Dispensationalism. What are ages of dispensation for Darby are ages of development for Newman. Both are equally problematic.
So basically, Newman is the Roman Catholic Darby! 🤔
I think one of the strongest arguments I've heard is that the Bereans used exactly a Sola Scriptura approach when validating what they've been told. It's hard to get around that from an Eastern or Roman view.
With regards to Bible translations, I really like the EHV by the WELS (I think it's North West Publishing House). It's similar to the NIV from the 80's that I grew up with.
I don't mind the ESV. I'd be curious to hear Dr. Cooper's objections and complaints.
You might find these 2015 blogposts, and podcast, from Revd Cooper helpful. The root lies in the Ecclesiastical Text/Preservation of the Text argument:
www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/we-shouldnt-exclusively-use-the-esv/
www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/a-review-of-the-modern-english-version/
www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-ecclesiastical-text-versus-the-critical-text/
Podcast on the Ecclasiastical Text:
www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/this-weeks-program-the-ecclesiastical-text-and-textual-criticism/
I think at this point the only thing keeping me from peace of mind is the validity of Lutheran holy orders. Who has the authority to consecrate the Eucharist and such?
I am not a lutheran but I would think its grounded in the priesthood of all believers.
Do you know a good book that simply points out some of the strongest inconsistences in the Roman Catholic church? Also thank you once again for the video!
There are inconsistencies in every tradition....so to rebut Rome you'll need to proceed on other bases.
@@N1IA-4 Thank you.
I've not read it yet myself, but James White did write The Roman Catholic Controversy, which might be the sort of book you're looking for.
@@calebpullman8156 Thank you very much. I will look into it
Just curious,
You said you dont really like the ESV. What is your preference for Bible translation?
Regarding the Newman Hypothesis, my RC friends say it's completely consistent with the Tridentine view. They say that just because certain doctrines, that are later defined as Dogma, aren't being mentioned by every single Church Father, doesn't mean they were not believed in the past unanimously.
Others tell me that the "unanimous consent" simply means something like "the vast majority" of Church Fathers; not that literally every single father affirmed a given teaching.
How do you respond to this?
The Newman hypothesis is not that things are progressively defined as infallible, but that the church progressively develops new beliefs, beliefs that were not had, known about, or considered in earlier eras of the church. It is an entirely different paradigm.
@@bmide1110 "New beliefs" not that they are wholesale new, but that they are developments. Like the view on the Eucharist. It starts as a real presence (the acorn) and develops into Transubstantiation (the oak tree). That's how I've heard it described. Not that completely new and contradictory beliefs develop, but that variations on older ones develop in time.
What you are describing here is not just something being always believed but then later being defined as dogma. Whether or not it develops (like acorn to tree), if it wasn't believed by the fathers, you can't call its later dogmatic establishment as merely establishing what the fathers believed. You can't say, "they believed it but it wasn't dogma yet" when what you mean is "they believed the acorn so its right for us to believe in the tree."@@regelemihai
27:40 maybe no unanimous consensus on the issues themselves, but what about on the authority to develop doctrine itself? This bit confused me/left me with questions.
Edit: I think I'm getting it. Trent made argument that its statements were those that had unanimous consent of the fathers, and doctrinal development is a cope to escape that obvious falsehood
Hi Rev Dr Cooper, could you tell me if you think the following is a correct assessment of Calvin’s doctrine? “Calvin was a second generation Lutheran - Rev Dr Gerald Bray”
Perhaps early on but certainly not later.
Has anyone been able to find Chemnitz’s citation from Jerome on him rejecting councils that contradict scripture? I went lookin in the Latin of his Galatians commentary and could not find it. Unfortunately I have had the same issue with a few citations Chemnitz gives of the fathers…
Yup. Don’t know where he got that either .
don't lose hope these quotations get really hard to find sometimes, I've spent hours looking for some but I always find them, and if you do find it could you come back and let us know where it is, I'd love to know too😂
I would be interested in knowing why you don’t like the ESV. My Anglican church uses it. My own preference is the RSV, although you probably wouldn’t like that either. I like it because I can see the Hebrew better behind it.
rev dr cooper can you recommend any works that deal with biblicism? critiques thereof. I've heard a few reformed baptists (lol) speak about reformed biblicism, but I don't know what to make of it. it sounds just like tradition bashing/dismissal.
Mr. Cooper; what don’t you like about the ESV? English is a second language to me and I’d like to try a modern version that is still solid (I know NASB is good, but not the best for regular use, it’s too wooden)
Try the New King James Version. Very solid, literal, and poetic.
@@alexlancaster5455 Yeah I like the NKJV, I used to have a copy, need to find it again. (it hasn't been a big concern because 80% of the time i just read the Bible in spanish, my main language)
Excellent discussion. Dr Cooper you should join Dr Ortlund (Baptist) in a debate-conversation on Sola Scriptura with our Roman-Catholic apologist brothers. SOLI DEO GLORIA.
He doesn’t need to…
Dr. Ortland did just fine on his own debating Trent Horn on the subject of Sola Scriptura a few weeks ago. You can find the debate on Pints with Aquinas.
Does the quality the Latin vulgate undermine the argument of divine providence, if it was so widely used? And how well did people speak Greek and Hebrew during the renaissance? Or maybe both the greek and latin are more in accordance than we think, but our ability in both languages has suffered over time. It seems to me hubristic to "return to the original texts" while the language of those texts is ancient and foreign.
You have, in several places, claimed that Campbelites are not Protestant. This claim is vexed by the many sources that consider the Disciples of Christ a mainline protestant church body. I am very interested in how you qualify that claim (is the modern DoC no longer Campbellite in the 19th c. sense, are mainline 'protestants' no longer protestant in the sense you are referring, etc.) Thanks for the reply.
That's a can of worms...
@@joecoolmccall can of worms matter
First, I don't know many who come from the Restoration/Stone-Campbell movement who take the name "Campbellite", but beyond that....
I understand the general critique. The churches that come from the Restoration Movement were in general growing in response to failures they saw within traditional protestant churches.
As for your question about the Disciples of Christ, the very fact they are a denomination does make them at odds with much of the other Christian Churches/Churches of Christ which have no denominational structures.
@@joecoolmccall the disciples of christ (and the conservatives that left them) are ambiguously evangelical/reformed in their teaching (vestments are commonly worn by preachers and churches follow the lectionary in the DOC), yet still very Campbellite in their bible only view of church (what Dr. Cooper was referring to), and the DoC has taken the restorationist motto to it's liberal-idealist extreme "in essentials unity, in opinions liberty." (ironically a quote from Augustine): They are in communion with other ecumenical protestant denominations like the UCC.
Newman wrote his book on the development of doctrine while he was still an Anglican. And it was not subject to doctrinal review for that reason when he joined Rome. Post-Vatican 2, his "discovery" is hailed as the greatest thing connecting Catholic theology to the Enlightenment (per Bishop Barron). Hmm.
If you ever do your own NT Commentary, I will nickname it the "Super Cooper" Commentary.
I've listened to a lot of arguments from Protestants (Baptist, Calvinist, Methodist ect) against Catholicism but Lutherans (or at least your channel) as well as orthodox seem to have a better grasp of Catholicism to defend against their claims.
Accepting someone's witness as to the authenticity of a document is not the same as accepting their authority in other matters!
first
to enter the ark?
Real
Dr. Jordan, “The Latin Vulgate is the Official Text of Rome.” 110% FALSE!
Let’s look at what Trent actually says and Pope Pius XII’s understanding:
.. considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which OUT OF ALL THE LATIN EDITIONS, NOW IN CIRCULATION, of the sacred books, IS TO BE HELD AS AUTHENTIC,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, HELD AS AUTHENTIC; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. [Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books, 1546]
POPE PIUS XII (1943): And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time [Divino Afflante Spiritu 21]
WHAT IS POPE PIUS XII SAYING?
1. The Vulgate does not “in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts.”
2. Trent’s declaration “as all know, applies only to the Latin Church.” The Latin Church is not the whole of the Catholic Church. The Melkite Church, the Chaldean Church, the Maronite Church, etc. are part of the Catholic Church, but they are in the EAST. These Churches celebrated the liturgy and used Scriptures in other languages, such as Greek and Aramaic. The Greek speaking Catholic Churches used the Septuagint for the Old Testament and the original Greek New Testament. The Aramaic speaking Churches used Syriac Aramaic.
POPE PIUS XII also made it clear that Trent did not give the Vulgate any special authority.
“The special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.”
Pope XII’s Encyclical “DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU” is available online if you would like to read it.
To be 110% false, is to leave 890% for uncertainty.
Divino afflante spiritu is a perfect example of what Dr. Cooper was talking about. Here Trent says X. 500 years later, a pope comes along and says--no it didn't really say that.
I highly doubt that the fathers at Trent would have approved the document's naive embrace of the higher critical methods in the interpretation of scripture you find in Divino afflante spiritu--or maybe they would have: whatever makes scripture less clear and less certain and whatever hands scripture over to "expert" beyond the reach of the laity. Then the bosses can do their thing undisturbed.
Still, while the encyclical allowed Catholic scholars to play "exegesis" with their Protestant and atheistic colleagues, I can see how traditional Catholics see the winds of modernism coming into the Church here, helped along by modernist Cardinal Bea, S.J., who would prove instrumental during Vatican 2 to promote ecumenism.
"It is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED ". Holy Scripture has spoken! No need for fallible Protestant Pastors to try and explain away what Holy Scripture clearly says! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
remember how you ran away from debating Jay Dyer