Former Catholic, current Confessional Lutheran here. This has to be the most civil, respectful, and productive talk between Romans and Lutherans in the last 500 years. Both of these speakers (I am, admittedly, much more familiar with Rev. Dr. Cooper) are exceptionally well positioned for this topic and I think that I, a layman, walked away from this talk smarter than I went into it. This - dear Christian friends - is an honorable way to conduct ourselves.
Jordan has nothing of a gracious person - he is a rabbid anti-Catholic, full of deception and bigotry... he was reasonable enough though in the way he talked with Jimmy simply because his usual trickery would be denounced by him
@Ify Nsoha Thanks for such a positive comment. Out of interest, if I may ask, what is it that keeps you Protestant? Is it that the five solae can be best defended, or is it more that you object to certain Catholic doctrines, such as that of justification?
@@ClassicPhilosophyFTW justification is one of many. I think it's a big mistake to collapse sanctification into Justification. We agree with Catholics about *initial* Justification, but the issue is their explanation of the progressive stage. Just because righteousness can be used in multiple ways doesn't necessarily mean we should use that word to speak of the progressive growth in holiness - that's what the term "sanctification" is for.
@@williamnathanael412Lutherans have much in common with Catholics liturgically and theologically. If his parents were reformed Baptist … there would probably be fireworks at the dinner table. 😂
This is my third time watching this, and I must be honest-Jimmy is one of the most wonderful human beings on earth. I seriously love his heart for truth and the charity with which he speaks.
I am a Roman Catholic Christian - convert from Protestant tradition since 2000. This is such a wonderful beautiful and charitable show between the host and the guest speakers. Such intelligent men, but humble in spirit. That's what makes learning from this discussion so easy and enjoyable. Thank you very.
@Eucharist Angel the catechism and the Council of Trent both reject plainly the idea of merit based salvation. Or the notion that salvation can be earned by one's own righteous acts. We Catholics do not believe that you earn salvation. We merely do not believe that you are not justified by faith alone. In other words, you are not justified by faith in the absence of works. Just like James 2:24 states plainly. "You see a man is justified BY WORKS, and NOT by faith ALONE."
@Eucharist Angel, is that right? If that’s the case, then how come the Catholic Church did not understand Titus 3:5, when she herself included The Book of Titus to be part of the New Testament, in compiling which books should be included in the New Testament and which should be not, at the end of the 4th Century? Are you sure what the Catholic truly teaches about salvation? Do you have any idea about Pelagian heresy which was rejected and condemned by the Catholic Church in 5th century?
@Eucharist Angel, excuse me, too, but first, all non-Catholics don't reject the canon of the New Testament. I'm talking about the New Testament, not the whole Bible, am I not?!? You guys rejected the canon of the Old Testament but surely are following the whole of the New Testament which the Catholic Church compiled at the end of the 4th century, aren't you?!? This is just the first...
@Eucharist Angel, second, if you're sure about what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, then explain to me about what you understand regarding Pelagian heresy that we condemned and rejected since the 5th century. That's the second...
This is what a Catholic and Lutheran who want to agree sound like. Charitable ears and lips. It has great benefits, but it does make it a bit harder to get at the differences, and to gauge the importance of those differences. Thank you, the three of you.
Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) here. I have to say I truly enjoyed the dialogue and the charitable manner in which it was carried out and how these two men treated one another. It stands in stark contrast to how James White behaves towards others that he debates or disagrees with regardless of whether they be Protestant or Catholic. He (James White) strikes me as all "head knowledge" but one who has not had an inward work of grace done in his heart and he should examine himself to see if he is truly born again.
This conversation format is SO much better than debate. This yields information and understanding, neither of which anyone cares about in a debate. Kudos to Dr. Cooper and Jimmy Akin. Both awesome gentlemen. And thank you, Matt!
Why side with Jordan Cooper? Not why, what for, but why how come. I didn't really hear them disagree, and I would say the disagreement is null and void in the discussion, other than the internal " of transformation and works of charity in justification. So theoretical differences, but not basis of biblical teachings. Would someone please correct me since I missed it, obviously.
As a confessional Lutheran that went to a Dominican college these are the kind of dialogues that lift my heart. The Lutheran/Roman Catholic dialogue must continue and is done well with conversations like these. Highlighting differences as well as seeing our unity in love for Christ covers a multitude of sins.
@Prasanth Thomas I appreciate that brother. Many Lutherans often say that Luther would be more comfortable at a catholic mass than most protestant services today. It was by my reading of the church fathers and church history that led me to Lutheranism. The rich use of the fathers in our confessional documents is a unlike any other denomination in Protestantism. We often try to avoid the term protestant as it is meant today. Most Protestants think we are “too catholic.” Once you take away all the fluff we definitely have more in common with Rome than American evangelicalism. We do not throw off our Roman Catholic heritage and it is still present in much of our worship today. It burns me up when I see Protestants refer to Catholics as non Christians.
Jimmy Akin gold around the 1:14-1:15 mark, and I'm not even Catholic. I love the patience of his approach wanting to genuinely understand their differences and yet so charitably and gently pointing out any inconsistencies.
When I was Lutheran I would go to Jordan Cooper regularly. Now I go to Catholic Answers and Matt Fradd when I have questions. This is about the closest thing to an ecumenical allstar team I've ever seen. Edit: I realized my mistake of putting Jordan Peterson instead of Jordan Cooper. My b.
Mind if I plug Reason and Theology with Michael Lofton as well? If you are interested in the nuanced historical, theological, and magisterial matters of the Church, I would recommend them.
I wouldn’t call this debate rather a delightful conversation. Seeing these two men converse in a manner that is respectful to both of their theological traditions is refreshing. May we learn from their example.
Can anyone appreciate the graciousness of Matt Fradd to recede to the background and let the beauty of the discussion take its course. Talk about total control even in absence. This guy should have a TV show.
I'm glad Jimmy was able to clarify what the actual Catholic teaching/tradition is regarding "faith + works." This was the first time I have ever heard a Catholic show why that expression is wrong. Conversations like these make me realize how much I really don't know.
@@takmaps I've seen a lot of Brant Pitre videos but not that one. I'm Catholic as well, that's why I was so suprised by what Jimmy said. I guess I just haven't really looked into the issue of Justification that much.
@@sherwindique8518 What did Jimmy said reagarding catholic view on faith+works? I dont have time to watch the whole debate so if you can write most important, please. If not, its ok. God bless everyone :)
@@kyriosbooks8400 Here are some time-stamps: 46:25 - Justification by Faith 47:14 - What is Faith? 47:52 - Cooper says that faith is trust. 50:28 and 51:56 and 53:41 - How is Faith used in scripture? 58:23 and 59:19 - Basically, Akin says that you need repentance for justification. He says that charity does not get you into a state of justification - good works flow from justification - you can’t do such works without justification. 1:01:40 and 1:02:46 - How to get saved in simple terms? Akin and Cooper stick with Acts 2:38... that we should repent, believe, and be baptized. 1:18:19 - As Matt said, they seem to agree on a lot... Matt’s trying to find the disagreement about justification ruclips.net/video/jkgsD6zNX2o/видео.html
Non-Catholic here, but I really liked Mr. Akin's explanation of Faith, and tying it into Faith, Hope, Love. I would say that Saving Faith is not a Faith that stands alone as an intellectual acknowledgement of Doctrines, but one that looks to Christ in Hope, and consequently works through Love.
@@claymcdermott718 Not at all. Salvation comes through Faith alone; Hope and Love flow through Faith. Or to put it another way, Faith is the root, and Love is the fruit. Or again, Hope and Love and the consequence of true and genuine Faith. But a person is saved by Grace alone, through Faith alone, the moment they put their trust in Christ ... the works follow in the wake of God's amazing grace. But if a person, newly come to Christ, dies shortly after conversion before they have wrought any great works of love, they are no less saved than the person who comes to Christ in their youth and spends a lifetime of 80+ years doing many great works by God's grace.
@@beowulf.reborn so obedience is evidence that you had a saving faith. To not beg the question, to what degree is that obedience and how long should that obedience take to bear that is evidence of a saving faith
@@fredarroyo7429 Obedience should begin immediately after the person is Born Again, and should increase with knowledge, as the person learns more and more of God's will. If at any time they begin to backslide, as their faith grows cold, they ought to repent and fix their eyes on Christ, as the author of Hebrews admonishes. Obedience (or the lack thereof) will always reflect the genuineness of one's faith. As John says in his first epistle, those who practice righteousness are righteous, those who practice sin, are of the devil. A Born Again Christian who sees their works decreasing, and sees sin starting to take hold in their life again, will be moved by the Spirit to repentance and confession of those sins, and will subsequently see a renewed growth of Spiritual Fruit in their lives. However, if they resist the conviction of the Holy Spirit and harden their hearts, deciding instead to continue in their sin, baring no fruit, as their faith dies, then Christ has said that He will cut them off.
@@beowulf.reborn you are begging the question. If obedience is the evidence of genuine faith. Then what are the parameters of that obedience that show the person has a real saving faith. What degree of obedience should they have. If I see that a person stopped drunkenness but is still an adulterer in his heart, therefore the adultery in the heart is evidence that they didn't have a saving faith to begin with. The problem is when you say that obedience is just evidence of a saving faith, to not beg the question you must answer what degree of obedience qualifies as evidence of a saving faith. ❓
Very good discussion! Nice having these two quests. I’ve appreciated both of their work, throughout the years. Cooper’s work was instrumental in my conversion to Lutheranism.
Absolutely marvellous debate / discussion! Jimmy Atkins and Jordan Cooper did a fabulous job. And if we have the body of Christ following their example there would be much good unity in the Body of Christ!
which unity? that of remaining divided by the traditional lines of division while treating us friendly?? - or would it rather be that protestant keep on lying about the catholic faith in order to bully those catholics who are not educated enough in order to separate them from the Church? Christian unity is something impossible to recover when millions decided that being heretic is something to be cherished....
@@silveriorebelo8045 great points and much agreement there. When we have men thinking like men than there will always be division. But when they make it their goal to follow what Christ said and taught then we will be much closer. Just because we don't agree with each other on all things there ought to be unity and communion with the body of Christ. And I don't mean whether or not you belong to this group or that but if you belong to Christ. On the very essentials of the Christian faith ought to be the standard not what denomination. It's a shame that the Eastern Orthodox broke fellowship with the Roman Catholic church and vise versa. I know why it happened but it has not been mended. That wound is still there. Thatwas the starting point in church history of great division and led to so many other splits from the Roman Church. It shouldn't be but I know you must know that. There ought to be everyone laying down their weapons and unifying all denominations on the essentials of Christian faith and no one calling this group or that group heretic unless they don't keep to the essence of the Christian faith. We all should have freedom for secondary matters and growth in maturity. It seems to me that many do not realize that we all have a journey to walk with God and not all is on same levels as with maturity and spiritually. This conversation with Atkins and Cooper was the way that many leaders ought to follow for the sake of the body of Christ not many bodies of Christ. We are all different members of that mystical body of Christ if we hold to the faith once delivered to the saints. When we are out of communion and unity with each other how can this be good for the body and how can it be good for the world? And where does the division stop or does it? Christ prayed in John 17 for unity. The Apostles exhorted and encouraged and commanded it. God is pleased with it.
@@antsmarching1234 Grace through faith working in love. Ephesians 2:8-10 NKJV For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Galatians 5:6 NKJV For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. Romans 11:13-22 NKJV For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. [22] Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. James 2:8-26 NKJV If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
@Eucharist Angel The Catechism is heretical according to whom exactly? I also don’t see how Titus and the paragraph the CCC are in contradiction. They use the same language. I have also seen your interpretation of James 2:14-22, elaborate on it please. Quote the entire passage and explain each verse. Also your claim that Jesus was mad at heretical teachings therefore you can as well. You can be mad at anything technically, but that doesn’t include ad hominems. Christ didn’t engage in this.
This was a super awesome and helpful dialogue. It seems like the claimed substantial disagreement here is that Lutherans believe we are justified by what Christ did FOR us and Catholics believe that we are justified by what Christ did IN us. However, Lutherans also believe that what Christ did for us produces real change in us, and Catholics believe that what Christ does in us happens because of what Christ did for us. These clarifications lead me to side with those who agreed to the Joint Declaration that disagreements are really more in emphasis rather than substance.
When a person is first justified it seems that there’s little disagreement as the person brings nothing to the table, it would be interesting though to have an in-depth discussion on that central issue
Thank you for this summary bc honestly I was feeling like maybe I needed to watch this a second time to figure out where the actual disagreement was. Mr. Cooper kept insisting that there was in fact disagreement but I wasn't understanding where.
I enjoyed this format and agree to the reasons why Jimmy believes it to be more edifying and productive. I wonder if James White would ever agree to such a format? 🤷🏽♂️
I prefer real hardcore debates. They are more interesting and way more productive because you get to see how an idea holds up under real scrutiny. There is no dancing around and trying to be nice, it’s just raw logic and seeing who has better arguments
This is much better then debates IMo, really trying to understand the other’s position, obviously there are real important differences but the unnecessary division generated by bad polemics is put aside
@@lucidlocomotive2014 real it isn’t actually, especially not with verbal debates, written is somewhat of a different matter. When it comes to verbal debates, often the skill of the debater is far more important than the actual truth of the claims being argued. I don’t know what you mean by pretending to be nice, is that what you think they’re doing here? Even in a debate you should show charity to other people, it’s not some chest thumping For ones side
@Prasanth Thomas to my knowledge "faith and works" is one unseperatable unit in Orthodoxy. You can't have or live just one of "it". We don't believe in the SOLAS.
I'm a Protestant. I wish I could be Catholic. I think if the Catholic church would say that all infallible dogma of the Church must have at least 2 Scriptures that clearly articulate the dogmatic statement, not through typology but directly states the dogma, the entire Body of Christ could be unified again within the Catholic Church. This one rule would be so helpful for us Protestants to be in unity with the Catholic Church again. I just can't be in unity right now because the Catholic Church says I must believe all the dogmatic statements to be Catholic, but I don't. I don't believe Mary was a perpetual virgin or was sinless. And I don't believe that it is ok to pray to Saints or to Mary or to invoke their intercession. I don't believe the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. I don't find any of this in Scripture. The Catholic Church is asking me to lie and say that I believe something that I can't find in Scripture. If the Catholic Church would make Scripture their supreme authority, the church could be in unity again. I hope that happens one day. I'm praying it does.
@@TJMcCarty I'll take you up on intercession of Saints. Now you said that you don't find this Scripture but would you change your mind on this one point, if I can show it to you Biblically?
@Eucharist Angel there’s no contradiction between CCC 18:21 and Titus 3:5. In fact, they are perfectly consistent. Perhaps there’s a prima facia problem, but that just means you should pay closer attention to the entirety of scripture.
@Eucharist Angel I’m afraid you are ignorant of the Church’s teachings on these matters, for example, about the relationship between works and grace. And I suspect it might come as a surprise to you that it didn’t take Luther, Calvin and the rest to repudiate Pelagianism; the Catholic Church dispensed with that heresy a long time ago. Take care of yourself and may God bless you.
@Eucharist Angel you misunderstand. What I meant to communicate was that if you truly understood what the Catholic Church taught about the relationship between works and grace, I don’t imagine you’d find it problematic. Anyway, there’s lots that can be said here, but I’ll stop now. Have a great day and God bless you.
@eucharistangel4662 Does it seem more likely that you are misunderstanding something or do you really think that the majority of Christians throughout history have fallen for such an obvious error which you can so easily detect?
Jimmy Akin is an example of God driven wisdom, knowledge and just a super hero of catholic apologetics. I would fast forward to his explanations. Dr. Is very kind and God loving. I pray God Blesses them both.
Excellent conversation. If only all theological discussion/debate was conducted like this . Two educated, well-spoken representatives of their faith tradition , vigorously upholding their point of view , but not disparaging the other person with personal attacks or flashy rhetorical tricks and "gotchas".
Found this video because I’ve been struggling between Lutheranism or Catholicism. Looks like I’ll struggle some more lol, on a serious note this was an amazing watch
Currently confessional Lutheran but struggling between Lutheranism and Catholicism. This was really eye opening. I would like to read the council of Trent without Martin Chemnitz' commentary now,
@@Solideogloria00 I attend Lutheran church (ELC), I would say their weakness is that they have multiple denominations like Protestants and can't agree on things like an ELC Lutheran can't get communion at a LCMS church. For Catholic faith, I find fault in papal infallibility, indulgences are a big thing for me, praying to Mother Mary, individual confession, etc.
We are all subject to the consequences of mortal sin. Only those in the state of grace (no mortal sin) see eternal life. How to live a life that allows you to achieve that goal depends on the theology of your church.
I was reluctant to watch because most debates are more about "winning" than truth. But this was an actual discussion with reason and charity on both sides. Thanks. Something within this topic that perhaps wasn't well explored is the difference between God's omnipotence vs the limits of human self-knowledge. That is, God knows me better than I know myself. God knows exactly and fully why I choose what I choose; what temptations I fought and what opportunities I wasted; what all my options were; what measure of His grace was granted to me individually in every moment; how the spiritual war among angels and demons affects me. God knows like no human being His own nature - Love - and how well or poorly I have conformed to Him. He knows better than I do if I have accepted and cooperated with His love. Akin cites saints who point to signs of living faith (ex: inspiration to charity and forgiveness). But Jesus says He is the vine which the Father will prune of branches that fail to bear fruit. I cannot earn salvation. Christ's blood alone pays for my sins. But is the fruit Christ bears through me sufficient to please the Father? Then again, Jesus says He will lose nothing the Father gives Him. He is the Good Shepherd who follows the wayward sheep. Christ moves me to join the Mass and accept Him in the Eucharist, which is certainly salvation if I accept Him in a state of grace. But what then is the final Judgment for? There is more to grace and judgment than we understand.
This is great. Here’d be a summary (I think) of the disagreements: 1.) For Protestants, justification is God’s declaration/recognition of a person as a *member of Christ*, and therefore belonging to Christ, an heir of eternal life, and “righteous” as an adopted child of God. For Catholics, justification involves the making of the sinner as righteous. So it’s more than God’s declaration and verdict on a sinner’s life that these things are true, but the renewal of the inner person as well. 2.) For Protestants, one is engrafted into Christ by faith alone. This faith must be a faith that works through love; it must be effective in good works. But faith alone is the sole means by which one is United to Christ, and therefore made an heir of eternal life. The righteousness one receives in justification, for Protestants, is the “in-the-right” verdict pronounced by God on the sinner as a real member of Christ and therefore an heir of all the promises. For Catholics, I’m unclear what the role of Christ is in forging our union with Christ, at least expressed here. 3.) Can you grow in justification? For Protestants, while justification has a past, present, and future dimension, you cannot grow in justification. Justification is the verdict pronounced on a sinner’s life whether they are United to Christ or not, and thus belong to God or not. You cannot be “more God’s son or daughter”, though you can grow into the likeness of Christ and your possession of salvation, since salvation includes glorification. And since God reckons me as righteous now, he justified me (=regards me as his) every day. For Catholics, justification is something you can grow in because it denotes the making of a person as righteous.
49:08-49:35 As a Protestant this is exactly how I feel about veneration of the saints and some of the forms in which Catholics pray to Mary and the saints. It makes me personally uncomfortable because I associate these acts as acts of worship that should be done for God only. I’m not here to outright condemn this or say it is wrong, but what Jimmy says here about Romans 14 is exactly how I feel. Because I perceive it this way, I could never take part of it or I would feel like I am going contrary to my faith. And that’s why I probably could not become Catholic, even though I don’t disagree with much of the other beliefs of the Catholic faith. Do any other Protestants agree?
Hj, there is a huge chasm between the honor (latria) we give to God alone and the honor (dulia)we give to creatures. The difference is easy to distinguish once you understand that Catholic worship entails sacrifice. We offer the sacrifice made for us by Jesus to God at every mass; the causative act of our redemption. This is the faith from the beginning, only dropped by reformers 1500 years later. We also offer ourselves as living sacrifices (Rom 12:1). To creatures, who we do honor, we make no sacrifice; that would not be just. So I don’t think you would so much have a problem understanding that we should honor people like Abraham, other Saints and even figures like George Washington. Justice merely requires we give each their due. Another place this comes up is in prayer, and prayer just means ask. Prayer has, for non Catholics, replaced the act of sacrifice and this is why they are so squeamish about Catholics asking for prayers among the Saints. IMHO
@@eternalbyzantium262 or I was even thinking another debate on God's existence but that's a good idea. Alex O'Connor often talks about how animal suffering is a dilemma for him in accepting God's existence.
Excellent discussion. I appreciate both of you and your knowledge tremendously and thank God for persons who can so clearly discuss these difficult topics so nicely. God bless all of you. THANKS MATT!! APPRECIATE THIS!! BLESSINGS 👐🕯🕯🕯👐🔔
Fantastic conversation, gentlemen! I was happy to hear you both asking probing questions around points of disagreement. I feel like there was growth in understanding on both sides! As a former LCMS Lutheran and now Catholic, it still seems to me that the core disagreement on justification is over imputed righteousness vs. infused righteousness: whether it is a forensic declaration of Christ's very own righteousness imputed to us or an infusion of sanctifying grace merited for us by Christ's work on the cross? After researching this question quite a bit, it seems to me that the position that Trent ended up on, viz. the idea of infused sanctifying grace as the formal cause of our justification, is what is most in line with the traditions of the Church and the Bible. It also seems that Luther's position of the extrinsic imputation of Christ's very own righteousness, was a complete novelty to the Reformation, as can be seen here by one of the most prominent modern day scholars, Alister McGrath, on the historical development of the doctrine justification in Christian thought: "The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external. In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification." McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126 "Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186 It seems to me that Luther, himself, was even aware of the novelty of some of his positions, but for some reason that wasn't a problem for him or many of his followers: "Of this difference between the Law and the Gospel nothing can be discovered in the writings of the monks or scholastics, nor for that matter in the writings of the ancient fathers. Augustine understood the difference somewhat. Jerome and others knew nothing of it. The silence in the Church concerning the difference between the Law and the Gospel has resulted in untold harm. Unless a sharp distinction is maintained between the purpose and function of the Law and the Gospel, the Christian doctrine cannot be kept free from error." **Luther, Matin. Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Chatper 3, v. 19. (1535). I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy to anyone exploring the historical justification debate between Lutherans and Catholics. It was highly influential on my own conversion to the Catholic Church from the LCMS Lutheran Church. This book argues that the Joint Declaration on Justification (1999) was not an accurate portrayal of either the Lutheran or Catholic positions on justification.This book claims (and I now agree) that the crux of the difference between the two views is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification: is it the imputation of Christ’s righteousness extra nos (Lutherans) or is it the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer (Catholics)? Dr. Malloy makes his case by surveying the two side’s positions on justification throughout history, including the failed reconciliation attempts at the Diet of Regensburg, the Council of Trent, modern Lutheran views, and finally a critique of the Joint Declaration. This was one of the most important books for solidifying my views that the Catholic Church is actually right about justification and does not teach any form of “works righteousness” or Pelagianism. It seems to me that Dr. Malloy does a very good job portraying Lutheran ideas fairly and heavily cites directly from the Lutheran Confessions. For anyone interested, I also wrote more about all this in my own summary of my research in my conversion process here: www.follyofthecross.com/category/catholicism/fullness-of-the-truth/ God bless!
I think this dialogue comes down to Romans 4. I think Cooper pushed Akin on this several times and I think Cooper has the best answer to justification being continual. The justification before ungodly Abraham and David was still based on "not of works" even after they both have been following God. A great discussion overall. I learned a lot from both sides.
Not based on works , but based on faith does not mean irrespective to behavior. It's based on faith contingent on behavior. Whole point of Romans for is you don't need to be circumsized
@@fredarroyo7429 You are adding to the text; the text says faith, it doesn't say faith contingent on behavior. "But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." - Romans 4:5
@@fireflames3639 my friend you don’t know what that passage means . How does one work not? He would have to not be born to neither work good nor iniquity .
@@fredarroyo7429 No, you are misunderstanding the text; it is saying that we need to not trust in our own works whether good or evil works but renounce them and trust alone in Christ wherein God justifies the UNGODLY.
This was a great discussion. For me, the central issue between those under the pope and those aren't is exactly that: the Papacy. I think all other issues are secondary to that.
Whatever the differences are, there is no justification to split the church. We stay together and we work through the differences. This is the kind of spousal equivalent commitment we must have for one another regardlessly.
Two of my favorites...they are both very charitable and easy enough on a topic that is fairly close...it would be interesting to see something more foundational like Sola Scriptura
One of the issues with Catholic vs. Lutheran debates are that the two Churches are very much in harmony with one another. Outside of Allowing Marriage of its pastors/priests and the nature of the Eucharist and the Papacy there are very few differences. Lutherans even have their list of Saints and highly respect mary although they may differ on some points as to her receiving Hyperdulia. and in the matter of apparitions. But mainly the Theology is vastly the same. In a similar vein as the similarity existing between Anglicanism and Catholicism. their similarities to Catholicism is quote similar to the parallels found between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. While the language used to describe the theology is different the theology is almost precisely the same. I think it would have been helpful to have a debate or conversation between the three Churches Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran. this might shake loose a lot of information concerning their differences.
This is my favorite conversation between a Protestant and a Catholic. So that's partly what makes me proud of Dr. Cooper and Mr. Akin for how politely and calmly they talk with each other. Since I'm a staunch Catholic traditionalist, I try to practice Catholicism as though Vatican II hadn't introduced any novelties, novelties I pray the Catholic Church will abolish. But I need non-Catholic Christians to know that I'm sorry I've discussed theology with them mostly because I longed to win a debate. Sadly, though I hate to admit it, I did that mostly because I wanted to feel better about myself. I wanted to be the victor instead of someone humble enough to just search for the truth. For me, the Catholic Church is the only one Christ founded. So, in my opinion, only it is his Mystical Body. A non-Catholic Christian can be in the Catholic Church as a nonmember of it. In fact, anyone who goes to heaven gets there because he'll be in or attached to the Catholic Church when he dies. But my traditionalist beliefs don't excuse the way I treated many non-Catholic Christians. My lousy behavior was and always has been my fault, not theirs.
Please reread this part of Lumen Gentium's theological note while you remember that Vatican II didn't define anything. "Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." www.fisheaters.com/notapraevia.html Where did Vatican II require us to accept, say, Pope John Paul II's interreligious prayer meetings? I doubt it because in Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI writes: "10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills."[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24] www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html If it obligates us to attend Pope Paul VI's rite of Mass, why would Cardinal Ottaviani, who headed the Holy Office during Vatican II, say this about that rite? "Most Holy Father, Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations: 1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery. 2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith." lms.org.uk/ottaviani-intervention Just a friendly reminder. It's probably not a great idea for anyone to publicly accuse a stranger of sinning when there's no way to know his or her intentions. I go to confession each Sunday morning. And I confessed again this afternoon. So my conscience is clear.
That is an insane statement. Even Christians who are not Catholic are still Catholic when they are in heaven? Statements like this turn off us majority protestant Christians in the U.S. I am a Christian and I will never be Catholic.
@@Cuyt24 Giovanni, do you believe that in heaven, people will disagree about theology when the Holy Trinity is there to answer each question and settle each dispute? Many Christians, including Catholics, believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, infallible, and inerrant because God wrote it. Suppose I'm right in believing that Christ founded Catholicism and the Catholic Church. Then I expect each Christian to be Catholic in heaven, even if he was non-Catholic on earth. In heaven, everyone will agree unanimously on each divinely revealed truth because he'll see the revealer face to face. Fr. A. Roussel wrote a book called "Liberalism and Catholicism," where he defined liberalism as the attempt to reconcile the Catholic Church with the principles from the French Revolution. He says that in his sense of the word, liberals are fanatics for autonomy. I doubt that most Christians want to be doctrinally autonymous, to believe anything they want to believe. But since Protestants have splintered into about 40,000 denominations, it's as though they want that autonomy. I don't want it. I want to know the truth, especially divinely revealed truth. The Bible tells me that the truth will set me free. That suggests that how free I am will depend on how much truth I know. Sin enslaves sinners partly because they believe some falsehoods. They mistake bad things for good ones, and falsehoods are bad.
@@williammcenaney1331 That is called being a Christian. A follower of Christ. You really want to hold on to the Catholic label instead of being a follower of Christ? You are not as bad as other Catholics who told me that I am going to hell because I follow Jesus and the blood of Christ has saved me from my sins. My baptism in a protestant church means I am going to hell though. What would Jesus say to that? Catholicism is a cultural identity at this point. Catholics are a minority in English speaking countries and they are defensive for some reason. I was a Christian without a home and was looking to join a church and was turned off by Catholics who told me I was going to hell because I refuse to pray to saints. I am happy to find a church where I can grow and found a church that follows the Bible "Sola Scriptura". There are many bad actors on our side as well who tell genuine followers of Christ they are going to hell because they are Catholics. Humans are fallen and imperfect. We can never meet God's high standards.
@@Cuyt24 Many people follow Christ, and I'm happy to agree that they're Christians. But I study extrabiblical sources from the early because I want to know what Christians believed in the first 800 years of Church history. If I ignore Church history and ancient Christian doctrine, I probably will misinterpret the Bible when I read 21st-century ideas into it. But I'm grateful for that context partly because it immerses me in ancient Church history . It tells me what the early Church believed the Bible taught. My research shows me that the early Christians were capital-C Catholics because they described themselves and the Church that way. So I'll be happy to quote ancient sources if you want. Some Catholics tell you that you're going to hell when they don't know that. I don't even know whether I'll go to heaven, since the Council of Trent teaches that for anyone to know for sure that he'll go there, he needs a special message from God. Many evangelicals say that know that there's nothing they can do to lose their places in heaven after they "get saved." In one sense, I can agree with that because people in heaven people will stay there forever. No one will kick them out and they'll always want to stay there. Some evangelicals tell me the same sort of thing you've heard from some Catholics. They tell you that you'll be damned. Some people assure me that to get to heaven, I need merely to admit that I'm a ssinner, repent, and accept Christ as my Lord and Savior. Then they unknowingly contradict themselves. Although I've already done all they think I needed to go to heaven, they warn me that if I'll be a Catholic when I die, I'll be damned. They're saying that although I've done all I needed to do to go there, I still need to do something else to reach it. Seventh-day Adventists tell me that. Other evangelicals brimming with the best intentions give me tracts where the writers argue against caricatures of Catholic doctrine. I've heard that a belong to a cult where members pray to statues and worship the Virgin Mary. These people mean well. But they don't understand Catholic doctrine. Catholics who think you'll be damned have no way to know where you'll spend the afterlife. Instead of telling you things they can't know, they should be removing the logs from their eyes to see well enough to point out the tin piece of sawdust in someone else's eye. I want everyone to be Catholic because my research convinces that will increase his chances of getting there. But the Catholic Church teaches that it's a sin to force non-Catholics to become Catholics. I'm not trying to coerce you. Though I believe I know a lot about Catholicism, I want others to check what I say. Don't think I'm an expert. Do your homework if you want to know what it is that the Catholic Church teaches. Don't get your information from the Catholic Church's critics. Learn it from Catholic sources. Try the Catechism of St. Pius X, say. With the basics under your belt, read the Catechism of the Council of Trent. They're online. www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286 archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft/thecatechismofth00donouoft_djvu.txt Here's the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus to prove that the council Fathers believed that their council taught infallibly in 431 A.D. and that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.x.ii.html My research convinces me that the early Church was capital-C Catholic. That's partly why I'm Catholic now after attending evangelical services for years.
I would really like to hear Dr. Cooper explain more about how faith cannot exist with mortal sin and yet also claim that Christians can have an absolute assurance of salvation (not to be confused with assurance of perseverance - see below). In fact, I often hear Lutherans say one of the main reasons that they could never be Catholic is because Catholics deny the absolute assurance of salvation. I wonder how can Lutherans believe in the possibility of having absolute assurance of salvation plus sola fide without ending up in an antinomian position or a contradiction caused by the living vs dead faith distinction? Context: It seems Luther sometimes claimed sola fide means if we have faith there is no sin that can separate us from God: “Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone." (On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church) This seems like antinomianism (whether Luther said it was or not) and it contradicts the Bible (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.). On the other hand, Melanchthon seemed to advocate for a view that a saved person with a living faith wouldn't ever commit a grave/mortal sin: “Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV, 115; cf. Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article III) This seems more biblical, in calling for a living vs. dead faith distinction (James 2:17), but it also seems to remove the possibility of having assurance of salvation because then you have to look at your own works for evidence of having a living faith or not. Since sin clouds our judgment (Psalm 36), you could easily be mistaken about having a living faith and blind yourself to the fact you may be committing mortal/grave sins, for example a church going alcoholic. It seems to me you can only have assurance of salvation on a pure antinomian view, which most Lutherans and Martin Luther, himself, are ardently against (see Luther's "The Antinomian Disputations"). Anything less than antinomianism appears to contradict sola fide + assurance of salvation, though. EDIT: Small point of clarification. I am not taking about assurance in the sense that one cannot ever lose their faith, I am talking about assurance in the sense that if I believe I have saving faith then I cannot be mistaken that I do. Lutherans definitely believe it is possible to lose your salvation. The question as it pertains to the dispute with Catholics is whether one can only lose their salvation through apostasy (losing their faith) or if there are sins that are so grave that their inherit nature causes one to lose their salvation, regardless of whether they have faith or not? The latter is the Catholic position on mortal sins and how they destroy the life of grace inside of us even if we still believe Jesus is the Lord and died for our sins. The Bible seems to also indicate it is possible to have faith and yet fall into mortal sin (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.). God bless!
Did he say Lutherans have absolute assurance? When Matt Fradd asked him directly he said someone could lose your salvation, and that is the Lutheran standard answer. They arent Calvinists.
In my experience, when a Lutheran talks about assurance, the answer is often a contrast to a Calvinist answer. If you are a Calvinist you can never be certain if God *really* extended his grace to you, e.g. in the sacraments, because he only does that for the elect. The Lutheran answer would be: you can be 100% sure that God made you a promise in baptism. You can be 100% sure that Christ is present in the supper to give you forgiveness of sins. What you, of course, cannot be 100% certain of is whether you will perservere in your faith to the end. But when a Lutheran speaks about assurance, he speaks about these objective things God does/did for us.
@@logansweet4190 and @ Theophilus. Sorry, this is hard to articulate all the nuance clearly. I am not taking about assurance in the sense that one cannot lose their faith, I am talking about assurance in the sense that if I believe I have saving faith then I cannot be mistaken that I do. Lutherans definitely believe it is possible to lose your salvation. The question as it pertains to the dispute with Catholics is whether one can only lose their salvation through apostasy or if there are sins that are so grave that their inherit nature causes one to lose their salvation, regardless of whether they have faith or not? The latter is the Catholic position on mortal sins and the Bible seems to also indicate it is possible to have faith and yet fall into mortal sin (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.). I hope that helps clear things up a bit. God bless!
So I did hear Dr. Cooper is affiliated with the Missouri Synod. It seems to me that at times he sees that he is close to the Catholic position, but he wants to find reasons not to. Hardened heart? Still, he is a polite and cordial person and entirely likeable. Jimmy was great as usual.
Dr. Cooper is affiliated with American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC) which is in fellowship with the Missouri Lutheran Synod (LCMS). Dr. Cooper accurately confessed the confessional Lutheran position on justification. The Lutheran view of justification is close to the Catholic view … far more than other Protestant groups (e.g. baptist Presbyterian).
It would be interesting to have them switch places and try to present the other side as clearly and articulately and then have the other do correction so there is a clear understanding of the other side. Generally I think this should be the case especially for heated debates but this one was so congenial and there was good attempts at understanding the other side. This was a beautiful "debate". Speak the truth and let God move the heart.
hanks you for your comment and support. your comment and constant support have brought me this far. Keep supporting saviourfoundation111@gmail.com it's an orphanage that has a baby dying from cancer please send an email to MD in charge for more Support
While I like the idea of having each other present the opposing side and then receive corrections to their understanding, I think that wouldn't work well. Jimmy represents the Catholic view, since we have a magisterium that binds. Jordan doesn't have the same and his beliefs while being seriously informed by his tradition would more likely be individualized. The Catholic needs to ask the protestant lots of questions to get at what they believe and perhaps restate what they are hearing to show comprehension.
Great conversation between two very knowledgeable gentlemen. Had Martin Luther been more like Dr. Copper in this discussion, Lutheranism would today be a Catholic order like Franciscans or Dominicans. We would all be one Catholic Church 🙏🏻
Nah. Clement VII and Paul III didn’t want a truly ecumenical council that could have united the church because they undoubtedly would have had to yield political power…so they delayed and delayed. And France was too interested in a divided HRE. By the time Cardinal Contrini and his ecumenical colleagues died off the moment had passed and a rump of a council led by the Pope and his people convened in Trent with no desire to unite, only anathemize.
This subject I often use as proof, and I see it in this debate as well, of the fact that Lutherans and Catholics are like Brothers who disagree/argue for the sake of arguing. The vast majority of disagreements are semantic and irrelevant to the layman. It's mostly high level, theological debate, a toying with and war that puts souls in harms way for the sake of ego.
It's nice to hear a friendly and civil Catholic vs. Protestant discussion like this. Both sides are willing to lay down their egos and being respectful towards each other. It appears to me that Jordan Cooper is really close to the one true church that Jesus founded :) praying that he'd someday see where the truth really is
I am no theologian but these guys see to agree on almost everything. Any differences are minimal. On that basis I am really struggling to see what the protest is all about. Think it is time to end the protest
Confessional Lutheran, in my mind the Roman church has never successfully rebutted Chemnitz’s Examination of Trent. Justification is daily as Dr. Cooper points out, as Treatise #1 of Luther’s 95 says the Christian life is one of daily repentance. But it does not grow. It is, or is not. At our adoption - our baptism - we are adopted to God’s family. We don’t grow as more adopted, though we may grow as better adopted sons/daughters. From this the biblical understanding is not that our baptism is shipwrecked by sin anymore than adoption is blown up by a child’s sin. We may walk away from our baptism in sin and unbelief but the antidote through confession and absolution and receiving forgiveness through the Supper is to return to our baptism as God’s unchanging promise to us. Mr. Akin always tries to add that it has to be more complex than that because there’s an internal transformative aspect. Yes there is, but that’s never the basis for our standing. That’s a part of the blessed grace He bestows but never a basis for the standing. That basis for standing in confidence and assurance is the Lutheran disagreement and what Scripture presents. Another way to look at this is only one person ever earned heaven - Christ. We’re either attached to Christ and share in his merits and ride his coattails, or we’re not. Mr. Akin jokes that he’ll barely get in. I see that as more than a side joke it’s a reflection of his theology. A pious Lutheran would have a similar humbleness about himself - looking at himself and say I WON’T get in - but in the question of heaven have great confidence because his ‘getting in’ is based upon objectively what Christ did in his passion and resurrection and delivered through the sacraments. Our Sanctification over life may be quite uneven but it’s relative success or unsuccess is not a change of justification. This is the theology that lets the saints of God - all baptized believers - say “Let the redeemer of The Lord say so”. Because they look to their baptism connecting them to what Christ accomplished for them and can know they will die and live forever in heaven. go to heaven. We do not look at our sanctification or our works or if our faith was “formed” adequately (though we know the faith given to us contains inward transformation as well). Mr. Akins said he doesn’t have the name of Christ. But he does. He’s got the same surname when he was baptized into Christ’s family. That’s the foundation of our lives as believers. The internal transformation is a benefit and a will of God but it’s not the foundation of the adoption into His family. An aside - Mr. Akin says Jesus wasn’t properly tempted, but Hebrews 4:14 says he was tempted in every way that we are. We do NOT ‘duh’ need purgatory. This invention comes about as the logical step of the Roman system. But the unbiblical system of treasury of merits and focus on internal transformation as foundation is the issue. Christ is our propitiation and we are redeemed. I can as one of the pious look at my baptism and what Christ has done and have assurance. Purgatory is invented to deal with the flotsam of a broken system. Though civil and somewhat enlightening, these two gentlemen reminded me of heavyweights toying with each other and pulling their punches. They both have things they’d like to say but are holding back. There’s some good that comes from that it enlightens understanding of actual positions. But i still walk away thinking these guys both left most of their powder dry. (Although maybe not Mr. Akin. The spirit of JDDJ is to minimize word definition so that theological statements can be made sounding like agreement but not meaning the same thing to both parties. I see a touch of that in him.)
You are much more read than I am, so I would like to just learn from you if that’s ok. As a Roman Catholic I have seen purgatory as the “place” which prepares me to be able to, of my own free will, accept the beatific vision, not as a place where somehow I am made worthy in the eyes of God, since that was assured of me (and promised/shown) by Christs sacrifice on the cross. Where am I going awry here? You obviously don’t subscribe to purgatory, so I suppose the question I would have is by what mechanism are you able to behold the face of God directly after you die? I think often of Adam hiding from God in Genesis, and I guess transcribe that on what I would feel if I was thrust into His gaze with all the sins I have yet to forgive myself for, even though God already did! Thanks and God Bless!
@@atlas944 Sure i’ll do my best! This past sunday the readings where the vine and branch, and we are to abide in Him, and in that abiding we grow good fruit. A perfect reading for Lutheran (and i would argue biblical) theology - we don’t achieve branch status or even productive branch status by efforts to grow fruit. Rather our abiding in Christ, being a part of His church and receiving grace and forgiveness through the means of grace esp. Eucharist brings His life through us and we cannot help but grow good fruit. Our baptism as long as we don’t walk away from in unbelief is our admittance and staying in His family. At death our bodies and soul are separated. In our current flesh we cannot see God and live as our mortal flesh is corrupt and sinful. Our souls however go to God. We are His forgiven saints and our sins are as far as the east is from the west. We lose the parts of us that war against the new man, the new creation in us. What is left is the new man, the new creation. Our good works go with us as well, our sin and bad works left behind with the corruption of the body. At Christ’s return we receive new bodies, perfect bodies that unite with our souls. we are then as we were created to be, with perfect bodies and no sin. We behold God in our new bodies as we have no sin. Purgatory assumes a working of the consequences (though not the guilt) of our sinful lives, but in the description above of what happens it’s not needed. It also has no Scriptural proof texts that hold water (the sited texts to my reading and the Lutheran reading are not addressing purgatory at all). The new man in you is prepared for the beatific vision, the old adam is not. those are separated at death. If you die abiding in Him in faith you will be with God (who the soul experiences God outside of the body is not exact, though the Transfiguration provides some insight), and when you receive your new perfect body you will see him as a man, a perfect man. Praise be to God our future in Him is secure and blessed, to Him be Glory!
@@dougnewman3935 I commend you on how concise and articulate your reply was, really wonderful. On the surface it sounds like we are both saying “we lose the parts of us that are at war with the new man”. You do not describe how this might work, correct me if I am wrong then in assuming your answer would be that God makes it so through no dependency on us having to experience anything. Whereas I would say purgatory is the “losing of the parts of us at war with the new man” and it is achieved by sanctifying me to ready me for the beatific vision. So then, a follow up question if you will entertain it. Will I have my mind in heaven in your theology? As in, will I have memories? If so, and my memories also contain the stains of sin here on earth, then those need to be cleared before I would be able to even look at infinite goodness. Now, if those memories are just part of my flesh here and will be gone when I get my new body in heaven, then is it really my mind in heaven? If my memories are retained in all of this, then - and this may reveal just how human and doubtful my thinking is on this matter - I do believe I would need to be put through something that brings me to the point of all of the stain of sin being sanctified in my own mind. Jesus already sanctified the suffering in the eyes of God, but it’s hard for me to fully grasp seeing the beatific vision without reconciling my own stains of sins and it is impossible for me to understand how it would be “my” mind if God just strips those things away without me being conscious of it or having a choice in it. I am reminded of a scene in the Great divorce by CS Lewis where the person already in heaven is talking to the person who could go there if they chose to and telling them basically “well of course you were wronged and committed wrongs, but none of that matters here now.” Human me wants to know how I get to the point where it is purely joyous to behold the beatific vision while retaining my memories. All things are possible with God, so I am not trying to say that I can ever really understand it, but I am glad we can at least banter about it! God bless
@@atlas944 Good and respectful discussion thank you. I your view of why a purgatory is not RC doctrine. Purgatory is a state of purification that allows souls to be cleansed of the consequences of their sins so that they can be ready to enter into God's presence. I’ve based my arguments against based on that definition. Your definition seems to be more about losing the old man (i would say at death when our body is separated from our soul) and preparing the mind and memories for the beatific vision (i believe i’m describing your angle on this correctly). Since you are coming from this angle i’ll try to take this on, and not any further the classic RC purgatory doctrine. Regarding what we will become the starting point is “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”. We can’t really know nor understand. But we know we will know and be known. We know marriage won’t exist (i suspect because we will know and be known so thoroughly it isn’t necessary). we know we will be welcomed as from the great tribulation . i suspect our memories will be so transformed as you and CS Lewis suggest these will not be an issue. it can be fun to speculate but i only rely on spiritual truths based on revealed Scripture. Scripture doesn’t suggest anywhere a place or need for this. The their was told This Day you will be with me in paradise. Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration seems engaged with Christ and there’s no suggesting a post death journey as you describe. i have to fall back that the Scriptures don’t suggest the need for the doctrine nor evidence of it.
@@dougnewman3935 I concur with the RC definition as you have given it, in terms of my argument. I think I tried to hard to pull things into my own ABILITY to see the beatific vision without such cleansing and as such pulled my thoughts down too much into the “old man” or earthly realm. I think your response regarding that we cannot know what our memories will be like makes a lot of sense. I am hopeful I will still possess ALL the memories I had during my journey through this valley of death, but that they be transformed in a way that lets them be sanctified and thus allows me to behold God directly. But there is no scripture on this and so, as you said, this is where your vouched for inputs would naturally end, and your own hopes and metaphysical hypothesis begin. And maybe what I am saying is just that, a hope, that isn’t based in anything and has become more of an idle daydream exercise for me, which probably isn’t an ideal use of my time here on this earth! I really appreciate this great discussion and your incredibly helpful insight and charity. I consider you a brother (assuming based on name) in Christ and hope you consider me the same. May God bless you!
See, the complications in the conversation, the subtle nuances between what Luther taught and what Tent taught, is why people tend to focus on simpler but less important (to Luther's mind anyway) differences between how Protestantism and Catholicism look.
My son, a recent convert to Catholicism, and I are having heavy debates (I am winning, no doubt :-) ) In the midst of all that he sent me a youtube: "reformation piggybackers" --got a smile and you know, we all need to smile more . . . That said, I am trying hard to understand Catholicism more. I asked him to send me his best guy and he sent Akin. I probably got a couple of hours into him now. This morning, I sent him my observatons Thanks for the humor. I was really happy to see it. Especially, in the midst of our hot topics where I am admittedly / intentionally tough --hats off to you again, son. Frustrating morning here with your guy Akin. In the “Pints” RUclips below, starting at 30:00 or so, Akin begins to fuzzy up the faith/works distinctions and even goes so far to say around 32:00 that the Protestant equation of Catholicism: Justification = Faith and works is, in Akin’s words “reprehensible” And that, “you can do a google search of everything Catholic and never find those words. . . “ What!? I have no trouble seeing that the google search would not yield those words. That is not the point. In these scenarios, one point is rigorous honesty. He went on from there something about faith from love is enough. (Where did that come from?) “sola fides ex amore,” I would say satirically . . . Maybe I am too tough on Akin? For example: One of more favorite helps when dealing with students, or clients, etc., is the study of calories burned, inattentive vs. listening. And the study showed that more calories are burned when we listen. . . . To me, that is work. Works, therefore, in my mind, is something / anything that we do. And in this case anything that we have to do. Sola fides as a Catholic tenant? Listening to him a casual listener or a novice would take that as what Akin is saying about Catholicism. But it just ain’t so? Barring I have missed something, Akin has fallen in my estimation, “reprehensibly” Dad
Christian Ste... Well your right about Justification is in Jesus alone. And he will definitely frown on unrepentant Mortal Sins which are alot more than just Apostasy. Know your Ten Commandments!
34:39 and and 35:10 and 35:20 - Jimmy explains that works don’t forgive us, that “faith+works” is an oversimplification of the Catholic position on justification. 35:24 - Jimmy said, “we don’t believe you have to do good works to get into a state of justification.” 40:15 - Jimmy believes that Romans 4 is about the whole Mosaic law, not just ceremonial works. Jimmy said, “What will make you right with God is Christ, not the Mosaic law.” 42:52 and 43:04 - Both agree that “works of the law” isn’t restricted to circumcision. 46:25 - Justification by Faith 47:14 - What is Faith? 47:52 - Cooper says that faith is trust. 50:28 and 51:56 and 53:41 - How is Faith used in scripture? 58:23 and 59:19 - Basically, Akin says that you need repentance for justification. Charity does not get you into a state of justification, good works flow from justification. You can’t do such works without justification. 1:01:40 and 1:02:46 - How to get saved in simple terms? As said by Akin and Cooper, we should repent, believe, and be baptized.
Great conversation! Is having a respectful, productive conversation on RUclips even allowed? It happens so rarely. I think the main disagreement is over infused vs. imputed righteousness. As was made clear, both Lutherans and Catholics believe in both kinds of righteousness. However, I think they eventually got to the heart of the disagreement, which is over the logical order of infused and imputed righteousness. In the Lutheran view, God's declaration of forgiveness in Christ through faith (apart from love or works of the law in any sense) is logically prior to our own, internal transformation; in fact, the forensic declaration of righteousness is the cause of our own fulfillment of the law in love. In the Catholic view, God infuses the righteousness of Christ into us, and our internal transformation (our gaining of faith and love) is the cause of God's forensic declaration that we are not guilty. I believe the Lutheran view is biblical, for a few reasons. First, Paul talks about justification "through faith" and "apart from the law" in both Romans 3 and Galatians 3. In Galatians 3, he also talks about the "promise of the Spirit" being received "through faith." What does he mean by "works of the law" and "apart from the law"? Some have argued that he means only ceremonial works of the law like circumcision, but that was not the view Jimmy Akin presented (and I'm glad he did not present this view). One reason this view is wrong is because Paul gives an example of the law in Romans 7, and his example is coveting (which is not a ceremonial work like circumcision or food laws). But if "works of the law" and "apart from the law" are broader than ceremonial laws, what could it mean? Both Paul and Jesus give us the answer. From Paul: "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” (Gal 5:14) And from Jesus: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (Matt 22:37-40). This makes it clear that "the law" and "love" are essentially synonyms (or maybe "love" and "works of the law" are synonyms). Thus, when Paul talk about being justified "through faith" and "apart from the law", he means that faith alone in Christ, apart from and prior to love, justifies us. What's the importance of love then? Paul tells us: "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Gal 5: 22-23). Love--that is, works of the law--is the "fruit" of the Spirit. They come after our justification through faith. This is also clear in Gal. 5:13: "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another." Notice the order: we are first made free; as a result, we are "servants" working "through love". In other words, we are declared righteous through faith, and as a result of this declaration are infused with our own righteousness and love, and begin our good works. I think the New Testament clearly supports the Lutheran view of justification, but the difference is somewhat subtle. A Calvinist/Reformed one-time forensic justification is certainly not biblical, and I am glad Catholics agree with us Lutherans on that point!
Is it worth a schism over the "logical order" of these righteousnesses? And even though your reasoning may be good, how can you know that you have the right teaching? Let's say you are fair-minded, and therefore say to yourself that you think you're 80% sure you're interpretation of these matters is correct. To enter into schism with the church (as Luther did) should require 100% assuredness, and it's hard to get over such a technical matter (the logical order) - don't you think?
@@mortensimonsen1645 I think that a) the schism occured for more than the reason of justification and b) no human institution is absolut correct in every matter. The Catholic Church even acknowledges this herself. E.G.: If someone is excommunicated it doesn't necessarily follow that he will go to hell.
It would have been interesting to have Dr. Cooper talk about his view of Glorification? What happens to a person between death and at the point of standing before God and what is the righteousness of the person at that point?
We essentially are granted access to heaven on the basis of the merit of Christ alone, not the righteousness worked within us. The righteousness worked within us that we cooperate with, is the basis for greater degrees of glory in heaven. Essentially we see death as the purgation of our inward sinfulness. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. Romans 7:24-25 ESV
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 "We essentially are granted access to heaven on the basis of the merit of Christ alone, not the righteousness worked within us." It must be more nuanced than this because if its strictly on the merits of Christ then everyone would be admitted to Heaven, there needs to be a movement within us to cooperate with that merit or grace? " Essentially we see death as the purgation of our inward sinfulness. " and is that necessary before we stand before God and if you say yes then that there is the essence of the theology of Purgatory and this would be where words can present barriers due to unfamiliarity.
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 thank you for your kindness. I would suspect that there are some who would argue that we are in a fallen state even in Heaven that we are covered by the righteousness of Christ. This seems to contradict what the Church has held since the beginning and what seems rational and reasonable for those who earnestly desire total communion with God, it would seem that that portion of our being that is still fallen wouldn't enter into that unity. May God abundantly bless you and those around you. Peace and blessings - William
I get that Catholics like everything to be nuanced with a complicated answer. But if the Gospel was meant for all people and if we all agree God wishes to save as many as possible, why would the way to salvation be so purposefully complicated? I'm not saying it's easy of course, as the narrow path is not easy, but its simple. Christ says his yoke is light and the burden lifted. There is no need to overcomplicate a simple gospel. There is no need to put needless barriers in front of salvation where there shouldn't be.
'Confessional Catholic' Hey @JimmyAkin you coined a term. I was a Confessional Lutheran before I became Catholic. Confessional Catholic sounds really good to me.
I'm an ex-Catholic who grew up in the 50s and 60s. Nothing like what was said at the beginning of this discussion was taught to us back then. I'd like to know when it started? All we knew was we were working our own way to heaven through keeping God's and the church's commandments, and going to confession to have a priest forgive our sins.
I am not a Roman Catholic, but Roman Catholicism has never taught that works, in and of themselves, save you. The grace of Christ is what saves you. It seems to me that you had a bad understanding of what the church taught.
@@doriesse824 Just because you grew up in it does not mean you truly understood it. Based on what you said, it appears that you did not truly understand Catholic doctrine.
@@ricardooliveira9774 the most misinterpreted verse by Catholics since the Middle Ages. Like Augustine says in his 295th sermon. It is peter from the rock and not the rock from peter. Built upon his declaration of faith and not on the man himself.
@@4emrys misinterpretation is the primary reason as to why a CHURCH is so important. Sola scriptura is the driving force behind each and every new denomination - whether there are 33,000 or 2 denominations, there shouldn't be any!. Each verse must be interpreted as best as we possibly can (given our human flaws) through discussion, and through the Church. We must have faith that the Pontifical Biblical Commission are doing their absolute best to get things as right as possible. They are scholars and selected based on their dedication to scriptural studies. The Church also keeps PRIDE in check. You don't have the all the answers or correct interpretations so don't think otherwise. Come back to the one true Church. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. ❤️
It’s rather Infused Righteousness , and we choose to grow in that righteousness or Imputed Righteousness , it doesn’t matter what or how we live …This is the difference. 🙏🏻 infused righteousness is supported biblically throughout. Imputed righteousness is not found throughout the Bible. It does matter how we live, especially after we have received The Truth! Hebrews10:26. 🙏🏻
Tbh I think these two views are close enough that I’d feel comfortable in either a Lutheran or a Catholic Church, as it relates to this particular question.
Sounds like both agree that understanding of justification suffers from slogans like 'sola fide' & 'faith+works' that oversimplify the matter at hand. Justification is way too complex to be discussed in mere minutes
I don't think so. If the gospel of Christ was meant for all people, it should be easily understandable to all people. He says his yoke is light and the burden taken off. I think that theologians try to understand every single aspect of God so clearly that they forget who they are studying, which is an all knowing powerful God that is not fully comprehensible to us humans, and is not meant to be right now.
Former Catholic, current Confessional Lutheran here.
This has to be the most civil, respectful, and productive talk between Romans and Lutherans in the last 500 years. Both of these speakers (I am, admittedly, much more familiar with Rev. Dr. Cooper) are exceptionally well positioned for this topic and I think that I, a layman, walked away from this talk smarter than I went into it. This - dear Christian friends - is an honorable way to conduct ourselves.
Catholics*
@@Steeltoecondom ?
@@Steeltoecondom Lutherans are catholic. Not roman catholic.
Prot here. Jimmy Akin and Jordan Cooper are amazing examples of solid theologians who love God and are gracious. I love them both so much.
Jordan has nothing of a gracious person - he is a rabbid anti-Catholic, full of deception and bigotry... he was reasonable enough though in the way he talked with Jimmy simply because his usual trickery would be denounced by him
@@silveriorebelo8045 lmao
@JChrisTruth146 that's awesome to hear Corey!!!
@Ify Nsoha Thanks for such a positive comment.
Out of interest, if I may ask, what is it that keeps you Protestant? Is it that the five solae can be best defended, or is it more that you object to certain Catholic doctrines, such as that of justification?
@@ClassicPhilosophyFTW justification is one of many. I think it's a big mistake to collapse sanctification into Justification. We agree with Catholics about *initial* Justification, but the issue is their explanation of the progressive stage. Just because righteousness can be used in multiple ways doesn't necessarily mean we should use that word to speak of the progressive growth in holiness - that's what the term "sanctification" is for.
Judging by the beards one would think it was A Greek vs Russian orthodox debate 😆
@@prophetjalenwilson7062 You are not Matt Fradd.
🤣
@@prophetjalenwilson7062 back off.
Haha 😂
Who's the Russian?
As a Catholic with Lutheran parents, I really found this as an amazing dialogue. Matt please gets these guys back on, it's been awhile.
The dinner table must be fun!
@@williamnathanael412Lutherans have much in common with Catholics liturgically and theologically. If his parents were reformed Baptist … there would probably be fireworks at the dinner table. 😂
Yes!
This is my third time watching this, and I must be honest-Jimmy is one of the most wonderful human beings on earth. I seriously love his heart for truth and the charity with which he speaks.
I am a Roman Catholic Christian - convert from Protestant tradition since 2000.
This is such a wonderful beautiful and charitable show between the host and the guest speakers.
Such intelligent men, but humble in spirit. That's what makes learning from this discussion so easy and enjoyable.
Thank you very.
These programs are all plugs.
@Eucharist Angel the catechism and the Council of Trent both reject plainly the idea of merit based salvation. Or the notion that salvation can be earned by one's own righteous acts. We Catholics do not believe that you earn salvation. We merely do not believe that you are not justified by faith alone. In other words, you are not justified by faith in the absence of works. Just like James 2:24 states plainly. "You see a man is justified BY WORKS, and NOT by faith ALONE."
@Eucharist Angel, is that right?
If that’s the case, then how come the Catholic Church did not understand Titus 3:5, when she herself included The Book of Titus to be part of the New Testament, in compiling which books should be included in the New Testament and which should be not, at the end of the 4th Century?
Are you sure what the Catholic truly teaches about salvation?
Do you have any idea about Pelagian heresy which was rejected and condemned by the Catholic Church in 5th century?
@Eucharist Angel, excuse me, too, but first, all non-Catholics don't reject the canon of the New Testament. I'm talking about the New Testament, not the whole Bible, am I not?!?
You guys rejected the canon of the Old Testament but surely are following the whole of the New Testament which the Catholic Church compiled at the end of the 4th century, aren't you?!?
This is just the first...
@Eucharist Angel, second, if you're sure about what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, then explain to me about what you understand regarding Pelagian heresy that we condemned and rejected since the 5th century.
That's the second...
This is what a Catholic and Lutheran who want to agree sound like. Charitable ears and lips. It has great benefits, but it does make it a bit harder to get at the differences, and to gauge the importance of those differences. Thank you, the three of you.
Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) here. I have to say I truly enjoyed the dialogue and the charitable manner in which it was carried out and how these two men treated one another. It stands in stark contrast to how James White behaves towards others that he debates or disagrees with regardless of whether they be Protestant or Catholic. He (James White) strikes me as all "head knowledge" but one who has not had an inward work of grace done in his heart and he should examine himself to see if he is truly born again.
This conversation format is SO much better than debate. This yields information and understanding, neither of which anyone cares about in a debate. Kudos to Dr. Cooper and Jimmy Akin. Both awesome gentlemen. And thank you, Matt!
Great debate. I side with Jordan Cooper of course, but both of them were really charitable and good.
Why side with Jordan Cooper? Not why, what for, but why how come. I didn't really hear them disagree, and I would say the disagreement is null and void in the discussion, other than the internal " of transformation and works of charity in justification. So theoretical differences, but not basis of biblical teachings. Would someone please correct me since I missed it, obviously.
As a confessional Lutheran that went to a Dominican college these are the kind of dialogues that lift my heart. The Lutheran/Roman Catholic dialogue must continue and is done well with conversations like these. Highlighting differences as well as seeing our unity in love for Christ covers a multitude of sins.
Nice! I just converted to catholicism from LCMS!
@@mikethemonsta15 I don’t plan on converting to Rome but I do hope we can have more unity with discussions like these.
@Prasanth Thomas I appreciate that brother. Many Lutherans often say that Luther would be more comfortable at a catholic mass than most protestant services today. It was by my reading of the church fathers and church history that led me to Lutheranism. The rich use of the fathers in our confessional documents is a unlike any other denomination in Protestantism. We often try to avoid the term protestant as it is meant today. Most Protestants think we are “too catholic.” Once you take away all the fluff we definitely have more in common with Rome than American evangelicalism. We do not throw off our Roman Catholic heritage and it is still present in much of our worship today. It burns me up when I see Protestants refer to Catholics as non Christians.
@Prasanth Thomas I would say the vast majority of protestants don’t think iconography in itself is idolatry. Practices connected with it, sure.
As a Lutheran. Do you think the curse in Galatians applies to Roman Catholics that are completely consistent with the doctrines of the RCC?
Jimmy Akin gold around the 1:14-1:15 mark, and I'm not even Catholic. I love the patience of his approach wanting to genuinely understand their differences and yet so charitably and gently pointing out any inconsistencies.
When I was Lutheran I would go to Jordan Cooper regularly. Now I go to Catholic Answers and Matt Fradd when I have questions. This is about the closest thing to an ecumenical allstar team I've ever seen.
Edit: I realized my mistake of putting Jordan Peterson instead of Jordan Cooper. My b.
Mind if I plug Reason and Theology with Michael Lofton as well? If you are interested in the nuanced historical, theological, and magisterial matters of the Church, I would recommend them.
Peterson or Cooper 😂
Why would you go to Jordan Peterson as Lutheran? He isn't even a Christian...
@@StBindo Jordan Cooper lol. My b
@@cade8559 I are the stupid.
"We confess with Paul that no other faith justifies 'but faith working through love.' (Gal 5:6)" ~ John Calvin, Institutes 3.11.20
I wouldn’t call this debate rather a delightful conversation. Seeing these two men converse in a manner that is respectful to both of their theological traditions is refreshing. May we learn from their example.
Can anyone appreciate the graciousness of Matt Fradd to recede to the background and let the beauty of the discussion take its course. Talk about total control even in absence. This guy should have a TV show.
I love you Jimmy. I pray you come back and fulfill your dream of being a protestant pastor. Lutherans are here for you friend. Get back to the basics.
I'm glad Jimmy was able to clarify what the actual Catholic teaching/tradition is regarding "faith + works." This was the first time I have ever heard a Catholic show why that expression is wrong.
Conversations like these make me realize how much I really don't know.
Check out Dr. Brant Pitre too on Catholic view of Justification. There is a video on the "Catholic Productions" channel
Michael Barber also has a good talk on salvation on Matthew Leonard’s channel.
@@takmaps I've seen a lot of Brant Pitre videos but not that one.
I'm Catholic as well, that's why I was so suprised by what Jimmy said. I guess I just haven't really looked into the issue of Justification that much.
@@sherwindique8518 What did Jimmy said reagarding catholic view on faith+works? I dont have time to watch the whole debate so if you can write most important, please.
If not, its ok.
God bless everyone :)
@@kyriosbooks8400
Here are some time-stamps:
46:25 - Justification by Faith
47:14 - What is Faith?
47:52 - Cooper says that faith is trust.
50:28 and 51:56 and 53:41 - How is Faith used in scripture?
58:23 and 59:19 - Basically, Akin says that you need repentance for justification. He says that charity does not get you into a state of justification - good works flow from justification - you can’t do such works without justification.
1:01:40 and 1:02:46 - How to get saved in simple terms? Akin and Cooper stick with Acts 2:38... that we should repent, believe, and be baptized.
1:18:19 - As Matt said, they seem to agree on a lot... Matt’s trying to find the disagreement about justification
ruclips.net/video/jkgsD6zNX2o/видео.html
Non-Catholic here, but I really liked Mr. Akin's explanation of Faith, and tying it into Faith, Hope, Love.
I would say that Saving Faith is not a Faith that stands alone as an intellectual acknowledgement of Doctrines, but one that looks to Christ in Hope, and consequently works through Love.
But if you concede that faith, hope, and love are all necessary for salvation, doesn’t that preclude “sola fide?”
@@claymcdermott718 Not at all. Salvation comes through Faith alone; Hope and Love flow through Faith.
Or to put it another way, Faith is the root, and Love is the fruit.
Or again, Hope and Love and the consequence of true and genuine Faith.
But a person is saved by Grace alone, through Faith alone, the moment they put their trust in Christ ... the works follow in the wake of God's amazing grace. But if a person, newly come to Christ, dies shortly after conversion before they have wrought any great works of love, they are no less saved than the person who comes to Christ in their youth and spends a lifetime of 80+ years doing many great works by God's grace.
@@beowulf.reborn so obedience is evidence that you had a saving faith.
To not beg the question, to what degree is that obedience and how long should that obedience take to bear that is evidence of a saving faith
@@fredarroyo7429 Obedience should begin immediately after the person is Born Again, and should increase with knowledge, as the person learns more and more of God's will.
If at any time they begin to backslide, as their faith grows cold, they ought to repent and fix their eyes on Christ, as the author of Hebrews admonishes.
Obedience (or the lack thereof) will always reflect the genuineness of one's faith. As John says in his first epistle, those who practice righteousness are righteous, those who practice sin, are of the devil. A Born Again Christian who sees their works decreasing, and sees sin starting to take hold in their life again, will be moved by the Spirit to repentance and confession of those sins, and will subsequently see a renewed growth of Spiritual Fruit in their lives. However, if they resist the conviction of the Holy Spirit and harden their hearts, deciding instead to continue in their sin, baring no fruit, as their faith dies, then Christ has said that He will cut them off.
@@beowulf.reborn you are begging the question. If obedience is the evidence of genuine faith. Then what are the parameters of that obedience that show the person has a real saving faith.
What degree of obedience should they have.
If I see that a person stopped drunkenness but is still an adulterer in his heart, therefore the adultery in the heart is evidence that they didn't have a saving faith to begin with.
The problem is when you say that obedience is just evidence of a saving faith, to not beg the question you must answer what degree of obedience qualifies as evidence of a saving faith. ❓
Very good discussion! Nice having these two quests. I’ve appreciated both of their work, throughout the years. Cooper’s work was instrumental in my conversion to Lutheranism.
Absolutely marvellous debate / discussion! Jimmy Atkins and Jordan Cooper did a fabulous job. And if we have the body of Christ following their example there would be much good unity in the Body of Christ!
which unity? that of remaining divided by the traditional lines of division while treating us friendly?? - or would it rather be that protestant keep on lying about the catholic faith in order to bully those catholics who are not educated enough in order to separate them from the Church? Christian unity is something impossible to recover when millions decided that being heretic is something to be cherished....
@@silveriorebelo8045 great points and much agreement there. When we have men thinking like men than there will always be division. But when they make it their goal to follow what Christ said and taught then we will be much closer. Just because we don't agree with each other on all things there ought to be unity and communion with the body of Christ. And I don't mean whether or not you belong to this group or that but if you belong to Christ. On the very essentials of the Christian faith ought to be the standard not what denomination. It's a shame that the Eastern Orthodox broke fellowship with the Roman Catholic church and vise versa. I know why it happened but it has not been mended. That wound is still there. Thatwas the starting point in church history of great division and led to so many other splits from the Roman Church. It shouldn't be but I know you must know that. There ought to be everyone laying down their weapons and unifying all denominations on the essentials of Christian faith and no one calling this group or that group heretic unless they don't keep to the essence of the Christian faith. We all should have freedom for secondary matters and growth in maturity. It seems to me that many do not realize that we all have a journey to walk with God and not all is on same levels as with maturity and spiritually.
This conversation with Atkins and Cooper was the way that many leaders ought to follow for the sake of the body of Christ not many bodies of Christ. We are all different members of that mystical body of Christ if we hold to the faith once delivered to the saints. When we are out of communion and unity with each other how can this be good for the body and how can it be good for the world? And where does the division stop or does it? Christ prayed in John 17 for unity. The Apostles exhorted and encouraged and commanded it. God is pleased with it.
I love Jimmy. Listen to him all the time. He's just SOLID all the time.
@@michaelverde4844 I'm curious, what do you believe would save you from sin: GOOD WORKS or FAITH in Christ?
@@michaelverde4844 I asked first.
@@antsmarching1234 Grace through faith working in love.
Ephesians 2:8-10 NKJV
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Galatians 5:6 NKJV
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
Romans 11:13-22 NKJV
For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
[22] Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
James 2:8-26 NKJV
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
@Eucharist Angel The Catechism is heretical according to whom exactly?
I also don’t see how Titus and the paragraph the CCC are in contradiction. They use the same language.
I have also seen your interpretation of James 2:14-22, elaborate on it please.
Quote the entire passage and explain each verse.
Also your claim that Jesus was mad at heretical teachings therefore you can as well. You can be mad at anything technically, but that doesn’t include ad hominems. Christ didn’t engage in this.
@@michaelverde4844 your use of Romans 12:14 is nothing but a clever attack itself.
Protestant here! I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. Thanks Matt.
This was a super awesome and helpful dialogue. It seems like the claimed substantial disagreement here is that Lutherans believe we are justified by what Christ did FOR us and Catholics believe that we are justified by what Christ did IN us. However, Lutherans also believe that what Christ did for us produces real change in us, and Catholics believe that what Christ does in us happens because of what Christ did for us.
These clarifications lead me to side with those who agreed to the Joint Declaration that disagreements are really more in emphasis rather than substance.
When a person is first justified it seems that there’s little disagreement as the person brings nothing to the table, it would be interesting though to have an in-depth discussion on that central issue
Thank you for this summary bc honestly I was feeling like maybe I needed to watch this a second time to figure out where the actual disagreement was. Mr. Cooper kept insisting that there was in fact disagreement but I wasn't understanding where.
Check out the furst 30 minutes of a documentary called Protestantism's Big Justification lie and then tell me you still agree with that declaration.
Great discussion! Interesting that Jordan used to be a Calvinist. Glad he left that.
I enjoyed this format and agree to the reasons why Jimmy believes it to be more edifying and productive. I wonder if James White would ever agree to such a format? 🤷🏽♂️
I prefer real hardcore debates. They are more interesting and way more productive because you get to see how an idea holds up under real scrutiny. There is no dancing around and trying to be nice, it’s just raw logic and seeing who has better arguments
This is much better then debates IMo, really trying to understand the other’s position, obviously there are real important differences but the unnecessary division generated by bad polemics is put aside
@@lucidlocomotive2014 real it isn’t actually, especially not with verbal debates, written is somewhat of a different matter. When it comes to verbal debates, often the skill of the debater is far more important than the actual truth of the claims being argued. I don’t know what you mean by pretending to be nice, is that what you think they’re doing here? Even in a debate you should show charity to other people, it’s not some chest thumping For ones side
@@l21n18 I prefer bloody battles lol they more interesting this is kinda boring imo
@@l21n18 agreed! I wish more people thought like this. (Trying to understand each other’s sides)
So much agreement here. Maybe do one on the papacy and sola scriptura between these two.
Maybe you mean to much agreement here? Lol
@@ronfelix6507 lol yes it was actually nice to see.
That's because they are two sides of the same coin in all honesty
@@ronfelix6507 well I mean we only disagree on about a half dozen things. We are closer to Rome than we are the radical reformation.
@@TommyGunzzz That is a very misleading and blanket statement.
As an Orthodox Christian watching, I really enjoyed this. Very good dialogue.
Thanks for your work at the Nicea ! Good to see you are out of Exile! Give my regards to Anthony!
@@MrPeach1 Thanks for that. I needed to smile today.
@@athanasiusofalexandria4304 no trouble I just got a copy of "on the Incarnation" and "The Life of St Anthony" so I am a fan.
@Prasanth Thomas to my knowledge "faith and works" is one unseperatable unit in Orthodoxy. You can't have or live just one of "it". We don't believe in the SOLAS.
@Prasanth Thomas I see your question has already been answered. Mr. Jasinsky is spot on.
Jimmy is so polite and kind. You can really see fruit in him. Also brilliant.
Definitely, they both are.
I wish that many of us Catholics learn how Jimmy does these things for the Church.... we can flip the rest of the world with his approach.
I'm a Protestant. I wish I could be Catholic. I think if the Catholic church would say that all infallible dogma of the Church must have at least 2 Scriptures that clearly articulate the dogmatic statement, not through typology but directly states the dogma, the entire Body of Christ could be unified again within the Catholic Church.
This one rule would be so helpful for us Protestants to be in unity with the Catholic Church again.
I just can't be in unity right now because the Catholic Church says I must believe all the dogmatic statements to be Catholic, but I don't. I don't believe Mary was a perpetual virgin or was sinless. And I don't believe that it is ok to pray to Saints or to Mary or to invoke their intercession. I don't believe the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. I don't find any of this in Scripture. The Catholic Church is asking me to lie and say that I believe something that I can't find in Scripture.
If the Catholic Church would make Scripture their supreme authority, the church could be in unity again. I hope that happens one day. I'm praying it does.
@@TJMcCarty I'll take you up on intercession of Saints. Now you said that you don't find this Scripture but would you change your mind on this one point, if I can show it to you Biblically?
@@alisterrebelo9013 yes. It's not in the Bible though. No living person ever prayed to saints or angels. They always prayed to God in the Bible
@@TJMcCartyWhy think something must be explicitly found in the Bible in order for it to be true?
2:04:00
I love the way Jimmy lays things out, I very much agree with him as a Protestant.
Jimmy’s prefatory remarks alone are amazing. This dude is a gift!
@Eucharist Angel there’s no contradiction between CCC 18:21 and Titus 3:5. In fact, they are perfectly consistent. Perhaps there’s a prima facia problem, but that just means you should pay closer attention to the entirety of scripture.
@Eucharist Angel I’m afraid you are ignorant of the Church’s teachings on these matters, for example, about the relationship between works and grace. And I suspect it might come as a surprise to you that it didn’t take Luther, Calvin and the rest to repudiate Pelagianism; the Catholic Church dispensed with that heresy a long time ago. Take care of yourself and may God bless you.
@Eucharist Angel you misunderstand. What I meant to communicate was that if you truly understood what the Catholic Church taught about the relationship between works and grace, I don’t imagine you’d find it problematic. Anyway, there’s lots that can be said here, but I’ll stop now. Have a great day and God bless you.
@eucharistangel4662 Does it seem more likely that you are misunderstanding something or do you really think that the majority of Christians throughout history have fallen for such an obvious error which you can so easily detect?
Love this type of format. Good discussion on both and great examples on how to have charitable discussions with each other.
Same. I love the dialogue format over the prepared speeches format. It's why cross-ex is the best part of standard debates.
Jimmy Akin is an example of God driven wisdom, knowledge and just a super hero of catholic apologetics. I would fast forward to his explanations. Dr. Is very kind and God loving. I pray God Blesses them both.
Excellent conversation. If only all theological discussion/debate was conducted like this . Two educated, well-spoken representatives of their faith tradition , vigorously upholding their point of view , but not disparaging the other person with personal attacks or flashy rhetorical tricks and "gotchas".
Found this video because I’ve been struggling between Lutheranism or Catholicism. Looks like I’ll struggle some more lol, on a serious note this was an amazing watch
Currently in the same boat as you, and I’m likely coming out of my Baptist background
Currently confessional Lutheran but struggling between Lutheranism and Catholicism. This was really eye opening. I would like to read the council of Trent without Martin Chemnitz' commentary now,
What you think are the weaknesses of each tradition? Lutheran here
@@Solideogloria00 I attend Lutheran church (ELC), I would say their weakness is that they have multiple denominations like Protestants and can't agree on things like an ELC Lutheran can't get communion at a LCMS church.
For Catholic faith, I find fault in papal infallibility, indulgences are a big thing for me, praying to Mother Mary, individual confession, etc.
We are all subject to the consequences of mortal sin.
Only those in the state of grace (no mortal sin) see eternal life.
How to live a life that allows you to achieve that goal depends on the theology of your church.
Jimmy is the man, btw
Fantastic ecumenical discussion. While we should always strive to seek the truth, focussing on what unites rather than what divides is refreshing.
I was reluctant to watch because most debates are more about "winning" than truth. But this was an actual discussion with reason and charity on both sides. Thanks.
Something within this topic that perhaps wasn't well explored is the difference between God's omnipotence vs the limits of human self-knowledge. That is, God knows me better than I know myself. God knows exactly and fully why I choose what I choose; what temptations I fought and what opportunities I wasted; what all my options were; what measure of His grace was granted to me individually in every moment; how the spiritual war among angels and demons affects me. God knows like no human being His own nature - Love - and how well or poorly I have conformed to Him. He knows better than I do if I have accepted and cooperated with His love.
Akin cites saints who point to signs of living faith (ex: inspiration to charity and forgiveness). But Jesus says He is the vine which the Father will prune of branches that fail to bear fruit. I cannot earn salvation. Christ's blood alone pays for my sins. But is the fruit Christ bears through me sufficient to please the Father? Then again, Jesus says He will lose nothing the Father gives Him. He is the Good Shepherd who follows the wayward sheep.
Christ moves me to join the Mass and accept Him in the Eucharist, which is certainly salvation if I accept Him in a state of grace. But what then is the final Judgment for? There is more to grace and judgment than we understand.
This is great. Here’d be a summary (I think) of the disagreements:
1.) For Protestants, justification is God’s declaration/recognition of a person as a *member of Christ*, and therefore belonging to Christ, an heir of eternal life, and “righteous” as an adopted child of God. For Catholics, justification involves the making of the sinner as righteous. So it’s more than God’s declaration and verdict on a sinner’s life that these things are true, but the renewal of the inner person as well.
2.) For Protestants, one is engrafted into Christ by faith alone. This faith must be a faith that works through love; it must be effective in good works. But faith alone is the sole means by which one is United to Christ, and therefore made an heir of eternal life. The righteousness one receives in justification, for Protestants, is the “in-the-right” verdict pronounced by God on the sinner as a real member of Christ and therefore an heir of all the promises. For Catholics, I’m unclear what the role of Christ is in forging our union with Christ, at least expressed here.
3.) Can you grow in justification? For Protestants, while justification has a past, present, and future dimension, you cannot grow in justification. Justification is the verdict pronounced on a sinner’s life whether they are United to Christ or not, and thus belong to God or not. You cannot be “more God’s son or daughter”, though you can grow into the likeness of Christ and your possession of salvation, since salvation includes glorification. And since God reckons me as righteous now, he justified me (=regards me as his) every day. For Catholics, justification is something you can grow in because it denotes the making of a person as righteous.
@@prophetjalenwilson7062 is there a link you can send me to?
@@anglicanaesthetics Don’t fall for it. That’s a fake account!
@@zekdom thanks!
49:08-49:35
As a Protestant this is exactly how I feel about veneration of the saints and some of the forms in which Catholics pray to Mary and the saints. It makes me personally uncomfortable because I associate these acts as acts of worship that should be done for God only. I’m not here to outright condemn this or say it is wrong, but what Jimmy says here about Romans 14 is exactly how I feel. Because I perceive it this way, I could never take part of it or I would feel like I am going contrary to my faith. And that’s why I probably could not become Catholic, even though I don’t disagree with much of the other beliefs of the Catholic faith.
Do any other Protestants agree?
Hj, there is a huge chasm between the honor (latria) we give to God alone and the honor (dulia)we give to creatures. The difference is easy to distinguish once you understand that Catholic worship entails sacrifice. We offer the sacrifice made for us by Jesus to God at every mass; the causative act of our redemption. This is the faith from the beginning, only dropped by reformers 1500 years later. We also offer ourselves as living sacrifices (Rom 12:1).
To creatures, who we do honor, we make no sacrifice; that would not be just.
So I don’t think you would so much have a problem understanding that we should honor people like Abraham, other Saints and even figures like George Washington. Justice merely requires we give each their due.
Another place this comes up is in prayer, and prayer just means ask. Prayer has, for non Catholics, replaced the act of sacrifice and this is why they are so squeamish about Catholics asking for prayers among the Saints. IMHO
@Tothion No catholic offers sacrifices to anyone other than God
I agree.
Interesting point
I used to feel that way. Still hesitant but less so over the years learning about the older church history.
Alex O'Connor and Gregory Pine should have a debate next.
@@eternalbyzantium262 it would be awesome!
@@eternalbyzantium262 or I was even thinking another debate on God's existence but that's a good idea. Alex O'Connor often talks about how animal suffering is a dilemma for him in accepting God's existence.
@@eternalbyzantium262 yes I am, thank you :) God bless you too!
@@Andrea-ky9lh I was going to say the same thing!!! 😂
@@junelledembroski9183 it would be great!!
Excellent discussion. I appreciate both of you and your knowledge tremendously and thank God for persons who can so clearly discuss these difficult topics so nicely. God bless all of you.
THANKS MATT!! APPRECIATE THIS!! BLESSINGS 👐🕯🕯🕯👐🔔
Fantastic conversation, gentlemen! I was happy to hear you both asking probing questions around points of disagreement. I feel like there was growth in understanding on both sides!
As a former LCMS Lutheran and now Catholic, it still seems to me that the core disagreement on justification is over imputed righteousness vs. infused righteousness: whether it is a forensic declaration of Christ's very own righteousness imputed to us or an infusion of sanctifying grace merited for us by Christ's work on the cross?
After researching this question quite a bit, it seems to me that the position that Trent ended up on, viz. the idea of infused sanctifying grace as the formal cause of our justification, is what is most in line with the traditions of the Church and the Bible. It also seems that Luther's position of the extrinsic imputation of Christ's very own righteousness, was a complete novelty to the Reformation, as can be seen here by one of the most prominent modern day scholars, Alister McGrath, on the historical development of the doctrine justification in Christian thought:
"The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external.
In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification."
McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126
"Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186
It seems to me that Luther, himself, was even aware of the novelty of some of his positions, but for some reason that wasn't a problem for him or many of his followers:
"Of this difference between the Law and the Gospel nothing can be discovered in the writings of the monks or scholastics, nor for that matter in the writings of the ancient fathers. Augustine understood the difference somewhat. Jerome and others knew nothing of it. The silence in the Church concerning the difference between the Law and the Gospel has resulted in untold harm. Unless a sharp distinction is maintained between the purpose and function of the Law and the Gospel, the Christian doctrine cannot be kept free from error."
**Luther, Matin. Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Chatper 3, v. 19. (1535).
I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy to anyone exploring the historical justification debate between Lutherans and Catholics. It was highly influential on my own conversion to the Catholic Church from the LCMS Lutheran Church. This book argues that the Joint Declaration on Justification (1999) was not an accurate portrayal of either the Lutheran or Catholic positions on justification.This book claims (and I now agree) that the crux of the difference between the two views is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification: is it the imputation of Christ’s righteousness extra nos (Lutherans) or is it the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer (Catholics)? Dr. Malloy makes his case by surveying the two side’s positions on justification throughout history, including the failed reconciliation attempts at the Diet of Regensburg, the Council of Trent, modern Lutheran views, and finally a critique of the Joint Declaration. This was one of the most important books for solidifying my views that the Catholic Church is actually right about justification and does not teach any form of “works righteousness” or Pelagianism. It seems to me that Dr. Malloy does a very good job portraying Lutheran ideas fairly and heavily cites directly from the Lutheran Confessions.
For anyone interested, I also wrote more about all this in my own summary of my research in my conversion process here: www.follyofthecross.com/category/catholicism/fullness-of-the-truth/
God bless!
I posted a messenger on your YT homepage :D
Thanks for this nice text!
Good stuff, brosef.
Thank you very much! That was a great text.
Thank you!
Jordan Cooper is a great guy, I've been following his channel for awhile now even as a Catholic
I think this dialogue comes down to Romans 4. I think Cooper pushed Akin on this several times and I think Cooper has the best answer to justification being continual. The justification before ungodly Abraham and David was still based on "not of works" even after they both have been following God.
A great discussion overall. I learned a lot from both sides.
Not based on works , but based on faith does not mean irrespective to behavior.
It's based on faith contingent on behavior.
Whole point of Romans for is you don't need to be circumsized
@@fredarroyo7429 You are adding to the text; the text says faith, it doesn't say faith contingent on behavior. "But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." - Romans 4:5
@@fireflames3639 my friend you don’t know what that passage means .
How does one work not?
He would have to not be born to neither work good nor iniquity .
@@fredarroyo7429 No, you are misunderstanding the text; it is saying that we need to not trust in our own works whether good or evil works but renounce them and trust alone in Christ wherein God justifies the UNGODLY.
@@fireflames3639 No that’s what you say that’s not what the text is saying
Jordan Cooper Rocks!
Jordan cooper speaks at 1.5 speed and it’s very impressive. god bless you both Jimmy and Jordan
Nice to see more agreement than disagreement. Bravo, guys!
1:10:54
I enjoy Jimmy’s differentiation between doctrine and theology.
This was a great discussion.
For me, the central issue between those under the pope and those aren't is exactly that: the Papacy. I think all other issues are secondary to that.
Whatever the differences are, there is no justification to split the church. We stay together and we work through the differences. This is the kind of spousal equivalent commitment we must have for one another regardlessly.
This is really incredible, I want to see Lutherans join the Church!
@@AspenDune already done ✅
@@mikethemonsta15 I think that purgatory and Marian Dogmas present a significant barrier to protestants.
And me, I’d like to see Roman Catholics join the Church!
@@robertguidry2168
in the Lutheran case:
1. Purgatory yes
2. Not all Marian Dogma.
There are more overlaps between us.
They already are a part of the church...
Two of my favorites...they are both very charitable and easy enough on a topic that is fairly close...it would be interesting to see something more foundational like Sola Scriptura
One of the issues with Catholic vs. Lutheran debates are that the two Churches are very much in harmony with one another. Outside of Allowing Marriage of its pastors/priests and the nature of the Eucharist and the Papacy there are very few differences. Lutherans even have their list of Saints and highly respect mary although they may differ on some points as to her receiving Hyperdulia. and in the matter of apparitions. But mainly the Theology is vastly the same. In a similar vein as the similarity existing between Anglicanism and Catholicism.
their similarities to Catholicism is quote similar to the parallels found between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. While the language used to describe the theology is different the theology is almost precisely the same.
I think it would have been helpful to have a debate or conversation between the three Churches Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran. this might shake loose a lot of information concerning their differences.
This is my favorite conversation between a Protestant and a Catholic. So that's partly what makes me proud of Dr. Cooper and Mr. Akin for how politely and calmly they talk with each other. Since I'm a staunch Catholic traditionalist, I try to practice Catholicism as though Vatican II hadn't introduced any novelties, novelties I pray the Catholic Church will abolish.
But I need non-Catholic Christians to know that I'm sorry I've discussed theology with them mostly because I longed to win a debate. Sadly, though I hate to admit it, I did that mostly because I wanted to feel better about myself. I wanted to be the victor instead of someone humble enough to just search for the truth.
For me, the Catholic Church is the only one Christ founded. So, in my opinion, only it is his Mystical Body. A non-Catholic Christian can be in the Catholic Church as a nonmember of it. In fact, anyone who goes to heaven gets there because he'll be in or attached to the Catholic Church when he dies. But my traditionalist beliefs don't excuse the way I treated many non-Catholic Christians. My lousy behavior was and always has been my fault, not theirs.
Please reread this part of Lumen Gentium's theological note while you remember that Vatican II didn't define anything.
"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation."
www.fisheaters.com/notapraevia.html
Where did Vatican II require us to accept, say, Pope John Paul II's interreligious prayer meetings? I doubt it because in Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI writes:
"10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills."[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]
www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html
If it obligates us to attend Pope Paul VI's rite of Mass, why would Cardinal Ottaviani, who headed the Holy Office during Vatican II, say this about that rite?
"Most Holy Father,
Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:
1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith."
lms.org.uk/ottaviani-intervention
Just a friendly reminder. It's probably not a great idea for anyone to publicly accuse a stranger of sinning when there's no way to know his or her intentions. I go to confession each Sunday morning. And I confessed again this afternoon. So my conscience is clear.
That is an insane statement. Even Christians who are not Catholic are still Catholic when they are in heaven? Statements like this turn off us majority protestant Christians in the U.S. I am a Christian and I will never be Catholic.
@@Cuyt24 Giovanni, do you believe that in heaven, people will disagree about theology when the Holy Trinity is there to answer each question and settle each dispute? Many Christians, including Catholics, believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, infallible, and inerrant because God wrote it.
Suppose I'm right in believing that Christ founded Catholicism and the Catholic Church. Then I expect each Christian to be Catholic in heaven, even if he was non-Catholic on earth. In heaven, everyone will agree unanimously on each divinely revealed truth because he'll see the revealer face to face.
Fr. A. Roussel wrote a book called "Liberalism and Catholicism," where he defined liberalism as the attempt to reconcile the Catholic Church with the principles from the French Revolution. He says that in his sense of the word, liberals are fanatics for autonomy. I doubt that most Christians want to be doctrinally autonymous, to believe anything they want to believe. But since Protestants have splintered into about 40,000 denominations, it's as though they want that autonomy. I don't want it. I want to know the truth, especially divinely revealed truth. The Bible tells me that the truth will set me free. That suggests that how free I am will depend on how much truth I know. Sin enslaves sinners partly because they believe some falsehoods. They mistake bad things for good ones, and falsehoods are bad.
@@williammcenaney1331 That is called being a Christian. A follower of Christ. You really want to hold on to the Catholic label instead of being a follower of Christ? You are not as bad as other Catholics who told me that I am going to hell because I follow Jesus and the blood of Christ has saved me from my sins. My baptism in a protestant church means I am going to hell though. What would Jesus say to that? Catholicism is a cultural identity at this point. Catholics are a minority in English speaking countries and they are defensive for some reason. I was a Christian without a home and was looking to join a church and was turned off by Catholics who told me I was going to hell because I refuse to pray to saints. I am happy to find a church where I can grow and found a church that follows the Bible "Sola Scriptura". There are many bad actors on our side as well who tell genuine followers of Christ they are going to hell because they are Catholics. Humans are fallen and imperfect. We can never meet God's high standards.
@@Cuyt24 Many people follow Christ, and I'm happy to agree that they're Christians. But I study extrabiblical sources from the early because I want to know what Christians believed in the first 800 years of Church history. If I ignore Church history and ancient Christian doctrine, I probably will misinterpret the Bible when I read 21st-century ideas into it. But I'm grateful for that context partly because it immerses me in ancient Church history . It tells me what the early Church believed the Bible taught. My research shows me that the early Christians were capital-C Catholics because they described themselves and the Church that way. So I'll be happy to quote ancient sources if you want.
Some Catholics tell you that you're going to hell when they don't know that. I don't even know whether I'll go to heaven, since the Council of Trent teaches that for anyone to know for sure that he'll go there, he needs a special message from God. Many evangelicals say that know that there's nothing they can do to lose their places in heaven after they "get saved." In one sense, I can agree with that because people in heaven people will stay there forever. No one will kick them out and they'll always want to stay there.
Some evangelicals tell me the same sort of thing you've heard from some Catholics. They tell you that you'll be damned. Some people assure me that to get to heaven, I need merely to admit that I'm a ssinner, repent, and accept Christ as my Lord and Savior. Then they unknowingly contradict themselves. Although I've already done all they think I needed to go to heaven, they warn me that if I'll be a Catholic when I die, I'll be damned. They're saying that although I've done all I needed to do to go there, I still need to do something else to reach it.
Seventh-day Adventists tell me that. Other evangelicals brimming with the best intentions give me tracts where the writers argue against caricatures of Catholic doctrine. I've heard that a belong to a cult where members pray to statues and worship the Virgin Mary. These people mean well. But they don't understand Catholic doctrine. Catholics who think you'll be damned have no way to know where you'll spend the afterlife. Instead of telling you things they can't know, they should be removing the logs from their eyes to see well enough to point out the tin piece of sawdust in someone else's eye.
I want everyone to be Catholic because my research convinces that will increase his chances of getting there. But the Catholic Church teaches that it's a sin to force non-Catholics to become Catholics. I'm not trying to coerce you. Though I believe I know a lot about Catholicism, I want others to check what I say. Don't think I'm an expert. Do your homework if you want to know what it is that the Catholic Church teaches. Don't get your information from the Catholic Church's critics. Learn it from Catholic sources. Try the Catechism of St. Pius X, say. With the basics under your belt, read the Catechism of the Council of Trent. They're online.
www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286
archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft/thecatechismofth00donouoft_djvu.txt
Here's the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus to prove that the council Fathers believed that their council taught infallibly in 431 A.D. and that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.x.ii.html
My research convinces me that the early Church was capital-C Catholic. That's partly why I'm Catholic now after attending evangelical services for years.
That was one of the best youtube videos I have seen all year. Thank you gentlemen so much for putting this together for us to view and learn from.
A conversation like this with Jimmy and Gillaume Bignon would be awesome!
I would really like to hear Dr. Cooper explain more about how faith cannot exist with mortal sin and yet also claim that Christians can have an absolute assurance of salvation (not to be confused with assurance of perseverance - see below). In fact, I often hear Lutherans say one of the main reasons that they could never be Catholic is because Catholics deny the absolute assurance of salvation.
I wonder how can Lutherans believe in the possibility of having absolute assurance of salvation plus sola fide without ending up in an antinomian position or a contradiction caused by the living vs dead faith distinction?
Context:
It seems Luther sometimes claimed sola fide means if we have faith there is no sin that can separate us from God:
“Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone." (On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church)
This seems like antinomianism (whether Luther said it was or not) and it contradicts the Bible (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.). On the other hand, Melanchthon seemed to advocate for a view that a saved person with a living faith wouldn't ever commit a grave/mortal sin:
“Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV, 115; cf. Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article III)
This seems more biblical, in calling for a living vs. dead faith distinction (James 2:17), but it also seems to remove the possibility of having assurance of salvation because then you have to look at your own works for evidence of having a living faith or not. Since sin clouds our judgment (Psalm 36), you could easily be mistaken about having a living faith and blind yourself to the fact you may be committing mortal/grave sins, for example a church going alcoholic.
It seems to me you can only have assurance of salvation on a pure antinomian view, which most Lutherans and Martin Luther, himself, are ardently against (see Luther's "The Antinomian Disputations"). Anything less than antinomianism appears to contradict sola fide + assurance of salvation, though.
EDIT: Small point of clarification. I am not taking about assurance in the sense that one cannot ever lose their faith, I am talking about assurance in the sense that if I believe I have saving faith then I cannot be mistaken that I do.
Lutherans definitely believe it is possible to lose your salvation. The question as it pertains to the dispute with Catholics is whether one can only lose their salvation through apostasy (losing their faith) or if there are sins that are so grave that their inherit nature causes one to lose their salvation, regardless of whether they have faith or not? The latter is the Catholic position on mortal sins and how they destroy the life of grace inside of us even if we still believe Jesus is the Lord and died for our sins. The Bible seems to also indicate it is possible to have faith and yet fall into mortal sin (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.).
God bless!
What a thorough comment. I appreciate it :) good questions asked.
Did he say Lutherans have absolute assurance? When Matt Fradd asked him directly he said someone could lose your salvation, and that is the Lutheran standard answer. They arent Calvinists.
In my experience, when a Lutheran talks about assurance, the answer is often a contrast to a Calvinist answer. If you are a Calvinist you can never be certain if God *really* extended his grace to you, e.g. in the sacraments, because he only does that for the elect.
The Lutheran answer would be: you can be 100% sure that God made you a promise in baptism. You can be 100% sure that Christ is present in the supper to give you forgiveness of sins.
What you, of course, cannot be 100% certain of is whether you will perservere in your faith to the end. But when a Lutheran speaks about assurance, he speaks about these objective things God does/did for us.
@@logansweet4190 and @ Theophilus. Sorry, this is hard to articulate all the nuance clearly. I am not taking about assurance in the sense that one cannot lose their faith, I am talking about assurance in the sense that if I believe I have saving faith then I cannot be mistaken that I do.
Lutherans definitely believe it is possible to lose your salvation. The question as it pertains to the dispute with Catholics is whether one can only lose their salvation through apostasy or if there are sins that are so grave that their inherit nature causes one to lose their salvation, regardless of whether they have faith or not? The latter is the Catholic position on mortal sins and the Bible seems to also indicate it is possible to have faith and yet fall into mortal sin (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.).
I hope that helps clear things up a bit.
God bless!
@@prophetjalenwilson7062 spam/fraud
Haven’t watched yet but Jimmy Akin has one the beard part
I’m catholic but I disagree with you
Jim can be smart but doesn’t have a great beard
Jimmy has the most impressive beard, Jordan has the tidiest. Both are great for different reasons.
*wun
@@evanstein3011 lol
This was a great conversation. Both did very well
@@prophetjalenwilson7062 This is a fake account
Good debate, God bless
Btw... Matt you should bring Tim Gordon for a debate, that could be cool
I second this!
So I did hear Dr. Cooper is affiliated with the Missouri Synod. It seems to me that at times he sees that he is close to the Catholic position, but he wants to find reasons not to. Hardened heart? Still, he is a polite and cordial person and entirely likeable. Jimmy was great as usual.
No, because he is more biblical.
Dr. Cooper is affiliated with American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC) which is in fellowship with the Missouri Lutheran Synod (LCMS). Dr. Cooper accurately confessed the confessional Lutheran position on justification. The Lutheran view of justification is close to the Catholic view … far more than other Protestant groups (e.g. baptist Presbyterian).
Christ be with you
We are only "in Christ" when we keep Christ commandments (1 John 3:24)
God bless you
It would be interesting to have them switch places and try to present the other side as clearly and articulately and then have the other do correction so there is a clear understanding of the other side. Generally I think this should be the case especially for heated debates but this one was so congenial and there was good attempts at understanding the other side. This was a beautiful "debate". Speak the truth and let God move the heart.
hanks you for your comment and support. your comment and constant support have brought me this far. Keep supporting saviourfoundation111@gmail.com
it's an orphanage that has a baby dying from cancer please send an email to MD in charge for more Support
Yes.
Debates, especially heated ones aren't always needed. Sometimes cooperation, humility, disagreement with decency etc is needed.
While I like the idea of having each other present the opposing side and then receive corrections to their understanding, I think that wouldn't work well. Jimmy represents the Catholic view, since we have a magisterium that binds. Jordan doesn't have the same and his beliefs while being seriously informed by his tradition would more likely be individualized. The Catholic needs to ask the protestant lots of questions to get at what they believe and perhaps restate what they are hearing to show comprehension.
Great conversation between two very knowledgeable gentlemen. Had Martin Luther been more like Dr. Copper in this discussion, Lutheranism would today be a Catholic order like Franciscans or Dominicans. We would all be one Catholic Church 🙏🏻
Nah. Clement VII and Paul III didn’t want a truly ecumenical council that could have united the church because they undoubtedly would have had to yield political power…so they delayed and delayed. And France was too interested in a divided HRE. By the time Cardinal Contrini and his ecumenical colleagues died off the moment had passed and a rump of a council led by the Pope and his people convened in Trent with no desire to unite, only anathemize.
This was a great dialogue.
@@prophetjalenwilson7062 you are not Matt Fradd
Nice to see two people talking to each other in a respectful tone rather than in a "I know better than you" tone like our Apologetics group!
This subject I often use as proof, and I see it in this debate as well, of the fact that Lutherans and Catholics are like Brothers who disagree/argue for the sake of arguing.
The vast majority of disagreements are semantic and irrelevant to the layman.
It's mostly high level, theological debate, a toying with and war that puts souls in harms way for the sake of ego.
The message you got by "Matt Fradd" is fair btw
@@pastorjoelrichardson7836 you are not Matt Fradd.
This is better than a debate.
Hacked again?
I don’t know who will win the debate, but our team wins the beard competition by a mile. Well done, Jimmy Akin.
The Catholic Church is waiting for you Jordan !❤🙏🏻😀
It's nice to hear a friendly and civil Catholic vs. Protestant discussion like this. Both sides are willing to lay down their egos and being respectful towards each other.
It appears to me that Jordan Cooper is really close to the one true church that Jesus founded :) praying that he'd someday see where the truth really is
I am no theologian but these guys see to agree on almost everything. Any differences are minimal. On that basis I am really struggling to see what the protest is all about. Think it is time to end the protest
Confessional Lutheran, in my mind the Roman church has never successfully rebutted Chemnitz’s Examination of Trent. Justification is daily as Dr. Cooper points out, as Treatise #1 of Luther’s 95 says the Christian life is one of daily repentance. But it does not grow. It is, or is not. At our adoption - our baptism - we are adopted to God’s family. We don’t grow as more adopted, though we may grow as better adopted sons/daughters. From this the biblical understanding is not that our baptism is shipwrecked by sin anymore than adoption is blown up by a child’s sin. We may walk away from our baptism in sin and unbelief but the antidote through confession and absolution and receiving forgiveness through the Supper is to return to our baptism as God’s unchanging promise to us. Mr. Akin always tries to add that it has to be more complex than that because there’s an internal transformative aspect. Yes there is, but that’s never the basis for our standing. That’s a part of the blessed grace He bestows but never a basis for the standing. That basis for standing in confidence and assurance is the Lutheran disagreement and what Scripture presents. Another way to look at this is only one person ever earned heaven - Christ. We’re either attached to Christ and share in his merits and ride his coattails, or we’re not. Mr. Akin jokes that he’ll barely get in. I see that as more than a side joke it’s a reflection of his theology. A pious Lutheran would have a similar humbleness about himself - looking at himself and say I WON’T get in - but in the question of heaven have great confidence because his ‘getting in’ is based upon objectively what Christ did in his passion and resurrection and delivered through the sacraments. Our Sanctification over life may be quite uneven but it’s relative success or unsuccess is not a change of justification. This is the theology that lets the saints of God - all baptized believers - say “Let the redeemer of The Lord say so”. Because they look to their baptism connecting them to what Christ accomplished for them and can know they will die and live forever in heaven. go to heaven. We do not look at our sanctification or our works or if our faith was “formed” adequately (though we know the faith given to us contains inward transformation as well).
Mr. Akins said he doesn’t have the name of Christ. But he does. He’s got the same surname when he was baptized into Christ’s family. That’s the foundation of our lives as believers. The internal transformation is a benefit and a will of God but it’s not the foundation of the adoption into His family.
An aside - Mr. Akin says Jesus wasn’t properly tempted, but Hebrews 4:14 says he was tempted in every way that we are.
We do NOT ‘duh’ need purgatory. This invention comes about as the logical step of the Roman system. But the unbiblical system of treasury of merits and focus on internal transformation as foundation is the issue. Christ is our propitiation and we are redeemed. I can as one of the pious look at my baptism and what Christ has done and have assurance. Purgatory is invented to deal with the flotsam of a broken system.
Though civil and somewhat enlightening, these two gentlemen reminded me of heavyweights toying with each other and pulling their punches. They both have things they’d like to say but are holding back. There’s some good that comes from that it enlightens understanding of actual positions. But i still walk away thinking these guys both left most of their powder dry. (Although maybe not Mr. Akin. The spirit of JDDJ is to minimize word definition so that theological statements can be made sounding like agreement but not meaning the same thing to both parties. I see a touch of that in him.)
You are much more read than I am, so I would like to just learn from you if that’s ok. As a Roman Catholic I have seen purgatory as the “place” which prepares me to be able to, of my own free will, accept the beatific vision, not as a place where somehow I am made worthy in the eyes of God, since that was assured of me (and promised/shown) by Christs sacrifice on the cross.
Where am I going awry here? You obviously don’t subscribe to purgatory, so I suppose the question I would have is by what mechanism are you able to behold the face of God directly after you die?
I think often of Adam hiding from God in Genesis, and I guess transcribe that on what I would feel if I was thrust into His gaze with all the sins I have yet to forgive myself for, even though God already did!
Thanks and God Bless!
@@atlas944 Sure i’ll do my best! This past sunday the readings where the vine and branch, and we are to abide in Him, and in that abiding we grow good fruit. A perfect reading for Lutheran (and i would argue biblical) theology - we don’t achieve branch status or even productive branch status by efforts to grow fruit. Rather our abiding in Christ, being a part of His church and receiving grace and forgiveness through the means of grace esp. Eucharist brings His life through us and we cannot help but grow good fruit. Our baptism as long as we don’t walk away from in unbelief is our admittance and staying in His family. At death our bodies and soul are separated. In our current flesh we cannot see God and live as our mortal flesh is corrupt and sinful. Our souls however go to God. We are His forgiven saints and our sins are as far as the east is from the west. We lose the parts of us that war against the new man, the new creation in us. What is left is the new man, the new creation. Our good works go with us as well, our sin and bad works left behind with the corruption of the body. At Christ’s return we receive new bodies, perfect bodies that unite with our souls. we are then as we were created to be, with perfect bodies and no sin. We behold God in our new bodies as we have no sin.
Purgatory assumes a working of the consequences (though not the guilt) of our sinful lives, but in the description above of what happens it’s not needed. It also has no Scriptural proof texts that hold water (the sited texts to my reading and the Lutheran reading are not addressing purgatory at all).
The new man in you is prepared for the beatific vision, the old adam is not. those are separated at death. If you die abiding in Him in faith you will be with God (who the soul experiences God outside of the body is not exact, though the Transfiguration provides some insight), and when you receive your new perfect body you will see him as a man, a perfect man. Praise be to God our future in Him is secure and blessed, to Him be Glory!
@@dougnewman3935 I commend you on how concise and articulate your reply was, really wonderful. On the surface it sounds like we are both saying “we lose the parts of us that are at war with the new man”. You do not describe how this might work, correct me if I am wrong then in assuming your answer would be that God makes it so through no dependency on us having to experience anything. Whereas I would say purgatory is the “losing of the parts of us at war with the new man” and it is achieved by sanctifying me to ready me for the beatific vision.
So then, a follow up question if you will entertain it. Will I have my mind in heaven in your theology? As in, will I have memories? If so, and my memories also contain the stains of sin here on earth, then those need to be cleared before I would be able to even look at infinite goodness. Now, if those memories are just part of my flesh here and will be gone when I get my new body in heaven, then is it really my mind in heaven?
If my memories are retained in all of this, then - and this may reveal just how human and doubtful my thinking is on this matter - I do believe I would need to be put through something that brings me to the point of all of the stain of sin being sanctified in my own mind. Jesus already sanctified the suffering in the eyes of God, but it’s hard for me to fully grasp seeing the beatific vision without reconciling my own stains of sins and it is impossible for me to understand how it would be “my” mind if God just strips those things away without me being conscious of it or having a choice in it.
I am reminded of a scene in the Great divorce by CS Lewis where the person already in heaven is talking to the person who could go there if they chose to and telling them basically “well of course you were wronged and committed wrongs, but none of that matters here now.”
Human me wants to know how I get to the point where it is purely joyous to behold the beatific vision while retaining my memories.
All things are possible with God, so I am not trying to say that I can ever really understand it, but I am glad we can at least banter about it! God bless
@@atlas944 Good and respectful discussion thank you. I your view of why a purgatory is not RC doctrine. Purgatory is a state of purification that allows souls to be cleansed of the consequences of their sins so that they can be ready to enter into God's presence. I’ve based my arguments against based on that definition.
Your definition seems to be more about losing the old man (i would say at death when our body is separated from our soul) and preparing the mind and memories for the beatific vision (i believe i’m describing your angle on this correctly). Since you are coming from this angle i’ll try to take this on, and not any further the classic RC purgatory doctrine.
Regarding what we will become the starting point is “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”. We can’t really know nor understand. But we know we will know and be known. We know marriage won’t exist (i suspect because we will know and be known so thoroughly it isn’t necessary). we know we will be welcomed as from the great tribulation . i suspect our memories will be so transformed as you and CS Lewis suggest these will not be an issue. it can be fun to speculate but i only rely on spiritual truths based on revealed Scripture. Scripture doesn’t suggest anywhere a place or need for this. The their was told This Day you will be with me in paradise. Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration seems engaged with Christ and there’s no suggesting a post death journey as you describe. i have to fall back that the Scriptures don’t suggest the need for the doctrine nor evidence of it.
@@dougnewman3935 I concur with the RC definition as you have given it, in terms of my argument. I think I tried to hard to pull things into my own ABILITY to see the beatific vision without such cleansing and as such pulled my thoughts down too much into the “old man” or earthly realm.
I think your response regarding that we cannot know what our memories will be like makes a lot of sense. I am hopeful I will still possess ALL the memories I had during my journey through this valley of death, but that they be transformed in a way that lets them be sanctified and thus allows me to behold God directly. But there is no scripture on this and so, as you said, this is where your vouched for inputs would naturally end, and your own hopes and metaphysical hypothesis begin. And maybe what I am saying is just that, a hope, that isn’t based in anything and has become more of an idle daydream exercise for me, which probably isn’t an ideal use of my time here on this earth!
I really appreciate this great discussion and your incredibly helpful insight and charity. I consider you a brother (assuming based on name) in Christ and hope you consider me the same. May God bless you!
Great, mature and respectful discussion.
Much appreciated.
The debate still rages on Monergism vs Synergism.
God had certainly bless you jimmy with the Grace to articulate and defend the faith 🙏
See, the complications in the conversation, the subtle nuances between what Luther taught and what Tent taught, is why people tend to focus on simpler but less important (to Luther's mind anyway) differences between how Protestantism and Catholicism look.
Enjoyable conversation, thanks
My son, a recent convert to Catholicism, and I are having heavy debates (I am winning, no doubt :-) ) In the midst of all that he sent me a youtube: "reformation piggybackers" --got a smile and you know, we all need to smile more . . .
That said, I am trying hard to understand Catholicism more. I asked him to send me his best guy and he sent Akin. I probably got a couple of hours into him now. This morning, I sent him my observatons
Thanks for the humor. I was really happy to see it. Especially, in the midst of our hot topics where I am admittedly / intentionally tough --hats off to you again, son.
Frustrating morning here with your guy Akin.
In the “Pints” RUclips below, starting at 30:00 or so, Akin begins to fuzzy up the faith/works distinctions and even goes so far to say around 32:00 that the Protestant equation of Catholicism: Justification = Faith and works is, in Akin’s words “reprehensible” And that, “you can do a google search of everything Catholic and never find those words. . . “
What!?
I have no trouble seeing that the google search would not yield those words. That is not the point. In these scenarios, one point is rigorous honesty. He went on from there something about faith from love is enough. (Where did that come from?) “sola fides ex amore,” I would say satirically . . .
Maybe I am too tough on Akin?
For example: One of more favorite helps when dealing with students, or clients, etc., is the study of calories burned, inattentive vs. listening. And the study showed that more calories are burned when we listen. . . . To me, that is work.
Works, therefore, in my mind, is something / anything that we do. And in this case anything that we have to do.
Sola fides as a Catholic tenant? Listening to him a casual listener or a novice would take that as what Akin is saying about Catholicism. But it just ain’t so?
Barring I have missed something, Akin has fallen in my estimation, “reprehensibly”
Dad
Good, Christ did said that families would break down because of Him
❤ Jimmy, spanish people (like me) we deeply admire You, because you are a gentleman when You defend they catholic faith
Been waiting for this for a looooong time
Sorry you wasted your time then
The discussion on Christ’s temptation was most interesting and shows some important differences I think.
Justification is in Jesus alone !! He is all we need . He is love , he is righteousness. He is our Justification .
that is very true, but everything depends on how you understand such general statement
Christian Ste... Well your right about Justification is in Jesus alone. And he will definitely frown on unrepentant Mortal Sins which are alot more than just Apostasy. Know your Ten Commandments!
34:39 and and 35:10 and 35:20 - Jimmy explains that works don’t forgive us, that “faith+works” is an oversimplification of the Catholic position on justification.
35:24 - Jimmy said, “we don’t believe you have to do good works to get into a state of justification.”
40:15 - Jimmy believes that Romans 4 is about the whole Mosaic law, not just ceremonial works. Jimmy said, “What will make you right with God is Christ, not the Mosaic law.”
42:52 and 43:04 - Both agree that “works of the law” isn’t restricted to circumcision.
46:25 - Justification by Faith
47:14 - What is Faith?
47:52 - Cooper says that faith is trust.
50:28 and 51:56 and 53:41 - How is Faith used in scripture?
58:23 and 59:19 - Basically, Akin says that you need repentance for justification. Charity does not get you into a state of justification, good works flow from justification. You can’t do such works without justification.
1:01:40 and 1:02:46 - How to get saved in simple terms? As said by Akin and Cooper, we should repent, believe, and be baptized.
@@pastorjoelrichardson7836 Go home, fake account. You’re drunk, but not on Pints with Aquinas.
Great conversation! Is having a respectful, productive conversation on RUclips even allowed? It happens so rarely.
I think the main disagreement is over infused vs. imputed righteousness. As was made clear, both Lutherans and Catholics believe in both kinds of righteousness. However, I think they eventually got to the heart of the disagreement, which is over the logical order of infused and imputed righteousness. In the Lutheran view, God's declaration of forgiveness in Christ through faith (apart from love or works of the law in any sense) is logically prior to our own, internal transformation; in fact, the forensic declaration of righteousness is the cause of our own fulfillment of the law in love. In the Catholic view, God infuses the righteousness of Christ into us, and our internal transformation (our gaining of faith and love) is the cause of God's forensic declaration that we are not guilty.
I believe the Lutheran view is biblical, for a few reasons. First, Paul talks about justification "through faith" and "apart from the law" in both Romans 3 and Galatians 3. In Galatians 3, he also talks about the "promise of the Spirit" being received "through faith." What does he mean by "works of the law" and "apart from the law"? Some have argued that he means only ceremonial works of the law like circumcision, but that was not the view Jimmy Akin presented (and I'm glad he did not present this view). One reason this view is wrong is because Paul gives an example of the law in Romans 7, and his example is coveting (which is not a ceremonial work like circumcision or food laws). But if "works of the law" and "apart from the law" are broader than ceremonial laws, what could it mean? Both Paul and Jesus give us the answer. From Paul: "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” (Gal 5:14) And from Jesus: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (Matt 22:37-40). This makes it clear that "the law" and "love" are essentially synonyms (or maybe "love" and "works of the law" are synonyms). Thus, when Paul talk about being justified "through faith" and "apart from the law", he means that faith alone in Christ, apart from and prior to love, justifies us.
What's the importance of love then? Paul tells us: "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Gal 5: 22-23). Love--that is, works of the law--is the "fruit" of the Spirit. They come after our justification through faith. This is also clear in Gal. 5:13: "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another." Notice the order: we are first made free; as a result, we are "servants" working "through love". In other words, we are declared righteous through faith, and as a result of this declaration are infused with our own righteousness and love, and begin our good works.
I think the New Testament clearly supports the Lutheran view of justification, but the difference is somewhat subtle. A Calvinist/Reformed one-time forensic justification is certainly not biblical, and I am glad Catholics agree with us Lutherans on that point!
Is it worth a schism over the "logical order" of these righteousnesses? And even though your reasoning may be good, how can you know that you have the right teaching? Let's say you are fair-minded, and therefore say to yourself that you think you're 80% sure you're interpretation of these matters is correct. To enter into schism with the church (as Luther did) should require 100% assuredness, and it's hard to get over such a technical matter (the logical order) - don't you think?
@@mortensimonsen1645 I think that a) the schism occured for more than the reason of justification and b) no human institution is absolut correct in every matter. The Catholic Church even acknowledges this herself. E.G.: If someone is excommunicated it doesn't necessarily follow that he will go to hell.
This is one of the best conversations on justification I’ve seen
It would have been interesting to have Dr. Cooper talk about his view of Glorification? What happens to a person between death and at the point of standing before God and what is the righteousness of the person at that point?
We essentially are granted access to heaven on the basis of the merit of Christ alone, not the righteousness worked within us. The righteousness worked within us that we cooperate with, is the basis for greater degrees of glory in heaven. Essentially we see death as the purgation of our inward sinfulness.
Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Romans 7:24-25 ESV
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 "We essentially are granted access to heaven on the basis of the merit of Christ alone, not the righteousness worked within us." It must be more nuanced than this because if its strictly on the merits of Christ then everyone would be admitted to Heaven, there needs to be a movement within us to cooperate with that merit or grace? " Essentially we see death as the purgation of our inward sinfulness. " and is that necessary before we stand before God and if you say yes then that there is the essence of the theology of Purgatory and this would be where words can present barriers due to unfamiliarity.
@William Guertin yes ofc, everyone agrees with a purgation of sin after death. And we the merit of Christ by faith.
@@ridgetheh2obuffalo246 thank you for your kindness. I would suspect that there are some who would argue that we are in a fallen state even in Heaven that we are covered by the righteousness of Christ. This seems to contradict what the Church has held since the beginning and what seems rational and reasonable for those who earnestly desire total communion with God, it would seem that that portion of our being that is still fallen wouldn't enter into that unity. May God abundantly bless you and those around you. Peace and blessings - William
I get that Catholics like everything to be nuanced with a complicated answer. But if the Gospel was meant for all people and if we all agree God wishes to save as many as possible, why would the way to salvation be so purposefully complicated? I'm not saying it's easy of course, as the narrow path is not easy, but its simple. Christ says his yoke is light and the burden lifted. There is no need to overcomplicate a simple gospel. There is no need to put needless barriers in front of salvation where there shouldn't be.
'Confessional Catholic'
Hey @JimmyAkin you coined a term.
I was a Confessional Lutheran before I became Catholic. Confessional Catholic sounds really good to me.
I'm an ex-Catholic who grew up in the 50s and 60s. Nothing like what was said at the beginning of this discussion was taught to us back then. I'd like to know when it started? All we knew was we were working our own way to heaven through keeping God's and the church's commandments, and going to confession to have a priest forgive our sins.
I am not a Roman Catholic, but Roman Catholicism has never taught that works, in and of themselves, save you. The grace of Christ is what saves you. It seems to me that you had a bad understanding of what the church taught.
@@gch8810 No, I had a good understanding of a bad doctrine the church "I grew up in" taught.
@@doriesse824 Just because you grew up in it does not mean you truly understood it. Based on what you said, it appears that you did not truly understand Catholic doctrine.
1:49:37
Easy for you to say!
Love your works, Jimmy! 😁
Jordan B Cooper was instrumental in my cementing of the Lutheran faith in my mind.
Jesus Christ and the apostle Peter were instrumental in my cementing of the Catholic faith in my mind.
@@harrykimura You're refering to Matthew 16:18?
@@ricardooliveira9774 the most misinterpreted verse by Catholics since the Middle Ages. Like Augustine says in his 295th sermon. It is peter from the rock and not the rock from peter. Built upon his declaration of faith and not on the man himself.
@@4emrys misinterpretation is the primary reason as to why a CHURCH is so important. Sola scriptura is the driving force behind each and every new denomination - whether there are 33,000 or 2 denominations, there shouldn't be any!.
Each verse must be interpreted as best as we possibly can (given our human flaws) through discussion, and through the Church. We must have faith that the Pontifical Biblical Commission are doing their absolute best to get things as right as possible. They are scholars and selected based on their dedication to scriptural studies.
The Church also keeps PRIDE in check. You don't have the all the answers or correct interpretations so don't think otherwise.
Come back to the one true Church. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
❤️
It’s rather Infused Righteousness , and we choose to grow in that righteousness or Imputed Righteousness , it doesn’t matter what or how we live …This is the difference. 🙏🏻 infused righteousness is supported biblically throughout. Imputed righteousness is not found throughout the Bible. It does matter how we live, especially after we have received The Truth! Hebrews10:26. 🙏🏻
Great discussion gentlemen. I would love to see a discussion between Trent Horn and Jeff Durbin along the same lines.
Tbh I think these two views are close enough that I’d feel comfortable in either a Lutheran or a Catholic Church, as it relates to this particular question.
Enjoyed it.
Great debate ,thanks to Jimmy and Jordan and thanks to Matt for hosting . As a Catholic this has been very informative !
Sounds like both agree that understanding of justification suffers from slogans like 'sola fide' & 'faith+works' that oversimplify the matter at hand. Justification is way too complex to be discussed in mere minutes
I don't think so. If the gospel of Christ was meant for all people, it should be easily understandable to all people. He says his yoke is light and the burden taken off. I think that theologians try to understand every single aspect of God so clearly that they forget who they are studying, which is an all knowing powerful God that is not fully comprehensible to us humans, and is not meant to be right now.
Mr. Arroyo, I need to leave our conversation because my replies don't post. Thank you for "talking" with me.