A Critique of the Theology of Steven Paulson 

He is very seductive, he speaks about the benefits of Christ and the benefits of Lutheranism, so he is deceiving many Lutherans that have no clue the guy does not believe Christ’s substitution for sinners that saved us from the wrath of God. His gospel is a gospel of love, where there is no wrath, and we do not need Christ to save us from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9). There is no gospel in Paulson’s preaching, just a God that loves without the need of the cross.

@@henrka I find this to be a strange and inaccurate take. Have you heard Dr. Paulson preach? He consistently distinguishes "love" (as the fruit for the neighbor) from the "faith" that clings to the true Gospel as the promise of Christ (the only mercy Word that establishes one as a good tree). Your characterization of Paulson not preaching the gospel has me wondering if you've heard the gospel before. Paulson places the work of Christ on the Cross as an event that is much more than "unnecessary". Jesus Christ takes all the sins upon His body, and Christ bears the wrath of God - all that the law and the devil would like to hold in front of the sinner - Christ takes all of the full, complete accusation unto death. With no sin left to accuse, the law's job is complete. The Father raises the Son, according to His enduring promise. The Gospel is the word that endures forever, not the law. But the resurrected Christ isn't done; He finds His betrayers and delivers them peace. Jesus gives them the keys to forgive others in His name, and that is what the Church is built upon. The Holy Spirit continues to deliver Living (Evangelical) Word, this gospel promise of forgiveness, through Word and Sacrament. God is using forgiven sinners who possess the promise of being children of God to bestow this to others today. God is using people that know what this Gospel promise sounds like, people like Dr. Paulson, to proclaim this promise of Christ to sinners. I would encourage you to hear Dr. Paulson (or another one who knows of this Gospel and how it is to be distinguished from "love" or "law") preach this Word of Christ, for he'd love to give this wonderful gift to you.

@@henrka I'll just post my response to your comment once more, and then hope than, rather than deleting the comment, Dr. Cooper could allow the dialogue to move forward. I would think he'd want the comment section to remain true to the actual dialogue that the video has provoked, rather than an inaccurate, revised, propagandist portrayal in which certain comments are silenced and taken away rather than responded to. Here is that comment from before: I find this to be a strange and inaccurate take. Have you heard Dr. Paulson preach? He consistently distinguishes "love" (as the fruit for the neighbor) from the "faith" that clings to the true Gospel as the promise of Christ (the only mercy Word that establishes one as a good tree). Your characterization of Paulson not preaching the gospel has me wondering if you've heard the gospel before. Paulson places the work of Christ on the Cross as an event that is much more than "unnecessary". Jesus Christ takes all the sins upon His body, and Christ bears the wrath of God - all that the law and the devil would like to hold in front of the sinner - Christ takes all of the full, complete accusation unto death. With no sin left to accuse, the law's job is complete. The Father raises the Son, according to His enduring promise. The Gospel is the word that endures forever, not the law. But the resurrected Christ isn't done; He finds His betrayers and delivers them peace. Jesus gives them the keys to forgive others in His name, and that is what the Church is built upon. The Holy Spirit continues to deliver Living (Evangelical) Word, this gospel promise of forgiveness, through Word and Sacrament. God is using forgiven sinners who possess the promise of being children of God to bestow this to others today. God is using people that know what this Gospel promise sounds like, people like Dr. Paulson, to proclaim this promise of Christ to sinners. I would encourage you to hear Dr. Paulson (or another one who knows of this Gospel and how it is to be distinguished from "love" or "law") preach this Word of Christ, for he'd love to give this wonderful gift to you.

@@ohoegh there you go, what I just heard from you has nothing to do with the gospel. God gave us the keys to forgive some and condemn others, not to forgive everybody. The gospel is not about the forgiveness of sins but the condemnation of sinners as well, and you have just killed the gospel by making it solely about the love and forgiveness of God, and not the wrath of God against sinners. We cannot preach the gospel if we do not preach the law, Christ talked about hell more than heaven, condemnation more than forgiveness, I do not see this in Paulson, he does not preach the gospel simply because a gospel without law is no gospel at all. Yes, the gospel can be logically separated from the law, but not preached apart from it, our sins are forgiven solely for Christ sake and solely for the merits of Christ, but you cannot preach the gospel like that to everybody, Christ never preached the gospel to Judas or the rich young ruler and neither should we. Paulson on the other hand is announcing the absolution to everybody, when as I said at the beginning, we must clearly practice the office of the keys by delivering forgiveness for some and condemnation to others, we ought to retain the sins of many and absolve the sins of a few ( the narrow gate), and this is not what Paulson does. Lutheran tradition talks about preaching both law and gospel, law to some and the gospel to others, Paulson instead preaches the gospel to everybody which really means he is preaching the gospel to nobody because it is no longer the gospel, but a complete destruction of it.

@@henrka Who shall we withhold the gospel from then? Shall we reserve the gospel - God's Mercy - for only the righteous? Good luck finding one by the measurement of the law! That theoretical person won't have need of it anyway, as they're "right" already! Shall we put you in charge of who receives God's promise of forgiveness and who shouldn't? God determined that Judas would not hear the promise, and the wrath of God remained. I don't question why. By faith, I trust God in the matters of faith. Are you more worthy than Judas to receive the forgiveness of your sins? What you've done here is put yourself in the position of God. When you withhold God's Mercy through Jesus Christ and His Living Word, the sinner in front of you remains in bondage - unelected - dead in sin - destined to hell. Neither I nor Dr. Paulson are denying that God's law must be preached. It must! All fall short of the glory of God when the Law is the measurement. All are fallen sinners. If the Law is not proclaimed, the old sinner remains alive, thinking he can make it by his obedience. God has wrath for sin and that wrath comes to the sinner. But the Law is to be DISTINGUISHED FROM the Gospel. God's just wrath against sinners is not "good news" for the sinner, as you've incorrectly suggested, for the Law is not the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news, that the sins have been mercifully forgiven, a sheer act of God and pure gift given to the sick and unworthy. The Gospel is altogether different than the Law. The Law condemns the guilty sinner. The Gospel raises him to new life. That's quite a difference. The gate of salvation IS as narrow as it can get. It comes through faith in the one and only God, the mercy of the risen Jesus Christ. Those who hear the promise and believe it by the Holy Spirit have life and salvation. You don't determine who gets to hear this. God does. You are not God. You have one. You don't elect others. God does. God radically gives his forgiveness to sinners. He uses sinners like Dr. Paulson, and He might even use you if you're moved by God to let his law AND his gospel fly. Here's an example I can extend to you right now: "God's law condemns your pride, your idolatry, and your desire to be a god who elects some and not others instead of receiving God's word of mercy and giving it to other sinners in the name of Christ. But now, @henrka, receive the absolution. Christ gives you His Death, His Resurrection, and you have peace with God for He forgives your sins." I don't know if the note here will work to deliver faith, so I'd suggest finding Dr. Paulson or another preacher of God's law and gospel to proclaim this Living Word to you.

Yup.

@@DrJordanBCooper I hear, from the exasperation and/or uncomfortable laughter when engaging with Dr. Paulson's writing in this video, that Dr. Cooper is feeling an attack on the foundation of his work in his vocation. As resistant as all of us can be to the Gospel that announces our righteousness apart from the law (which includes our good works, the way we're being used in the world, our family roles, our systematic theology, our intellectual understanding of theology or church history or philosophy, etc.), the Gospel is the one word that endures forever. It is the one promise that justifies the sinner. I hear Dr. Cooper rejecting that this Gospel would justify, and not the law. I hear him, like the pharisees and religious leaders, balk that this Word would get to sinners through the mouth of a preacher like Dr. Paulson or through the voice of another (forgiven) sinner/betrayer of Christ. We'd love to be justified for something we can produce. That's just not how God, the one who can operate outside of the law and inside of it, decided to produce righteousness in those He elects. The old you, Dr. Cooper, will attempt to elect himself and harden his heart to the pure promise of mercy that Christ proclaims. This is a Living Word, as Forde, Bayer, Paulson, and others, thankfully, are willing to boldly proclaim. The death of the old you has already been announced in your baptism, and God chooses to unite you (the new one with a clean, forgiven heart) to Christ's resurrection. The means God uses to do this is a promise delivered in Word and Sacrament, not a proper understanding or description of this action before or after the fact (doctrine). You're not saved by your intellect, or because God "had to" according to metaphysics or philosophy, but an outside, pure, undeserved promise (not the law). It's always been this way.

@@ohoegh Thank you! .finally... Couldn't have articulated it better myself. When I have listened to Cooper and Scaer talk about 1517 and Forde.. I always imagine seeing the Rabbis arguing how many steps it would be legal to take on the Sabbath. They seem to be using the Keys to lock the gate not open it.

Well, Dr. Cooper is right in exposing this satanic teaching that God is a God of love and forgiveness, and forgives because he just loves to forgive. Away with this nonsense, we have a God of Justice that will punish the majority of people in hell and a God that solely forgives because Christ by his blood redeemed a people for himself by fulfilling the law perfectly and thus abolishing the law for all who believe (Ephesians 2:15). Paulson is in all likelihood not saved and on judgment day will face the God of Justice that he denies it exists, and not the God of forgiveness and absolution he has made up for himself. It is idolatry to worship a God that can forgive sins without satisfaction for sin being made, for without blood there is no remission of sin. This is not an inter-Lutheran debate, we have a heretic in the Lutheran house that must be excommunicated and it is fine for Jordan Cooper to point out the heresies, if anything he was too charitable.to Paulson. Penal substitution is the gospel and Paulson denies it, so he must be dealt with harshly, when the gospel is at stake we cannot be soft and nice. As you correctly pointed out Paulson is not Lutheran, and I would add he is not even Christian since he denies the necessity of Christ’s satisfaction for salvation.

@@henrka Is your confession saying that God chose to save through the law? This does not jive with the Scripture you've cited, nor does it with the Scripture you've not cited (Romans 1, 3, 10, Matthew 16, John 16, 20, Mark 16, Ephesians 2, 1 Peter 2, Genesis 12, 15, 18, etc. - all of Scripture points to Christ saving apart from the law). You are defending your atonement theory that maintains the law; you're attempting to keep the Gospel inside the boundaries of the law. The Gospel - and the one, true God that gives it - is not bound by the law. The forgiveness of sins by Christ - through his death (that defeated and ended the law) and resurrection - has been declared to you, and it will not return empty. You are united to Christ's victory. The means of grace is this promise Word, and the Word in the Lord's Sacraments, bestowed to you. This is complete promise. Jesus Christ is not merely your example to follow, but the gift given to you. His robe of righteousness is yours. He accomplished this without the law. The law's result is justice, and it killed Christ since he took your sins (and mine) upon His body. Mercy (forgiveness) has been given to you and me, and it's not fair according to the law. Yet this mercy is given to you by God so that you can say, "Amen. Have it your way. You're not a liar, and I believe your promise." The Holy Spirit gives you faith in God's promise word, and you are justified. This is your new confession: "Not only has God saved His chosen people apart from the law, but He has saved ME apart from it."

I am only a layman so dont put to much weight on my answer but I would say some of it is ok such as when Chad Bird talks about Christ in the OT. However, I no longer listen to their stuff on law gospel or sanctification.

Dr. Rod Rosenbladt is sound, as far as I can tell. Some of the others seem quite sound, too, but it is sad that they're giving Paulson a platform.

The issue with Paulson is that he is so powerful, if you listen to him he is a great speaker, way better than Jordan Cooper. He speaks against the law, he speaks about how free we are in Christ , and this type of stuff excites Lutherans. And I do not agree with everything Jordan Cooper says in this video either, a lot of what Paulson teaches is good, because Satan disguises as an agent of light and is a master at mixing some truth with lies to deceive. The reason we must reject Paulson is because he thinks God can forgive without his justice being satisfied, his wrath appeased, as if we did not need a mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. The God of Paulson is a false God of forgiveness and absolution that does not care about justice, this is not the God of the Bible, forgiveness is granted on the grounds of justification (God’s justice must be satisfied first and his Son fulfill the law). God is not some kind of Santa Claus that goes around handing out gifts (of forgiveness) willy-nilly and absolving people of their sin for no reason whatsoever other than he is merciful, no on the contrary we have a just God that does not forgive because he is a nice guy, but rather because Christ with his blood purchased forgiveness and satisfied for sinners by fulfilling all the requirements of the law.

I would also say that chad bird’s exegetical work is also pretty good. I’ve benefited a lot from it personally. A lot of the more topical/systematic videos/articles I have seen on 1517 are somewhat tinged with these sorts of currents of thought though.

@@ChericeGraham How could Rod Rosenbladt approve a heretic like Paulson who denies not only the doctrine of justification faith in the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ and the doctrine of unconditional election of believers unto life before the foundation of the world. It is beyond me, because Rod was one of the founders (with his son) and like you said he is pretty solid, or at least he appeared to be. One thing you have to watch about Rod, though, is that he has admitted he disagrees with other LCMS pastors and the LCMS pastoral leadership. I do not know exactly what this is about, I know Rod is much more comfortable with Calvin than the LCMS leadership ever would. And I am on Rod's side on this one, but there could be more that I am not aware of. The other thing where Rod is pretty bold is that he does not seem to think after somebody becomes a Christian that there is any change in the person's character or ability to keep the moral law. I would have to disagree with Rod, because as an example when you trust that Christ forgave your sins it becomes much easier to forgive others compared to what it was before your conversion. I do not believe Rod is an antinomian, but in this video with his son he sounds like one by refusing to acknowledge any change in moral character after people repent and come to Christ. He clearly is out of confessional lutheranism and the Lutheran Confessions, and also contradicts Martin Luther who wrote that after conversion a christian cannot stop doing good works. This is also a slap in the face of all the Christian martyrs that died for Christ, what is Rod thinking when says stuff like this. He may not be an antinomian, but he is opening the door for them to come in. Let me put it this way, I do not know enough about Rod Rosenbladt's faith to say whether it is genuine or not, I presume it is though, but to state that Christ does not transform or change your life is a gross heresy. I hope I misunderstood, listen here for yourself, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zYxlJe_HoQg.html

I also think Dr. Cooper should do a video on Flowers and provisionism. Of course, only Leighton Flowers truly understands provisionism and he thinks Lutherans are Calvinists lol.

我也喜欢耶稣😅

Why do you want to see this debate?

@@chemnitzfan654 hoyum and cooper are the two best young lutheran intellectuals around who come from different camps and can eloquently defend their positions. I think there is more common ground between them, then either of them would like to admit. I would pay top dollar to watch or listen to them challenge each other and defend their theological positions. The plot twist is I think they both attended college together at some point. I could be wrong, but I think I heard that somewhere.

God creates through His spoken Word. God was not bound by Aristotle's laws to create the world, and He is not bound to create faith in you with those laws either. When God chooses to give you a promise, apart from Aristotle's or any form of the law whatsoever, you can believe it. He does not lie. "But how did this happen?", you might say. The Lord spoke it. It is done. He is not partly mighty, but Almighty. He uses His power to do His will, and that is to save you; to justify you apart from works of the law. His mercy - the forgiveness of sins - is unfairly distributed to you. This is incredibly comforting. The Gospel removes you from your hamster wheel law and your bound, limited intellect. Your faith is certain, for it is in a promise that God has made. God's mercy contradicts His justice/wrath that was hanging over your conscience. Now, in faith, you are free. You have peace. You have comfort because He said so, and God gave it to you without you having anything to do about it.

@@ohoegh Chef's kiss! Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit!

Profound thoughts. I think the key theological concept missing here is-not the Neoplatonic idea of participation-but the true, robust, theological concept of _prayer_ . What both the modern existentialist concept and the more essentialist Neoplatonic concept (the existence vs. essence polarity) both lack with respect to the Lord our God as revealed to us in the scriptures: is the truly radical notion of _distance_ by which the God of the prophets reveals Himself: "Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne." (Ps. 97:2) The pagans tried to approach God both ways. The less learned through immanence resulting in gross idolatry. The more learned through transcendence resulting in a false (often pantheistic or panentheistic) spiritualism. The God of the scriptures is neither in immanence nor in transcendence. Trying to approach Him in either way is deadly presumption. Yet in prayer we immediately acknowledge our radical dependence on God. The simplest prayer of the simplest man, a spontaneous crying out to the Lord, has more theological truth and accuracy than the most sublime philosopher's intellection of the God of immanence or the God of transcendence. In the latter case there is always the sneaking suspicion that one is approaching God by one's own efforts, either by the immanent or the transcendental powers of one's soul; but the man of prayer knows he is empty handed and has nothing to offer God but his need or necessity. I've been tempted, so to speak, by the "God of the philosophers" (Pascal) myself, and what I noticed is that this God is not one you can pray to. The true God is the one that you pray to. As for existential encounter - if it's in the spirit of prayer, it is true; if it is outside the spirit of prayer, it is deception.

I should add that the philosophical approach to God has some truth and usefulness. I'm something of a Thomist myself. But there's a cutting off or circumcision of the intellect that needs to take place so that one doesn't end worshipping merely one's own intellectual image of the Lord, no matter how exalted.

​​​​​​​@@pretty-white-lamb Sure, and I'm speaking not of the gospel but of cosmology. God lays the world in a certain pattern "in Him we live and move and _have_ our being." All things exist in God (His mind) and share in his Being. That's just how reality is shaped. The gospel works within that framework, so while we are not saved by adherence to the moral Law for the sake of Christ (which is also connected to God's ontology: His perfect/immutable nature; the True, Good and Beautiful), the paradigm of encountering God, even in ways that seem "existential" is not divorced from the way the cosmos is constructed. Prayer IS participation. Prayer is worshipful communication from a status of faith (itself, grounded in an ontological 'union with Christ' and subsequent participation in the divine life of the Holy Trinity).

The neoplatonists go too far with emanations and hierarchy of being; what is transcendent is very close to us.

@@StoicHippy There's a difference between Plotinus and St Augustine -- despite both being Neoplatonists. Neoplatonism is a massive spectrum that includes ALL the early church fathers (and their gnostic heretical counterparts). You can't paint it with a broadly dismissive brush without the danger of losing the entire first millenia of Christian intellectuals. You also have to keep in mind that there are distinctions between Early, Middle and Neo-Platonism. By the time of the Church Fathers, Neoplatonism had (for the most part) integrated the hylemorphic theorem of Aristotle and thus posited that while "Being" did exist on a hierarchy (emanated, or otherwise), the universal did in some sense fully inhere within the particular -- which is where the Patristic notion of Dypartism/Tripartism; body, spirit, soul, comes from (the universal understanding of the early church is that "nephesh", or breath-of-God, is identical with _the form of the body_ which orders our prime matter, giving us our essence as rational animal by participating in the universal Form of "human" in the mind of God). While emanationism as such was rejected by the Church (favoring creatio ex nihilo), they nonetheless affirmed the notion that contingent-matter is in some "less real" than its necessary/Supernatural foundation. God IS Being, all creatures _have being_ by participation in Him (His energies). We have to acknowledge that physical creation is "less real" than God, on some level. Nevertheless, creation has been "enobled" by the incarnation, but that is a change in the natural order of things and corresponds to the pattern of redemption rather than creation.

The law was never meant to save. We could attempt to separate out the different types of law -- but this is a fruitless attempt to perceive or find a law that doesn't accuse in the end. Scripture (including God's commands and laws - even the moral ones) reveals that you and I are guilty. There is an accusation, and new life is not found by it. . You cannot produce the righteousness that the law requires. You have loved one, but you've forsaken another. So, there is not a need to distinguish between some laws and others in terms of their effects - the effect of the law on your heart is that you are guilty and in need of Christ your Savior.

Is it your "taste" that drew you into agreement with an "anti-metaphysical" stance, or was it something else... like Scripture? I'm with Dr. Paulson, Scripture, and the Apostle Paul with this. God's Word is operative. "God" does not equal "Law". Dr. Cooper continually defends metaphysical arguments back to scholastic philosophy or Lutheran orthodoxy, as if Christianity itself is based on those entities rather than Word of God that is the decisive power inside and outside of all history. Dr. Cooper claims that "philosophy" decided these things already, and becomes exasperated that Paulson won't go along with "17th century othodoxy" or "Christian philosophy". God orchestrates all things and He will decide what makes His Church, not man's philosophical theories or even the doctrines that we defend. Faith is not about our descriptions/explanations of the events, but the events themselves through His Word being proclaimed. Philosophy and Doctrine have a lot to say in this world, and they have their utility, but these things bound by the law are not what make the capital C Church what it is. Is God subject to the Laws He created? No! Will He use it the way He will use it? Yes! As the Apostle Paul points out, the Law came 430 years after speaking His Promise to Abraham. God is not the law; the law is a word that He uses. God did not create the universe (or the metaphysical laws that govern its movement, appearance, etc.) because the metaphysical properties commanded Him to. God is not bound by His own laws. He created the universe by speaking. He creates faith in Christ through the spoken Word as well. In your comment, you assert that Paulson's words are rhetorically charged but that they say very little when it comes to substance. When I read his books, listen to his podcasts, and hear him preach -- I would assert that he is saying a lot, supported by extensive use of Scripture and by the writings of Martin Luther and great knowledge of church history. I find that Dr. Jordan Cooper is the one saying very little. He quotes Paulson, and then offers sounds of exasperation or shock. Perhaps he will offer solid rationale for the shock? No. His pattern will then continue by pointing out where Paulson's claim goes against scholastic philosophy, Augustine, a post-Lutheran Orthodox thinker, or another philosopher -- as if claims that oppose Lutheran Orthodoxy or a medieval Scholastic philosopher are inherently wrong. Cooper than uses a phrase like "I mean, ugh" or "I've gone so much deeper into this but I can't right now" or "we're not even going to get into that". Cooper then criticizes Paulson of not apologizing for his assertion, despite offering no concrete reason to do besides these phrases that teenage girls use to gain more influence in their friend group.

I noticed this comment had been taken down. We'll see if this sticks this time. Is it your "taste" that drew you into agreement with an "anti-metaphysical" stance, or was it something else... like Scripture? I'm with Dr. Paulson, Scripture, and the Apostle Paul with this. God's Word is operative. "God" does not equal "Law". Dr. Cooper continually defends metaphysical arguments back to scholastic philosophy or Lutheran orthodoxy, as if Christianity itself is based on those entities rather than Word of God that is the decisive power inside and outside of all history. Dr. Cooper claims that "philosophy" decided these things already, and becomes exasperated that Paulson won't go along with "17th century othodoxy" or "Christian philosophy". God orchestrates all things and He will decide what makes His Church, not man's philosophical theories or even the doctrines that we defend. Faith is not about our descriptions/explanations of the events, but the events themselves through His Word being proclaimed. Philosophy and Doctrine have a lot to say in this world, and they have their utility, but these things bound by the law are not what make the capital C Church what it is. Is God subject to the Laws He created? No! Will He use it the way He will use it? Yes! As the Apostle Paul points out, the Law came 430 years after speaking His Promise to Abraham. God is not the law; the law is a word that He uses. God did not create the universe (or the metaphysical laws that govern its movement, appearance, etc.) because the metaphysical properties commanded Him to. God is not bound by His own laws. He created the universe by speaking. He creates faith in Christ through the spoken Word as well. In your comment, you assert that Paulson's words are rhetorically charged but that they say very little when it comes to substance. When I read his books, listen to his podcasts, and hear him preach -- I would assert that he is saying a lot, supported by extensive use of Scripture and by the writings of Martin Luther and great knowledge of church history. I find that Dr. Jordan Cooper is the one saying very little. He quotes Paulson, and then offers sounds of exasperation or shock. Perhaps he will offer solid rationale for the shock? No. His pattern will then continue by pointing out where Paulson's claim goes against scholastic philosophy, Augustine, a post-Lutheran Orthodox thinker, or another philosopher -- as if claims that oppose Lutheran Orthodoxy or a medieval Scholastic philosopher are inherently wrong. Cooper than uses a phrase like "I mean, ugh" or "I've gone so much deeper into this but I can't right now" or "we're not even going to get into that". Cooper then criticizes Paulson of not apologizing for his assertion, despite offering no concrete reason to do besides these phrases that teenage girls use to gain more influence in their friend group.

Yes! You've articulated this nicely - that Mercy is opposed to Wrath/Justice. The Law is not the only Word that God has chosen to speak. He creates life - and faith in Christ - through the gospel promise. On the cross, the Word of Mercy defeats the wrath is the one that will endure forever. This is now the age of preaching this good news so that the word - the real word of God's mercy through Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins - can do it's proper work of electing unto salvation. It seems, in this video, that Dr. Cooper is not willing to distinguish the Gospel as the mercy of God, or that the law is brought to an end on the Cross and the declaration of forgiveness by Christ's death and resurrection. He, like many of us old sinners, want there to be something left for us to do; or for the law to have a cuddly/positive effect in justification, rather than the inevitable accusation it produces.

@@ohoegh I don't think that the Law is any less eternal than the Gospel. I also don't deny that the Law had to be satisfied by Christ's obedience as well as His Death on the Cross. In other words, unlike Paulson, I do not deny Christ's vicarious, substitutionary atonement upon the cross, nor do I deny that you must bear fruit in keeping with repentance. With all that said, however, I do not believe that I can bear that fruit apart from Christ working in me, so I am a Monergist.

@@dawsonberry5284 Faith doesn't come by what you think, or what you ascend to with the Law as your guide. It doesn't depend on your evaluation, but what you hear. The apostle Paul delivers this so strongly and comfortingly in Romans 10 - "Christ is the end of the law." "Faith comes by hearing." Indeed, faith does not come by your work or through the Law at all; salvation is the work of God, as you have confessed. Since you confess to be a Monergist - that God alone is the giver of faith through the Holy Spirit - that His promise of forgiveness to you is to be believed unto eternal life - that Jesus Christ took your sins upon himself, died, and was raised to give you Mercy through a preached word that you (passively) hear and believe - you know that all of salvation is the work of God. How is the Law eternal if Christ has brought it to an end? How does the Law stay in front of you when you are in Christ and He has fulfilled it already? How can the Law accuse your sin if God Himself has forgiven it? With faith in Christ's promise of mercy, the law can no longer prod or condemn the new, regenerated you. It's in the rear view mirror, and there's no need to look at it. In faith, you are a good tree. You simply DO "bear fruit in keeping with repentance", and not because the Law is saying "Yeah, but you MUST...". In faith, this fruit grows like crazy - not because the Law is in front of you anymore, but because you heard Christ's promise and can now truly hear your neighbor in need. The fruit being produced in you is for your neighbor. Now, the Law does continue for that old you as long as you're in this old world. He continues to remain alive for the span of my earthly life. The new you in faith will live eternally, but this old you will expire. You've been given Christ's death, and the new you shares in Christ's resurrection. The Law will not be there, for Christ will be there. He has ended the Law.

@@dawsonberry5284 Hoping that Dr. Cooper won't delete this comment this time, as I feel that this space can be a useful place for helpful dialogue. Thanks! Now to the reply: Faith doesn't come by what you think, or what you ascend to with the Law as your guide. It doesn't depend on your evaluation, but what you hear. The apostle Paul delivers this so strongly and comfortingly in Romans 10 - "Christ is the end of the law." "Faith comes by hearing." Indeed, faith does not come by your work or through the Law at all; salvation is the work of God, as you have confessed. Since you confess to be a Monergist - that God alone is the giver of faith through the Holy Spirit - that His promise of forgiveness to you is to be believed unto eternal life - that Jesus Christ took your sins upon himself, died, and was raised to give you Mercy through a preached word that you (passively) hear and believe - you know that all of salvation is the work of God. How is the Law eternal if Christ has brought it to an end? How does the Law stay in front of you when you are in Christ and He has fulfilled it already? How can the Law accuse your sin if God Himself has forgiven it? With faith in Christ's promise of mercy, the law can no longer prod or condemn the new, regenerated you. It's in the rear view mirror, and there's no need to look at it. In faith, you are a good tree. You simply DO "bear fruit in keeping with repentance", and not because the Law is saying "Yeah, but you MUST...". In faith, this fruit grows like crazy - not because the Law is in front of you anymore, but because you heard Christ's promise and can now truly hear your neighbor in need. The fruit being produced in you is for your neighbor. Now, the Law does continue for that old you as long as you're in this old world. He continues to remain alive for the span of my earthly life. The new you in faith will live eternally, but this old you will expire. You've been given Christ's death, and the new you shares in Christ's resurrection. The Law will not be there, for Christ will be there. He has ended the Law.

There's good people in the ELCA -- most of them are laity/retired pastors, unfortunately. It's very much a "Babylonian Captivity" by a corrupt hierarchy situation.

Well, it's just that "The Church of the Book of Concord and the unaltered Augsburg Confession" gets a bit awkward.

That title would not be an apt description of the content of the video.

Luther doesn't simply define the Law at the point of showing sin, wrath and death as its only purpose. That would be an incomplete rendering of Luther's view of the Law. He states his views quite clearly in the Small Catechism: "What purposes does the Law then serve? First, the Law helps to control violent outbursts of sin and keeps order in the world (a curb). Second, the Law accuses us and shows us our sin (a mirror). Third, the Law teaches us Christians what we should and should not do to live a God-pleasing life (a guide). The power to live according to the Law comes from the Gospel.” The Law is not only confined to the thesis of Point 2. Luther quite clearly notes the validity of the 1st and 3rd uses of the Law, with the 3rd point being synonymous with the lex aeterna.

@@matswinther8991 No, it does not corrupt his teachings as the BoC clearly lays out that Luther taught this in several of his sermons that are referred to in the discussion of the Third Use of the Law. Moreover, the recognition of the Third Use is explicit in the Confessions and is normative for all confessing Lutherans. In Article VI of the Formula on The Third Use, it is noted that "Dr. Luther has fully explained this at greater length in the Summer Part of the Church Postil, on the Epistle for the Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity." It is incorrect to say that Luther did not hold to the Third Use.

Yes, Lutherans speak of the third use of the law, but Luther did not. The law does not establish a "positive demand", or a third use, in front of the believer. Rather, it is _behind_ the believer as fulfilled.

(Why is this message removed again and again?) No, Luther does not say this, in neither of his catecheses. This seems to derive from Schwan's exposition of Luther's Small Catechism (1912). Evidently, it gravely corrupts his instruction. In Antinomian Disputations Luther says: "38. In sum: The law is neither useful nor necessary for justification _or for any good works,_ let alone salvation". Unlike the orthodox Lutherans, Luther defines the law as synonymous with its afflictive influence on sinners. The law does not exist as a 'lex aeterna', apart from its worldly manifestation. Says Luther: "When we speak of the law, we speak about the law's proper effect, which it can have or perform in this corrupt nature" (Antinomian Disputations), and that's why we "are not concerned about the word 'law,' but about the thing itself" (WA 39I:416). Another thing that bothers me is that Dr. Cooper, along with the orthodox, reasons in term of substance and accidents, as if the former were prime (neutral) matter and the latter the qualities that 'clothe' matter. This is Aristotelian science. Today we know that bread and wine are the same at molecular level, and there is no such thing as prime matter. The reason why salt tastes salty is because the salt ion (atom) stimulates our salt-sensitive taste cells. So qualities are really _functions_ of matter. There are no accidents, and no neutral substance exists. It is time to do a revision of Lutheran metaphysics. (Otherwise I very much appreciate Cooper's videos.)

@@matswinther8991 Not sure. I got it and it's letting me reply via RU-vid.

I don't agree that this has been done. Dr. Cooper is quite frustrated in this video. The abhorrence is not masked or dealt with using any clear or authoritative refutation of Paulson's confession. What seems to be authoritative for Dr. Cooper is the Book of Concord or post-Luther Orthodoxy and medieval, scholastic "Christian Philosophy", not the Scriptures that attest a true confession of faith. The frustration comes out often in phrases such as "I can't even", "I don't get it", or "pretty much everyone agrees about this". Dr. Cooper does not offer clear refutation in the video, and instead claims that "I took this up in my book". He quotes Paulson, and then says, "Paulson is rejecting 3rd use!", "He's rejecting Christian philosophy as gospel", or "this flies against the Lutheran Orthodoxy of the 17th century". To which Paulson would say, "Yes, of course I am!"

You are revealing your ignorance here - Paulson is consistently engaging with the Bible, and he rejects the systems (including the doctrinal or theological systems you're bringing up) that would attempt to replace the spoken, Living Word of Christ (the absolution) - the Gospel - as the event that justifies sinners. Please consider reading Dr. Paulson's books, listen to his podcasts, or hear his sermons.

Paulson is a great preacher because he preaches the truths of the Gospel, not because he's a captivating public speaker. Some of the greatest public speakers are wolves.

@@pauln5785 wrong, Paulson is not a great preacher. Nobody that is a disciple of Forde who denied penal substitution can possibly be a great preacher of the gospel.

@@henrka Penal substitution isn't the only theory out there. We're supposed to be Lutherans, not Reformed theobros.

Yes, it's because of my doctrine of Christification.

​@@DrJordanBCooper I have to pick your book up on that! Your teaching on Union with Christ has been impactful for my faith and would love to go deeper on christification because I am pretty sure I agree with how you state the doctrine because what are we being sanctified into but Christ!

A "heretic" moreso by confessional Lutheran standards. They think he directly contradicts the Formula of Concord (Book of Concord) by teaching that 'union with Christ' precedes our justification. They conflate "mystical union/sanctification" with "formal union of faith", and if they were confused, that would contradict our confessions (because that's the Osiandrian error: indwelling sanctification is the cause of justification and not vice-versa). They haven't read him to know the different senses of "union."

Anybody that denies the necessity of the substitutionary atonement of Christ for salvation is a heretic. Obviously Paulson thinks Christ went to the cross for nothing, since God forgives sin without any satisfaction or shedding of blood required. God is a nice guy that loves everybody according to Paulson and forgives freely without any regard to his justice, the God of Paulson us an idol that does not exist, the God of the Bible clearly states that without blood there is no remission of sin.

The seed that the serpent always attempts to plant is doubt. Sin is unbelief in God's promise to be God and to provide life with Him. Dr. Paulson is preaching a promise that faith clings to - the promise of Christ and His mercy. This promise is complete. God is the one who speaks it. Dr. Paulson has received this promise, and he is boldly proclaiming it.

Surah 5:38 “As for male and female thieves, cut off their hands for what they have done-a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise” Doesn’t sound like love, tolerance, or forgiveness to me

Of all the false religions on planet Earth, none have done the damage Islam and Judaism did to the world.

Lol 😂