A Response to Robert Koons on Sola Scriptura 

When the Pope says potential heresies but he didn't preface it with "Simon says"

Thank you for your videos Dr Cooper. I'm a former Catholic moving towards the Anglican tradition.

Great Video Dr. Cooper! As a Lutheran the biggest doubts I had about my confession were about sola scriptura, and what I found most attractive about Rome was its promise of an infallible Magisterium that could interpret scripture. I also couldn’t counter the argument that the Magisterium put together the Bible so that sola scriptura can’t be true. You were very convincing, managing to dispell my doubts and make me even more strongly Lutheran. Btw Star Wars Legends is definitely the only true Star Wars canon ;)

It sounds like you saw How To Be Christian's video on your claim regarding Exsurge Domine. I almost wish you directly addressed him, because his modus operandi is a shockingly consistent abuse of language, as if its a decontextualised set of formulae that can be manipulated however you want, rather than qualitative units of meaning rooted in history. Perhaps a future video?

Dr. Cooper, you are a true inspiring Christian. Thanks to you (and church history), I am coming to believe that The Lutheran church is the most consistent with church history, and most importantly, with the Holy Scriptures. Yesterday my family and I visited a Lutheran Church and we loved the liturgy. God bless you.

You have out done yourself with this podcast. Most excellent. I enjoyed your "control f" hint on what words to use for a search on "unanimous." I actually listened to this in ONE SITTING.

I've been planning on doing a similar video to this, and as a fellow fan of the Star Wars Expanded Universe (who has had to make those same retcon arguments, myself), I will definitely be using that example to parallel the problem with Roman apologetics.

Looking forward to seeing more videos on this topic. Very good Reverend.

You should tackle Chem.’s 8 Traditions from the Examination

34:50 infant baptism 40:00 sufficiency of scripture 41:54 NT wasn't around yet 43:00 Matthew 15 47:00, 51:30 canon 53:28 church fathers 56:47

“The reason behind the rejection of infant baptism is in an individualistic, western context” EXACTLY! It’s a postmodern context that has taken Descartes too far. In other words, “I think, therefore I am” has become “I believe I have gotten saved, therefore I am saved,” which goes SO CONTRARY to how objective justification works.

Great response Coop. Appreciate your work on this.

Thanks for the content, so few doing it so well.

I'd personally love to see a Just and Sinner podcast episode about Star Wars.

Dr. Cooper: I have been following your various presentations and find them both insightful and applicable to my own personal spiritual growth. As a practicing life-long Roman Catholic, I enjoy hearing your (super) well-informed critiques and clear presentations about Lutheran teachings that I'd never heard explained quite the way you present them. THANK YOU!! Lastly, I have to honestly state that: EVERY GAME NEEDS A REFEREE AND SOMEONE WHO ULTIMATELY CALLS THE SHOTS. (NO, dear readers, I AM NOT referring the any denominations as a literal "game"......it's just part of the common expression I'm using to make my point.) Dr. Cooper, I look forward to your continued videos and future success. I have (honestly) referred to myself as an EVANGELICAL CATHOLIC or LUTHERANIZED CATHOLIC for about 40 years.

Btw, the Saduccees didn't reject the rest of the OT. I have a short little discussion with Steve Christie on my channel on that.

This is a great episode.

About the change from everything was taught by the Fathers to Newman's development, I'm in the middle of "From Bousset to Newman." Is there another book or article etc that should be read on the topic?

Excellent episode.

Thank you so much! This was super helpful and informative. One quick question: How would you defend the traditional Protestant view of scripture against the consistency arguments that you make against Rome there at the end. I feel like skeptics often accuse us (believers) of making contradictions in scripture fit no matter what. So if someone were to ask, how is what we are doing with biblical interpretation different than what Rome is doing in trying to smooth over the clearly dissonant parts of its teaching?

I'd be interested in getting your thoughts on Jenson's papal infallibility.

All we have is what was written down. Anything else is guesswork

As a protestant, I find Robert Sungenis to be one of the best apologists. He doesn’t water anything down or try to pull the wool over your eyes. I genuinely think he makes a good case for Trent regarding justification as well. Have you read his interaction with Michael Horton?

The need for Cardinal Newman's theory is evidence that the early church did not believe what Rome believes today.

Thank you

only one thing, you are a 100% right on the expanded universe of star wars.

Well reasoned.

Love the star wars analogy

Dr. Cooper, I appreciate that you are trying to bring some nuance to this conversation. Some of your objections you raised here to the Papacy and the magisterium do not deal with all the necessary nuances of the levels of magisterial authority, though. You really should consider having dialogues with Catholics about this so that everyone can truly make progress towards truth together rather than run the risk of missing something that may in fact challenge your position more in these monologue reaction-type presentations. In particular, Michael Lofton over at the Reason and Theology RU-vid channel is very well versed in the magisterium and I think a conversation with him would prove very fruitful for both Catholics and Lutherans alike to try and understand what Catholics really teach about the magisterium. He even had a couple of recent episodes on the magisterium that would provide answers to many of the objections you raise in this video (including the disputed claim among Catholics that the Pope has only ever made 2 infallible declarations). ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Hfnm6ksdzZo.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-F-EXY_FNOXo.html A dialogue with Dr. Koons on his book would also be amazing. He is a frequent guest on many programs and I bet would be interested in having a conversation with a learned Lutheran, such as yourself. Given the level of access everyone has to historical documents on the internet, I think we should be able to see a much greater move towards unity if we simply are willing to have good hearted, open conversations seeking after truth together. In the past, I fear that everyone's limited access to information was a large cause of unnecessary division by simply being unaware of all the relevant information to a debated topic. I really hope we can continue to see conversations like the ones I see with Cameron Bertuzzi and Matt Fradd having on Pints with Aquinas, or the new discussion with Joe Heschmeyer & Dr. Gavin Ortlund on the Gospel Simplicity Channel. I think you would be an amazing voice to add to this ecumenical dialogue. You are very well versed in many areas of theology and philosophy and could bring a lot to the table in this emerging RU-vid ecumenical environment. God bless!

I look forward to a future video on the Canon. I find it problematic to simply say that the Canon is simply providential without the Church giving Her stamp of approval. NOT creating the Canon but rather recognizing and establishing its inspiration and Authority.

In a video titled: “A Response to Robert Koons on Sola Scriptura,” Dr. Cooper gives a 30 minute intro, more aptly titled, “Against Papal Infallibility.” I do understand the logical connection between these two systems of epistemology, but I had expected a video so titled to be more focused and logically organized. Cooper’s main two points in the introduction are, first: that modern RCC apologists focus on doctrinal development, whereas earlier statements on Catholic doctrine assert that Catholic doctrine was explicitly taught and understood by the Apostles and their successors; and second, papal infallibility encompasses far more than ex cathedra statements and should be broadly applied to include even those statements that are heretical, contradictory, and touch on matters outside of faith and morals, such as encyclicals on environmental stewardship, or reckless, unilateral changes to the catechism concerning capital punishment. Such characterizations suffer from what I have come to term the “Bart Ehrman Fallacy.” If when a man looks to find a pristine and impeccable consistency, he instead finds even the slightest hint of fallibility, or the taint of human hands, he feels that he is both safe and justified in tossing the entire edifice. This is childish. There is much nuance in the discussion concerning papal infallibility, and Cooper allows none of it. Even Paul admitted that he saw “through a glass darkly.” So much more may we be permitted to remain uncertain at points. There have been whole centuries of uncertainty that the Church has weathered: robber councils, competing claims to the papacy, invasion, heresy, schism, and usurpation. Cooper likes to make much of the condition of the post-conciliar Church with dueling popes; but these are not new challenges, and such aberrations can never be cited as normative for the delegitimizing of the Apostolic Church, as Cooper is wont to do. That doctrine develops is a historical fact, but perhaps not in the way that Cooper understands. The Trinity has always been taught and understood by the Apostles and their successors; yet it took until the late second century to even adopt a term for it. Some will take an ever increasing accuracy in definition to be a development; even a development contrary to what was held by the primitive Church. The office of the papacy, likewise, predates the term; but the reality can be demonstrated from history. Why else were the Corinthians appealing to Rome in 1st Clement ? And does not Pope Leo, in his 10th letter, appeal to antiquity in elevating the Roman See above all others, and refers to it as the source of “unity and the bond of peace?” And Leo takes little pain in convincing his contemporaries of this, other than appealing to tradition, as though it were something which had merely been forgotten and neglected in his own time. The development of doctrine is potentially only a means to explain why the modern Catholic Church does not look like the primitive Catholic Church. If even Christ can be said to grow in wisdom and stature, why does Cooper deny this to Christ’s Bride? Contrast this with the practice of sola scriptura and you will find something amusing. By the very constraints of history, Cooper will have to admit that no one could have practiced “Bible alone” before the Bible existed, which would have been the 4th century at the earliest, and only if you accept the expanded Catholic canon. If one is limited to the Protestant canon, sola scriptura is only practicable after the Protestant canon is finalized, for the simple fact that you cannot follow scripture alone so long as there remains debate about what scripture is, and which books meet the criteria. It is a self-defeating precept, and I believe that Cooper understands this. But all of this, however tedious, is neither here nor there. If the Church was utterly inconsistent and corrupt, the Christian would still be bound to observe it as the Church which Christ founded. How so?, you may ask. By the very example that Christ gave: We will all agree that the Temple religion of the 1st century was corrupt; that it was run by unbelievers; that it was consumed with the motivations of money and power; that it had innovated to an extreme. But where did Christ worship? In John we find Jesus at the temple during the Feast of Dedication, an innovative observance, never commanded by Moses. Why was He there? He was there because the Temple was the only place where sacrifices could be validly and licitly offered. He was there for the sake of obedience. Christ also attended worship in the synagogue, another innovation never commanded by Moses. But what did Jesus say of the scribes and Pharisees? He commanded to do all that they say, because they sit in Moses’ seat. Christ came and founded a Church. Innovation does not remove this charter. Corruption cannot blot out its mandate. But separation from it runs contrary to the example of Christ.

A surface level read of the Fathers makes one Catholic but going deeper avoids one from becoming Catholic? Do we all need to get our doctorate in the Fathers to properly understand them to become Lutheran? If we were just smarter we could all avoid Rome. That's essentially the claim. That's also similar to the claim I've heard from Reformed folks regarding the Bible: "if they just understood Scripture rightly they'd be Reformed, it's such a shame." All these arguments start to sound the same after a while.

Song credit ?

I had no idea Koons was Roman Catholic. He's an analytic philosopher of religion in Texas so i just assumed either baptist or reformed lol

@Dr. Jordan B Cooper Happy Friday to you sir! Just seeing this now, but I had a bit of an "ah ha" moment that I'd like to ask your opinion on: Vatican 1 insists that the papacy is built on the Lord giving it to Peter personally and his successors. But isn't the wisdom of the whole thing that the only thing Peter gets right is that he believes and confesses that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah? but with like everything else, Peter screws it up. The only thing that Peter gets right is when he confesses Who Jesus Is. I think that's kind of the point. The rest of Peter's actions are very human- he's frightened; he lies but repents; he boasts that no one will harm Jesus. He's a mess. He's the every man. None of us is perfect and we all fall far short, but that's what I think is going on here. Jesus through the "Do you love me" conversation meets Peter where he is and instructs him to feed His sheep. What I get from that is that Peter is frail, faulty, and imperfect, but his faith in Christ is the important thing. It isn't who he is. Peter is and isn't special- he is special in that he is the de facto leader of the apostles, but he isn't special because he's imperfect and sinful just as we all are, but we see his growth in faith until he sheds the human trappings of Judaism and enters the home of the Centurion. He's a man on a mission now. But it's his faith not his person on which the Church is built. Am I wrong?

I'm the only Lutheran in a men's Bible study dominated by John MacArthur Calvinists..

Perhaps one could say that the pontificate of Pope Francis the Talking Mule is providential. He is going to make the whole matter of papal infallibility to indefensible that Rome will just have to throw up its hands and abandon the whole paradigm of papal infallibility. (Of course, it could declare him an "anti-pope" and defer the question, but the faithul may not go along with that explanation.)

Three Huzzahs for the Augsburg Confession!

Notes pour moi-même : Affirme que beaucoup d'apologètes défendent un catholicisme qui est nouveau. Vers 10:30, répond à la prétention que les catholiques prétendent simplement que les dogmes étaient contenus implicitement dans l'Ecriture et la tradition et non qu'ils y étaient explicitement de tout.

Soli Deo Gloria.

You don't consistently hold to Sola Scriptura. Does the word "Sun" mean "Sun" in Joshua chapter 10? You won't touch that one!

I'm disappointed that it looks like you won't be on Reason and Theology anytime soon - it seems like they felt you basically ghosted them by not providing them dates. You are a busy guy I'm sure but I still think it was a real missed opportunity

Dr. Cooper pretends to ignore that having a “very strong biblical support” for a doctrine does not prove that doctrine true. Who decides if an argument is “very strong”? Obviously the same person that makes that argument. Dr. Cooper reads Scripture and decides that whoever rejects infant baptism is an “extremist” because he can make a very strong biblical argument in favor of it. Then he reads Scripture and decides that papacy is unbiblical because he can make a very strong biblical argument against it. Guess what? If you ask Anabaptists, I would bet they think they have very strong biblical arguments against infant baptism. And if you ask Catholics, they also have very strong biblical arguments in favor of the papacy. Who is Dr. Cooper to judge everything and everyone? You see how Sola Scriptura immediately degenerates into ego and pride: I have the Holy Spirit so I can interpret Scripture correctly and if you disagree it means you do not have the Holy Spirit. Basically: I’m right because I’m right and you are wrong because you are wrong. Is this incomprehensible chaos of contradicting protestant teachings what Jesus envisioned when he prayed for the unity of his Church? Sola Scriptura created all this. Sola Scriptura is unbiblical. Stay away from Sola Scriptura.

I'm half-way through this video about "sola scriptura," and I've found that it's really a video about papal infallibility. Dr. Cooper's dislike of Catholicism, and Koons, is palpable. But this is good, because _in ira est veritas._ And I know more about Cooper's motivations now than I ever could have before. Cooper also doesn't know as much as Wikipedia concerning papal infallibility. Ex Cathedra statements are quite rare and always deliberate in the extreme: "The solemn declaration of papal infallibility by Vatican I took place on 18 July 1870. Since that time, the only example of an ex cathedra decree took place in 1950, when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, the only agreed upon infallible definition of a pope apart from a council was that of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus of 1854. In both cases the pope checked with bishops worldwide that this was the belief of the Church before proceeding to a formal definition." There is much more that can be said about this video (and I do intend a lengthier response), but I am beginning to hear desperation in Cooper's voice. Something that Koons has said is getting to him, and his handling of Catholicism is becoming uncharitable and less than honest.

OK, OK. So, God providentially made the Church recognize the Canon of the Bible. But, UNprovidentially (and sadly) he made them get the NT canon right and the OT canon wrong. I’ll leave it at that because it’s already too hilarious..

A shallow look at church history can lead a person to Roman Catholicism. A deeper look into church history will lead a person to Eastern Orthodoxy. And a very, very deep look into church history will lead a person away from both RC and EO. Then a look into reformation church history will lead you to reject Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc, etc. Then in the end, after 50 years of study, you settle for the words of Jesus: Love God and all people and do righteousness. You may even end up doing this in one of the above mentioned churches.