Website: www.justandsinner.org Patreon: / justandsinner This video is a defense of the doctrine of objective justification which has been a subject of controversy within Lutheranism, especially with ELDoNA's rejection of the idea.
For real? I thought the Orthodox largely rejected the doctrine of justification as Protestants understand it? (I.e., being a judicial act of God whereby he declares us righteous)
@@cullanfritts4499 No, Zach was referring to objective justification. So, parroting Dr. Cooper here: objective justification is the justification of Christ at the ressurection for all of humanity. Subjective justification (referring to how we the individual subjects are justified) is the application of that objective justification to us (or our participation in that objective justification). I think Zach is saying that the Orthodox basically agree with Lutherans on the objective justification that happens to Christ for all of humanity -- and that any subjective justificaiton has to be grounded in that larger objective justificaiton. But where the Orthodox differ is in what that subjective justification is. They think that our subjective justification (or how we as individuals take part in objective justification) is through theosis/divination and faith and works. Whereas we Protestants believe that the subjective side is through faith alone and is not a process.
Thank you so much for this, as it was a thorough and nuanced explanation that cleared up a lot of confusion and concern. ELDONA, unwittingly or wittingly, seem hellbent on twisting and caricaturizing this doctrine into some kind of horrific heresy worth engaging in schism over; when in fact, it's nothing more than the concept of Jesus being the Second Adam.
The Lutheran teaching on Objective Justification as carefully understood is also very useful to counter common Calvinist arguments for "limited atonement". A lot of Calvinists like to poke fun and claim "What has Christ accomplished on the Cross if He only made salvation available as a possibility for all mankind with no aim in particular? Is God's sovereign mission being a failure of uncertainties and His Word which He has sent returns empty in the event that no one believes in Christ."
The emphasis on the recapitulation of Christ as the perfect “Everyman” (to evoke Jung, Peterson et al.) and our incorporation *into him* through faith so that in him we fulfill the divine honor that we owed but could never fulfill (on our own)... fits nicely into Anselm more so than the Reformed emphasis on substitution, which tends to put a divide between Jesus and us - rather than a union.
I have to agree that it appears to me that universal objective justification destroys the substitutionary atonement, if .Christ died as a substItute for everybody, then nobody would go to hell, either that or the substitution would be completely meaningless and powerless to save since those that .Christ died as a substitute for are in Hell.
@@TheDroc1990 I still think I am more Lutheran than calvinist, as a rule of thumb lutherans are more christ centred than Calvinists with a few exceptions. The father reveals himself in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit points us to Christ both in conversion and by keeping us in the faith (Luther's small catechism). Universal objective justification is worthless and provides no assurance of salvation. The trinity would be divided, because the Son dies for some sinners but does not effectually communicate it to them (does not convert them). And if we are chosen in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world, how can Christ have died for those that are not chosen in him ? Luther correctly affirmed double predestination and limited atonement and so do I. The lutherans have no right to claim Luther as their own with their confused teaching of Universal Objective Justification, which has no support in Scripture and denies that the work of Christ was effectual, since we cannot tell from Christ's work at Calvary according to this doctrine who will have eternal life and who would not.
@@TheDroc1990 and furthermore I would go as far as saying that the denial of reprobation destroys the love of God. The apostle Paul clearly implies that God’s love for the world, to be true love, must Include the love of some and the hatred of others, without hate there can be no love just like without darkness there cannot be any light. In particular Romans 9:22-23 makes it very clear, that the hatred of the reprobate is for the purpose of loving the elect: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
@@henrka RE: "The Lutherans have no right to claim..." Objective Justification is legitimate for about 5% of the world's Lutherans - the heirs of CFW Walther in the US. Its proponents have been trying to claim it is a part of Lutheranism per se, chiefly by searching for any ambiguity they can find in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions. I find it akin to these 19th century American cults, which have a similar practice with Scriptures. Maybe it's the result of this excessive tribal loyalty the LCMS and WELS have (and the Roman Catholic Church, for that matter). That will get you in all sorts of trouble.
I don’t really understand how Lutheran objective justification is truly “objective.” You can point to the Eucharist, but the Eucharist can still be received unworthily. How do you know whether you received the Eucharist worthily or whether you brought judgement on yourself (1 Cor 11)? Wouldn’t that require a subjective self-assessment? Therefore, you would be in the same boat as a Baptist. Would like some clarification on this point.
Actually, imho, OJ is confusing and advocates of it often disagree. I dont believe that Christians should use the term because I have seen Lutheran "conservative" theologians criticize pastors for saying faith is necessary for salvation. Yes, you read that right. That's universalism, and I have seen evidence that WELS supports universalism. Some of you might remember their advertising program, "I am saved through Jesus Christ, just like you."
An off-topic suggestion based on a comment you made in the video: You allude to criticisms of NT Wright. I think that a Lutheran analysis of NT Wright would make a very edifying video. I am familiar with some of the main themes of Wright's corpus, but haven't read him too widely.
It’s amazing how such a small group like ELDONA are able to drive the conversation on this subject. Have you reached out to them to discuss/debate this issue? That would be an awesome video.
Thanks mr. Jordan Cooper for helping me understand more about Lutheran theology. For me I'm still battling between Faith being the condition of salvation for an individual receiving it but I do acknowledge God's complete act in unconditional salvation for all mankind but on a personal level it seems like it's conditional receiving it due to Faith or no faith rejecting it.
As someone who grew up...practically Baptist, I understand the dilemma. Consider the difference between relying on what our experience suggests, and what God's Word says. Where a person trusts in Christ and prays in faith expressing his or her trust in Christ, does the person not already have the faith at that point? And the act that justified that person was done at Calvary. The faith was given to the person sometime before his or her realization (there's probably a better word to use) - at hearing the Gospel, which may have been at Baptism.
Thank you for this. I watched the ELDONA video and wondered. That pastor made it...kind of confusing and seems to have not described OJ well (I mean, I have difficulty describing theories of academic fields different than my own, so it's easy to see how one can get things "off" and NOT be lying).
This motivates me to write a summary of the issue, I am not familiar with Mr. Cooper, but the whole discussion seems to lack defining terms and jumping around from one statement to another, without actually making a case. It is hard to argue against "objective" justification when they can't really define it or adequately reference it anywhere.
Off topic Q for Dr Cooper- do you have any resources for beginning to teach young children about the gospel or even possibly a video on how to add that to your family life?
Objective Justification By Dr. Siegbert W. Becker (WELS): " the word “justify” is a forensic term, which means to “acquit” or to “ pronounce not guilty.” There is also no dispute in regard to the basic position of the Lutheran Church that men are justified or forgiven by grace for Christ’s sake through faith... The crux of the controversy can be summed up in a very simple way: “Has God forgiven the sins of all men?” If we could all answer that question... would cause us little difficulty... ["My children, I write these things to you so that you will not sin. If anyone does sin, we have an Advocate before the Father: Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the whole world." - 1 Jn 2:1-2 EHV"] The doctrine that God has forgiven the sins of all men is often called it “universal” justification. In our circles a synonym for that term is “objective justification.”... That Luther believed in objective justification is, however, very easy to demonstrate. Luther says, for example, that when we baptize someone we must say to the person being baptized, “All your sins are remitted by reason of the presence of Christ. Therefore I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This means that I remit all your sins, cleansing you of them right now” (LW 22, 177). In that context he writes, “Baptism ... remains valid and correct, even if it could be proved that a child or an adult did not believe when baptized ... whether I believe or disbelieve, it remains good and valid in itself.” That he had a correct understanding of the function of faith in this matter is clear from the words that follow: “If I believe, it benefits me ... if I do not believe, Baptism will not redound to my good in all eternity” (p. 175)... Objective Justification in the Confessions... The law would seem to be harmful since it has made all men sinners, but when the Lord Jesus came he forgave all men the sin that none could escape. (Apol. IV, 103) If somebody doubts that his sins are forgiven, he insults Christ because he thinks that his sin is greater and stronger than the death and promise of Christ. (Apol. IV, 149) What else is the refusal to believe absolution (Note: “I announce the grace of God unto all of you, and…I forgive you all your sins.) but the accusation that God is a liar? If the heart doubts, it maintains that God’s promises are uncertain and inane. (Apol. XII, 62) It is God’s command and the Gospel itself that they should be sure that their sins are forgiven freely for Christ’s sake, not doubting that they are forgiven them personally. If anyone doubts, he makes the divine promise a lie. (Apol. XII, 88) If anybody, therefore, is not sure that he is forgiven, he denies that God has sworn to the truth; a more horrible blasphemy than this cannot be imagined. (Apol. XII, 94) The last three quotations, by the way, echo what Luther says again and again about the efficacy of the keys. Of the pastor’s words, “I forgive you all your sins” Luther repeatedly affirms that these are God’s words and “God does not lie.” Lack of faith in those words “means as much as to say: God you are a liar. It is not true what you say. I do not believe it” (LW 40, 368). Of special significance in that connection is his statement: He who promises me, “Whatsoever you loose shall be loosed,” does not lie; this I know. If my repentance is not sufficient, his Word is; if I am not worthy, his keys are; He is faithful and true. My sins shall not make a liar out of Him.” (LW 40, 375) It is very evident that the Lutheran doctrine of absolution rests on the foundation of the universal forgiveness of the human race. It is also clear that any Lutheran pastor who denies universal justification has violated his confessional oath. Thus what at first appears to be a peripheral matter turns out to be a question of confessional honesty...", see essays.wls.wels.net:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/331/BeckerJustification.pdf
You're confusing Atonement and Justification. God certainly does want all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth and a BELIEVER should not doubt that his sins are forgiven. Absolution is for penitent believers only. Your statement clearly illustrates the ease with which this odd little legacy from Samuel Huber can lead to universalism.
@@ericrachut4207 You are breaking 2nd commendment, repent. "My children, I write these things to you so that you will not sin. If anyone does sin, we have an Advocate before the Father: Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the whole world. 3 This is how we know that we have known him: if we keep his commands. 4 The one who says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him" -1 Jn 2:1-4 EHV "The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in mercy. 9 He will not always accuse. He will not keep his anger forever. 10 He does not treat us as our sins deserve. He does not repay us according to our guilty deeds. God’s Mercy Illustrated 11 Yes, as high as the heavens are above the earth, so powerful is his mercy toward those who fear him. 12 As distant as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our rebellious acts from us. 13 As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him. 14 For he knows how we were formed. He remembers that we are dust" -Ps 103:8-14., see www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A1-4%2Cpsalms+103%3A8-14&version=EHV
eric rauct "Whereas Zwingli held that revelation and reason could not contradict, Luther understood that God’s revelation in Holy Scripture often contradicts human reason. Though Luther was well trained in philosophy, he took his stand squarely in the words of Holy Scripture. This meant that when God’s revelation contradicted human philosophical understanding, Luther didn’t try to reconcile the two. He simply let the Word of God stand as it was. In an effort to unify the Protestant lands against Roman Catholic forces, Phillip of Hesse sought an agreement, or at least a compromise for the sake of political expediency, between Luther and Zwingli. Over the previous few years, a serious theological dispute had arisen over whether or not the body and blood of Christ are truly present in the bread and wine. Phillip called the two parties together at Marburg. Zwingli, the politician, came ready to compromise while Luther came ready to confess. Fifteen points of doctrine were discussed and the two sides found agreement on 14. However, there was one point that the two could not agree upon: how to interpret the words of Jesus, “This is My body.” Zwingli and his colleagues argued that the bread and wine only “signify” or “represent” Jesus’ body and blood, which, they argued, were not capable of being at the right hand of God the Father in heaven and in bread and wine on the altar at the same time,. Because for Zwingli revelation cannot contradict reason he made his argument for the bread “representing” Jesus’ body from passages of Scripture other than those directly connected to Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper, especially John 6. Luther and his colleagues, on the other hand, argued that the words of Jesus, with which He instituted the Lord’s Supper, clearly teach that the bread, received into the mouth of those who eat it, is-not signifies, nor represents-the body of Christ. For Luther, Christ’s words must stand as they are revealed to us in Holy Scripture. “Is” cannot be turned into something else. Download This incident was not the end of the colloquy, by any means. The discussions continued on. However, it serves as an excellent picture of how the debate played out. No matter where Zwingli took the discussion, Luther returned to the words of Jesus, “This is My body.” Luther insisted that Zwingli prove that “is” must mean “signifies,” which the Swiss reformer could not do. Because of this failure to come to an agreement on the presence of Christ in the Holy Supper, the unity that Phillip had hoped for did not materialize. Some might view this as a political failure. However, Marburg was anything but a failure, for the truth of Scripture was confessed over and against error, and the words of Christ still stand today.", see lutheranreformation.org/history/luther-and-zwingli/
@@ericrachut4207 100% agree as well. They equate the atonement = justification. Also to these people baptism works ex opere operato. The BoC condemns such a view of the sacraments. Also faith cannot coexists without repentance.
@@mike81psy Your quote is correct but it is applicable only to believers because St John was talking to them, read the address. Though Jesus died for you, if you do not trust this payment, Jesus said - you will still die in your sins. It is you who should repent my friend, UOJ teaching leads to false view of security. Its object of faith in not the atonement but this imaginary declaration of justification 2000 years ago - thus my atheist friend and muslim neighbor has already been declared already righteous 2000 years ago, without faith, without the means of grace? Also you guys practice double justification, first one has to believe that they have already been justified 2000 years ago and if they don't they go to hell, then if they believe such a justification then they will really be justified?
Do you view the objective justification controversy to be a debate over words or teachings? I personally don't have a big problem with people using the term, but I don't really think the word justification is the right word to use, atonement is the word I'd use instead. Unfortunately this is the reason I had to leave my church over it. I went to a WELS-affiliated church in Sweden for all my life, but they told me I couldn't remain as long as I didn't hold to objective justification, so I moved over to another Lutheran church that doesn't enforce that terminology, they have close relations with LCMS. I've also heard various opinions from LCMS pastors, with some agreeing more with my view. How big of an issue would you say this is?
@@DrJordanBCooper Thanks for your response, Dr. Cooper. It seems to me that many of us believe in the same thing, but use different terminology. It’s unfortunate that terminology can lead to schism in cases like this.
@@eemmiill201 This is one of those questions where it is really important to ask people what they mean by the terminology they use, or what they deny when they reject specific terms.
@@eemmiill201 As an Australian Lutheran, it honestly just sounds like semantics (arguments over words). Everytime I hear a Lutheran from the USA talking about this stuff I have to wait until they say it in another way to understand what they're actually saying; like objective/general justification and subjective/personal justification. It seems to me, as an outsider to American Lutheranism, it'd be better to drop the terms and just use the definitions of your terms.
It would have been nice to have seen or heard the title of Preus’s book. . .you could have put it in notes at the bottom of your video also. . .just a thought, right?
Thanks for this. It was both clarifying and timely. One comment concerning the Kokomo statement. Marquart is of course correct in rejecting the statement, especially given how he thinks it came to be. However, he is wrong about the history of the statement. It was compiled by some laymen who rejected the teaching of objective justification. They found these quotes (three from WELS sources and one from an LC-MS source) and put them together in order to show how unreasonable the doctrine of objective justification is. Siegbert Becker tells some of the background in this essay: essays.wls.wels.net:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/331/BeckerJustification.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y This "brief" history gives more details in its 53 pages: essays.wls.wels.net:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/391/BellKokomoJustification.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Having looked at this issue also from the perspective of ELDONA; it would seem to me that there's a concern over the way "universal" is used and articulated. The question here is ultimately a question about the atonement. Did Christ save all, or did Christ save "all"? I understand the concern that ELDONA has for the use of the word "universal" being used in the context of justification, because it looks, on its face, like a repeating of Huber's Crypto-Calvinistic Universalism, where Huber believed everyone everywhere was saved regardless of faith. I believe the concern follows from the same impulse that we don't want to disqualify universal atonement, but we also don't want to affirm that we have no need to preach the Gospel to others because they're already saved. You pointed out a critical detail that I think should be stressed, faith is the means by which man receives what Christ has already done. I think it should be emphasized though, that the "already done" reflects more a historical fact (that Christ truly did come into history was born, lived, died, etc. etc.) than that you were already in a right relationship with God prior to repentance. (If I'm understanding this correctly).
It might be useful even pointing out how the Mystical Union of Christ and the Church is applied here; since the Incorporation that occurs into Christ by faith allows us to have that declaration of forensic justification applied to us since we're "in" Christ.
I am disappointed in this exposition. Being raised in the old ALC, I knew nothing of "Objective Justification" (a distortion of the Atonement) OR of the demigod status awarded to CFW Walther by the Missouri Synod and its derivatives. Those arguing for OJ immediately delve into a tangled web of philosophising and rationalism, strangely foreign to the simplicity of biblical (and Reformation) theology. They also like to quote each other - ad nauseum - in support of their claim - their immediate line of approach (the first half of this broadcast consists of this and should have been cut). As Lutherans, they are eventually compelled to go to Scripture and the confessional writings of the Lutheran fathers, and here we see a conviction in search of the evidence, as opposed to vice versa - the reverse of what scholars are supposed to do. What is the best of Lutheran scholarship? When the same issues that resulted in the Reformation and which ordinary individuals face ever day are examined according to the word and intent of Scripture, without searching out a few aberrant and often vague verses which can be bent to support a claims, and then stopping when the answer is beyond human knowledge. What is the worst of Lutheran scholarship? Taking an idea, whose author (Samuel Huber) was expelled from an orthodox seminary (University of Wittenberg, 1594) and which was refuted by an orthodox Lutheran father (Aegidus Hunnius), and giving this idea a fanatical allegiance. It has damaged good men in the clergy and damaged my own family. Pastor Cooper, I have respected your studies in the past, but this has captured you. You should try to forget the topic and see if you can listen to this RU-vid as an outsider would. Those truly interested in exploring the topic should look at the online discussion by the ELDoNA pastors (and, encapsulated, the alternative "ask the pastor" series by Rev Joshua Sullivan) and also the writings and online discussions by Rev Dr Gregory Jackson. Philip Hale's book, Aspects of Forgiveness, which is pro-OJ, is also recommended, to see the level of scholarship OJ gets.
I know Pastor Sullivan and have watched him and ELDONA and I agree with them. I asked my Mother and she said she was never taught Universal OJ. I never heard of this word 35 years ago. It’s a slippery slope ...OJ is.
Every time I listen to ELDoNA people trying to critique UOJ, I'm struck by the fact that they clearly do not understand the doctrine they are trying to criticize.
@@ericphillips8268 Disagree, Rydecki was staunch UOJer when he was in the Intrepid Lutheran blog. I know I watched the discussions there. He knew and realized that in UOJ, it is not another way of talking about the atonement. He did his research as many of us did and discovered this was a Waltherian adoption of Huberism
But if justification was objectively in the death of Christ, the same way we can speaks about objective sanctification also. In Hebrews 10 says the word that we were sanctified through the flesh of Christ in His death. So in this sense all things accomplished in Christ for all...which later can be received by faith
Sure the price is less from Concordia Publishing House. I've not looked there, but they have a lot of Walter in their catalogue, at more decent prices than one like that from Amazon!
So are you saved by Christ's death on the cross, or just by faith? How is Christ's death not meeting a condition for your salvation? Would your assurance not be in Christ's work of killing sin and defeating death on the cross? It's the same with Baptism, God's work for you (simply baptism is union with Christ's baptism). Baptism is where God promises the individual the things He's promised (you can do a google search for baptism promises if you like). So the assurance is always in God's work and His promises, that's what by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone means: trust in the Trinity's work and word.
Your adoption of the Synodical Conference's U.O.J. theology is grievous to learn of. I am one of the few Canadians who freely have associated themselves with the "Kokomo Four", who live in the Indiana city of that name. I know them and I have attended their King James Bible Conferences in Kokomo. One of the reasons that the Kokomo statements are worded as they are is to object to the minority Norwegian theology that has expressed the doctrine of U.O.J. in the past. That is why the wording differs so much from what German-American Lutheranism expresses in other terms. The Little Norwegian Synod's (E.L.S.') theology uses that kind of terminology, which, we all agree, is about the worst possible way that U.O.J. can be expressed. Larry Darby's defense of U.O.J., the terms of Pieper, caused a major negative reaction to Synodical Conference German theology in general. Anyhow, it saddens me that you accept the L.C.M.S. soteriology, which the W.E.L.S even worsens in its exaggeration. One of the biggest points of contention in Kokomo is that in order to be considered a Lutheran in good standing in the L.C.M.S., one must accept the L.C.M.S.' "Brief Statement", which makes U.O.J. the rock upon which Synodical Conference membership stands or falls. If only acceptance of U.O.J. were an acceptable position in the L.C.M.S. and, essentially, in W.E.L.S also, but not required as the soteriological paradigm embraced, there would be much less of a problem.
I'll still listen to you explaining Lutheran heritage and theology, but I will be more sceptical about what you say. I feel closer to ELDONA's theology than to yours, at least about justification and related soteriological views.
Nice try, Dr. Cooper. You explained UOJ as well as I think it CAN be explained. But I am not convinced. I find ELDONA's rejection of UOJ far more convincing.
Sometimes asking questions helps as well. Was Judas justified at Christ’s resurrection ? No. Did Christ bear Judas sins ? No. Did Christ die for Judas ? No. Clearly all men are commanded to repent and believe in Jesus Christ, but does this imply that Christ specifically took away the sins of all men and justified them at his resurrection ? No. If this were true, wouldn’t Christ resurrection be meaningless to assure us of our salvation ? Yes, no man can be assured of his salvation if Judas was justified at the resurrection because we will be wondering if we are not another Judas.
And this satisfaction of Christ secured the salvation of those that the Lord would call and nobody else. Definite atonement or particular redemption is the only biblical interpretation of Christ’s death, not sure how anybody can say otherwise.
Agree 100 percent, and this is what Luther taught, this is why Lutherans not only have forgotten Luther, they have forgotten the entire reformation; and are trying to sow doubt and confusion in believers. Luther and Calvin disagreed on only one thing, and that is the Lord’s Supper, but magically today lutherans are inventing new doctrines to sow division among Christians.
@@felixcharles9773 well, 1 John 2:2 must be interpreted in light of Romans 3:25. The propitiation for sin Jesus made with his sacrifice is through faith in his blood. Jesus did not atone for the sins of anybody outside of faith in Christ. So Jesus atoned and cancelled the penalty for the sins of all those in the entire world that would trust in his name and solely those. This is not rocket science, this is simple stuff, it requires just a bit of applying the scripture which we are not used to do these days. Romans 3:25 clearly states that Christ satisfied solely for those that would put their faith in his blood.
Jesus died for all the sins of the world. Therefore Jesus died for Judas also. You claim to be "more of a Lutheran than a Calvinist," but you're pushing Limited Atonement, the most unbiblical and distinctively Calvinist point in TULIP, really hard.
@@DrJordanBCooper Some do. Some believe in gay marriage. I'm pointing out the lack of clarity inherent within the phrase _sola fide_ , as well as the "border dispute" between law and gospel which is clearly present in Paul.
@@Catholic-Perennialist Confessional Lutherans DO NOT accept gay marriage. There is a large denomination that claims to be Lutheran but in fact are very progressive. One of them even told me that literal interpretation of the Bible is poison. They also demand left wing politics. If you are against sodomy they will call you a sodomite. Yes they seem to have their own version of English.
Kokomo: first, parents need to stop dropping their babies on their heads, because that's the only way something that nutty could happen. Second: that is NOT a possible reading of 1 Peter, you nutcases!!!! The proclaiming to the imprisoned have a very good chance of being the angels also referenced in 2 Peter and the second reference only about the giving of the gospel refers to human souls of OT saints--these would be simultaneous, but with very different outcomes!
Does anybody really understand the Bible? If scientists read their books like theologians, they would have never gotten a rocket off the ground. I think a new term is in order; theological babble. The point; there is no concensus what the Bible says. And to think our salvation depends on this esoteric book is depressing at best. Is it any wonder the predestination people said God already has decided, don't worry about it.
Seek God and He will give you understanding. Don't seek Him, and frustration will be the result. Jesus says, "Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." John 7
@@matt8637 With do respect, you didn't read or comprehend what I was saying. No one understands the Bible. Yes you may say you understand it, but so will 100 other people, and all of you will have a different interpretation. All of you will say the Holy Spirt guided you. You may all be wrong but you can't all be right. This is a serious problem in the field of theology. To bring this problem in perspective with an analogy, imagine that you are heading for the moon in a spaceship,and you need a calculation for a proper landing; you ask for a computation and get 20 different answers. Not a sound prospect. This is the way of theologians. They can't agree on the proper projectory for salvation. I have read many theologians, catholic, protestant, and jewish. None of them agree. If no one can agree, the book in question is not communicating the message. My frustration is with this nonconsenous.
@@danielkosak5355 I understand what you are saying. Certainly there has been a level of theological disunity likely since the beginning. Theologians and historians would be able to highlight disagreements from the first centuries A.D. I do find, however, that there is more unity than some know about in the Christian faith. It is more of a spiritual unity at times, if not confessional or theological. The "spirit" recognizes the "spirit" so to speak. However, I believe that God communicates to those who seek Him. He eventually will unite the Christian church, but it will be on His timeline. He is sovereign and in control of these matters. Even the apostle Paul prayed and taught about the "process" of this being done in Ephesians 3 and 4, etc. (I especially here Paul speaking about this process in Ephesians 4:1-16). This are in process. God is in control and sovereign. How many people disagree on political views and such, and yet legislation gets passed and things get done. Why? Because somehow God has given enough grace for people to find some unity. Christians theologian will eventually find unity in word, thought and proposition. But it will take time. All things in their season. Yes, it can be aggravating, but we must not demand things from the universe, even the Christian theological universe. It will only lead to frustration. Not to be too forward, but do you feel you have an adequate faith in Christ as your foundation? I am not trying to challenge you with that question, but merely hope to encourage you in the grounding there. Maybe you already are there. Peace to you.
A lot of it is when you get into the weeds. A podcast like this is approaching it with a microscope. In general, Christians do have a broad consensus on The Who/What/When/Where/Why of it all. Yes, some denominations have been less charitable than others but broadly speaking most Christians across the map are willing to acknowledge that even if they think they’re right about one issue or another they’re not willing to “un-Church” the other groups or say that anyone’s salvation is dependent on nitpicking certain details. Faith in Christ is what makes one heaven-bound, not having ALL the facts perfectly straight - but that doesn’t mean we can’t debate these things amongst each other while recognizing that we’re all brothers/sisters.
Really? They can't agree on the inerrancy of the Bible, can't decide what is the true church, can't decide if Jesus was divine, can't agree on salvation, can't come to unity on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, and gender issues. Every day the church splits, spits, and splits over some interpretation of the Bible. Even your beloved catholic church is coming apart at the seams. So, where is this consensus? Imagine you just crawled out of Plato's cave, confronted with this smorgasbord of Christianity, how is he decide who is telling the truth; keeping in mind that all these schools of thought claim to be guided by the spirit, and support their arguments biblically?
