Jordan B. Cooper was on fire recently in his understated way. Original video which covers the Council of Trent with how you can support Cooper's work: • The Council of Trent a...
I have to state outright that I appreciate your video and your honest and calm demeanor. As a Catholic, and a traditionally minded one with a lot of experience with both the diocesan Church and the SSPX, I'm having trouble reconciling your position. "Assurance" as a term isnt' really within the Catholic Lexicon. What you are referring to is called "Certitude" It was Robert Bellarmine who is most noted for making the distinction between "absolute certitude" which is only possible in Heaven and "moral certitude" which one can attain in this life. The moral certitude explanation was dealing with the problem of scrupulosity, in which a person was so afraid of committing a sacrilege if they weren't "really" in the state of grace. The Church had to address this distortion and addressed it intellectually with the explanation of "absolute" and "moral" certitude and you could discern and then act on moral certitude. The second element to combat scrupulosity was to address the fostering of the virtue of Hope by employing its value so as to not fall into sins of the extreme such as Despair for the overly scrupulous and Presumption for the slothful. The Church actually made a law in which Catholics have to go to Confession and receive the Eucharist at least once a year in order to force people who were scrupulous to the point of avoiding taking Holy Communion unworthily. (Now, the Church has the opposite problem in the post-Vatican II part of the Latin Church) That explanation of the value of the virtue of Hope actually precedes Trent and it's formulation goes at least back 3 more centuries to Aquinas. I'm not seeing the contradictions that you believe are there. While there may be apologists who are not clear or quietly reject clear formulations and rely on subtleties that mislead people nowadays, the official teaching of the Church hasn't changed. You have moral certitude because you carry with you the virtue of Hope. I don't see the value of Hope if you have "absolute" certitude. That's why the Church teaches that Faith and Hope will not be present in Heaven but Charity/Love will and that's why Paul ranked it the highest of the virtues. So we have the Revelation from Paul, which leads to questions about it, which leads to explanation by Aquinas, which leads to more questions which leads to Bellarmine providing answers which gets to Trent and beyond. Chesterton wrote this about Doctrinal Development: "In short, it was what is technically called a Development in doctrine. But there seems to be a queer ignorance, not only about the technical, but the natural meaning of the word Development. The critics of Catholic theology seem to suppose that it is not so much an evolution as an evasion; that it is at best an adaptation. They fancy that its very success is the success of surrender. But that is not the natural meaning of the word Development. When we talk of a child being well-developed, we mean that he has grown bigger and stronger with his own strength; not that he is padded with borrowed pillows or walks on stilts to make him look taller. When we say that a puppy develops into a dog, we do not mean that his growth is a gradual compromise with a cat; we mean that he becomes more doggy and not less. Development is the expansion of all the possibilities and implications of a doctrine, as there is time to distinguish them and draw them out; and the point here is that the enlargement of medieval theology was simply the full comprehension of that theology. And it is of primary importance to realise this fact first, about the time of the great Dominican and the first Franciscan, because their tendency, humanistic and naturalistic in a hundred ways, was truly the development of the supreme doctrine, which was also the dogma of all dogmas. It is in this that the popular poetry of St. Francis and the almost rationalistic prose of St. Thomas appear most vividly as part of the same movement. There are both great growths of Catholic development, depending upon external things only as every living and growing thing depends on them; that is, it digests and transforms them, but continues in its own image and not in theirs. A Buddhist or a Communist might dream of two things which simultaneously eat each other, as the perfect form of unification. But it is not so with living things. St. Francis was content to call himself the Troubadour of God; but not content with the God of the Troubadours. St. Thomas did not reconcile Christ to Aristotle; he reconciled Aristotle to Christ."
You clearly see this when you watch Trent Horn and others, they always are right because they just develope doctrine and make more and more distinctions, lumping all protestants together as well. Dr. Cooper is just on a different level. Catholic apologists never differentiate between charismatics , calvinists or Lutherans. They should focus on charismatics and nar instead of attacking the most biblical protestants. And they should try to win converts instead of trying to shame them into their denomination
Its the phrasing of faith alone thats insulting to the Bible, where in 1 Corinthians 13 it even tells you, you can have faith to move mountains but if you don't have love, you have NOTHING. It says you need faith, hope and love, with the greatest of these being love! So why would you say faith alone instead of love alone?
Because love was not at issue. The point of the solas is that they were responding to the errors when they were coined. They were distinctives. Love was not a distinctive nor was it at issue so there was no love focused Sola.
@@justusmorton6555 What are you talking about? The fruit of protestantism is less love and more selfishness. Don't play dumb, you know a whole lot more protestants think faith means just believe than "faith working through love" as the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years.
@@MasterKeyMagic Let's take a step back. I believe that we are saved by faith alone. However, as James says faith without works is dead, so saving faith will necessarily produce works of love. The reason this is called faith alone is that it is just the faith that saves. The works are a necessary consequence of saving faith. On the idea that protestantism leads to less love I would disagree. Is there even a way that we could objectively measure that? However, my anecdotal experience has left me with a great reception of love in every church I have attended long term.
@@justusmorton6555 But faith isn't alone and its not the thing that saves, love does, and continuing to bear good fruit does. Its just such a poorly worded, not thought out way to phrase an apparent essential pillar of the faith, even though it was completely absent from Church history prior to martin luther making it up. Its unbiblical, which is why luther literally had to add the word alone into his bible. The moment you tell someone who doesn't know anything about christianity all they need is faith alone, the first thing they think of is they only have to believe. Nothing else. And if you fail to mention that it actually has to be a working faith through love to do the will of God, you just condemned them to hell. But the fact that you have to immediately define faith as a verb and not alone defeats the whole purpose of needing faith alone to be phrased that way. Look at the stats. protestants as a whole are less generous, less charitable, have less services for the poor, support anti-poor government polices, support more capitalist policies that fuck the poor, support war more, support private property and don't believe they have an obligation to share it, have no preference for the poor, like the Catholic Church always has. You'd be hard pressed to find a statistic where protestants come out being more altruistic than Catholics, and its because so many of you actually believe you ain't gotta keep yourselves from being cut off from the vine.
@@MasterKeyMagic On faith, I am convinced that salvation and works, on our end, come from faith. "Those who believe in the Son are not condemned," in addition to many other verses. God, in his mercy, clothes us in the righteousness of Christ so that we are judged as if we lived that righteous life. This showcase of love is so powerful that if you genuinely believe it you will feel compelled to act in love in return, first towards God then towards those who bear his image. For those who do not act in love, James questions their faith, because a faith without works is dead. On the empirical question, could you please cite studies. I looked for solid stats comparing protestant and catholic charitable giving and struggled to find such. The only stat I found suggests that a similar portion give to charity. On the other things, you assume that anyone who disagrees with your policy preferences hates the poor. That is very uncharitable. It could very well be that they have different ideas about how best to help the poor.
There's another word, or words, for this. It's called "talking out of both sides of your mouth". Or as I like to call it "forked tongue serpentry". The moment you being taking a position that relies on deception of any kind, you become a child of the father of lies. Sadly, this is the position that Rome has put its defenders in, and sadly too many of them are so blinded by their zeal for inherited pride, that they can't see it. I always point this out, and it should be shown to them over and over, because there's no escaping it. The Council of Trent anathematized Paul, and in so doing also anathematized the Holy Spirit.
Translation: there are apparent contradictions in scripture and the fathers regarding justification by faith and works. The Catholic understanding resolves these apparent contradictions in a way that addresses them comprehensively. The fact that it applies universally doesn’t make them un falsifiable. If there were a part of scripture that clearly contradicted the Catholic understanding, it would definitely be falsifiable. But there is no such clear text. If there were, this conversation would have ended long ago.
@@foodforthought8308 Could you explain what you mean specifically? I think I have an idea, but I want to be sure I'm addressing the specific concern. Edit: Just to anticipate what I think the issue is, it seems that the common objection raised to Catholicism regarding Romans 4 is that Abraham was not justified by his works lest he have something to boast about (paraphrase). There are two important distinctions: 1) The free gift of salvation we are given that requires no work on our part (this is Catholic teaching). 2) The work we must do to maintain this salvation because it can be lost (plenty of places biblically talk about this salvation being lost). The works we must do, as Paul outlines, are NOT works (of the law). It's clear that this is the category of works being discussed here because in chapter 3 there's a discussion about circumcision (which is typically what the conversation revolves around when it comes to "works of the law".) But that doesn't mean we don't need to do good works. There are several times (I'm not going to bible verse list at you, I trust you can read and have read) when Paul gives conditions for salvation like "if you remain." Even Christ tells the man who asks what he must to enter the kingdom that he must do a lot of stuff (specifically the 10 commandments - good works). He doesn't say "you just need to have faith." If you're genuinely interested in this, How to Be Christian is a youtube channel that's succinct and always pretty entertaining that explains a lot of the contentious stuff between Protestants and Catholics in Romans and other letters of Paul.
@Steven Lester Yes, I agree with what you are saying except that I think Catholic teaching emphasizes works done in and through Grace as opposed to good works in the fallen flesh - which I think is a key distinction and incorporates Paul's emphasis that we are both saved by Grace through faith and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling as the Spirit works through us. At the end of day, we aren't driven by fear of losing our salvation, but by the Love of Christ that provides a form of assurance in which we rest, both Catholics and Protestants. However, my question about Romans 4 is regarding the function of Baptism. I agree that it is more than a symbol, but Romans 4 seems to reject baptismal regeneration (which I know the church fathers unanimously held) as I (perhaps erroneously) read it if we are to regard Baptism as the new circumcision, as Paul does in Colossians. Am I overthinking this, or in the same way that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised, are we then initially justified by faith before Baptism? Perhaps this can be called Baptism by desire. It doesn't really matter, I just found it interesting
@Food For Thought you could argue it was called baptism by desire, yes. Baptism doesn’t really make sense in an old covenant mindset. The nice thing about Catholicism is that I’m not driven by fear either. I’m driven by a need to constantly repent of my sins and return to Christ any time I fail to remain in the spirit. That’s why the image of branches falling away and being grafted back on is so important. Falling away involves doing any of the things that block you from the kingdom of heaven, even if you’ve already received the gift. Afterward you must be grafted back on by repenting and remaining in Christ. Christs conversation with Nicodemus (sp?) makes it pretty clear that you have no life on you if you are not born of water and the spirit, which seems like a very very strong connection to baptism. My question would be: if being born again isn’t baptism or a cause of baptism, what is it?
I find it amazing how the Church in Rome gets the rich in right away to convert but has pushed me away for years. Went to Lutheranism and here I am, much of the same, still not worthy and waiting. If I owned my home and weren't poor and homeless I'd be in by now with one or the other. I'm completely heartbroken to the point it's almost impossible for me to hold onto faith. my heart is in Lutheranism.
There is no one "Lutheran View" of justification as evident by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signing the joint declaration 25 years ago. When reading the early Church Fathers, I read of great consistency on their speaking to our being justified by faith, both in context to the initial faith AND our remaining faithful, that faith, The Greek word for faith: _pistis,_ means to be "faithful," to be obedient to God's commandments, living a life in love and charity. As James 2:24 says, speaking of Abraham's faith, his faith was made complete by works of love (Ja 2 v22) and can a faith, empty of works of love save you? God says no (Ja 2 v14). That is why James says that one is justified by works (not of the OT law, but of love) and not faith alone, the ONLY time in all of scripture those two words are side by side. St Clement of Rome, the 4th Pope, who Tertullian (not a Church Father) claims was ordained by St Peter, is consistent with scripture and tradition (cleaving to those whom grace as been given by God) : _“Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. ‘For God,’ saith [the Scripture], ‘resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.’ Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, *being justified by our works, and not our words.*”_ Epistle to the Corinthians, 30 (A.D. 98). Interesting that for 1500 years, no one in the Church brought forward the 16th doctrine of the Catholic priest named Luther, faith alone. Historical silence. If some would have believed the protestant notion of "faith alone" in this time period, there is no doubt the Church would have brought forward a synod or council somewhere, at sometime, to debate the issue as they did with oter issues. *Question:* which early Church Father would you invite to preach in your Church on the subject of being justified by faith alone??
With respect, while it is true that certain "Lutheran" communities (for example those who participated in and were signatories to the JDDJ) may continue to claim the denominational identifier, they have (and often self-admittedly) departed from all or some of the historic Lutheran confessional positions. A thorough reading of the JDDJ itself will reveal that the consensus they attained was for all intents and purposes a recognition and therefore a "union by indifference" that both sides use the same terms, but have vastly different meanings, and accept the others diversity in use. Like many well-meaning Catholic apologists across the various YT channels where this issue is discussed, I suspect you may have a mistaken understanding of what the position actually consists of which you criticize. That's not meant insultingly. Perhaps in an age of modern evangelicalism so-called, where it's popular to hold up an altar call as testimony of being 'once-saved, always-saved', it can't be faulted of you or anyone to think that sola fide is this "easy believism", practiced today by many. Confessional Lutherans would claim two things over and against this: 1.The Apostolic faith through which justification is received is NOT a choice of man nor is it easy...in fact for we as unregenerate men prior, it is quite literally impossible. 2.The Apostolic doctrine (filling the patristic writings as well as scripture) is equally quite literally solus Christus (Christ alone); and hence MUST necessitate sola fide by virtue not only of the scriptural account surrounded by such a cloud of witness in the faithers, but also logically and essentially as well. I know that you will disagree with my theology and I say this not to start a debate on it here, only to point out that denying something which confessional Lutherans would also deny, is not to defeat the position. I would not attempt to dismiss the Catholic perspective on Justification by confusing it with something else and then claiming victory in so doing. Peace be with you.
@@voyager7 " is equally quite literally solus Christus (Christ alone)" A good read (maybe you have read?) is BENEDICT XVI, GENERAL AUDIENCE on Wednesday, 19 November 2008, titled "The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith." In it, he says: _Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love._ This is 100% consistent with St James 2 saying: _21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and _*_faith was completed by works [of charity / love]._* And can one be saved by an incomplete faith? God says no. _What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?_ (Ja 2 v14) One is saved by faith alone as defined above, regenerated by baptism. All one must do from that point to be saved is to stay out of mortal sin. And if one does the latter, one must repent. Unrepentant mortal sin leads to spiritual death, eternal separation from God.
@@TruthHasSpoken I have not read that but will certainly look at it. As said I do not mean to debate the issue here, but think it's worth pointing out that the faith of which Benedict here appears to be speaking, is like that of the CCC or Catechism of the Council of Trent before it. The confessional Lutheran position does not deny that true regenerative faith BRINGS love and charity with it, but that these do not constitute the faith itself which receives Christ our justification, but are the fruits and gifts of it. The Council of Trent would not really have disagreed with this statement above from Benedict as they, like the framers of the Catholic Confutation to the Augsburg Confession, rejected the Reformers' position of faith apart from these blessings (love, charity and a life of perseverance) ie excluding the works of man either prior to or afterward of faith. All that to say this: Benedict's position above is NOT that of Luther; and why this is vitally important is because it forms and informs that which we preach as the very Gospel. We both know from the letter to Galatia that there is only one gospel and no other. If we are reconciled to God and justified by Christ THEN to live a life of good works prepared beforehand for us in which to walk, this is a different Gospel than if we MIGHT be reconciled to God and justified by Christ THROUGH a life lived of good works prepared beforehand for us in which to walk. The gospel message of the truth and "faith" we proclaim in each of these cases is vastly different. Again not to argue or resolve this here in a 3-yr old video, only to point out why the Reformers and confessional Lutherans like myself see this doctrine as absolutely central and essential. Thanks again for the citation, I will check it out more fully!
@@voyager7 If you agree with Ja 2 v14 and v21, then I say AMEN. - faith ( _pistis_ ) is made complete by works (of charity) - a faith without works (of charity) can not save And of course, Catholic understanding, justification is a process.... not a once and done. Abraham was - justified by faith (multiple times) - justified by works "as absolutely central and essential" So if one rejects it one is not saved?
How’s your view on Jordan cooper and his teaching? I have an Anglican background (Australian Anglican- more evangelical without the bells and smells but still have the hymn and creed books, and minister wears a robe and collar) so I’m not too repelled by some elements of tradition, however is the Lutheran view a little more catholic, from what I hear from his videos he believes that baptism saves you? Just need some encouragement in this view because I see justification to be completely Jesus finished work on the cross, and his perpetual intercession for us until he calls us home. Anyway I find church history quite overwhelming and just want to worship God properly (biblically) : I also have 3 kids that I don’t know if they should be baptized or just wait until they make the decision for themselves.. because reformed Presbyterian believe in infant baptism for the blessings re Abraham and circumcision then blessings...
I’m confessional Presbyterian. I have my disagreements with Lutherans, but on the whole we’re pretty close. I believe in infant baptism but not automatic baptismal regeneration.
Definitely get them baptized, won't hurt and is a sacrament. Yes we are saved by faith alone, though the ways in which we receive this faith are through the Holy Spirit
Anglicanism never really fully settled on a view of baptismal regeneration i dont think. I dont think we actually need one tbh. I like the middle view of a divine whose name escapes me, that baptismal regeneration is the cleansing of original sin for all infants but not putting them automatically into election or a path of rigtheousness. This isnt an issue for me because Jesus or baptism saving us isnt a dichotomy for me; just like saved by Grace or through faith isnt
As always, this video was so well articulated and thought provoking. Thank you Dr. Cooper. You’ve helped me sort through some very tough issues through this channel. God bless you.
@@catholicismwow5406 You see how the Catholic Church develops doctrine at the council of Jerusalem, binding onto all Christians unless you think the Judiazers are Christians because they "believe."
The Orthodox also make unfalsifiable claims. "It's Tradition!" "Show me!" "We can't. It's orally persevered!" "How do you know the Telephone Game isn't happening?" "Because the Church practices it." When claims aren't based on Reason open to all, but on Authority given only to a privileged few, unfalsifiability is all you're left with in the end (or axioms that cannot be proven)
I would actually say the Orthodox are plainly falsifiable, in that they actually hold to the idea of the "constant custom" or "practiced in every age" whereas somehow the RCC is allowed to divorce statements about historical fact from infallibility which allows them to basically slice up the councils and pick and choose whats right.
Would love to hear your take on Suana Sonna and his argument on the Magestrium. He connects Isaiah 22:22 with mathew 16:18. According to Suana he proposes the office of Eliakim is a typological figure to the office of the pope which would be fulfilled in Peter.
The Other Paul & I did 2 videos on my channel responding to his Magisterium argument. Over at his channel, we did a livestream with Suan this Monday. I just read a chapter in a book by GK Beale & shows that Eliakim was a type of Christ.
@@aGoyforJesus I would agree with the interpretation that Eliakim points to Christ. I think Suan nit picks rabbinic sources in order to make the Roman Catholic claim that the magestrium is biblical. On the surface seems strong but under the hood has more problems than it can support.
@@joseilarraza6533 I also think that if Suan Sonna (or anyone for that matter) have to reach into Judaism to bolster the argument for RCC I think it’s not a correct take Eg we don’t follow Jewish sacrificial system and priesthood, we are after Melchizedek
Why did you say that you were going to read the canons and then only read the last one? No God does not have to punish us, God is God and no canon will change that, nor does the canon say that God has to. You asked that question and then you responded to the question you asked. 🧐🤨
When he called out the reformed for having a similar to view to Rome, I was a bit alarmed. Then, he mentioned Piper and I had to agree. Piper's final justification doctrine is not very different from Rome, that is true, and I would say a HUGE error (I have many issues with Piper to be honest). However, Piper is neither reformed (as he is a baptist) nor does he represent anything I would call a majority view in the protestant world. So, that point was a bit unfair. It would be like me saying the Lutheran view while referencing the ELCA. His point on the the subject of the video though is well made. Edit: his representation of the reformed view of perseverance was also incorrect. We do not look to ourselves, but only to Jesus.
he critiqued Mark Jones for this too and i strongly agree. read Jones’ book “faith hope love” and it sounds exactly like rome. i cant see a difference.
@@ConciseCabbage it seems we have a pretty good paradigm right there in Ephesians 2. We're saved by faith alone in a way that has to remove the grounds for boasting. Then we do works God has prepared for us. Those works vindicate what we actually are, but they aren't the grounds for anything salvific.
@@aGoyforJesus If St Paul teaches justification by faith alone nobody goes to heaven. Fr in heaven there is no faith. The reformation doctrine collapses to the conclusion that everyone goes to hell. So much for the reformed version of the good news.
@@MrJohnmartin2009 //If St Paul teaches justification by faith alone nobody goes to heaven. Fr in heaven there is no faith.// So since Rome teaches justification is by faith plus works the same objection would apply to Rome. You're just not thinking with appropriate categories here. We're justified by faith alone in this life and then we move on to the next.
TO: Will Ire.....are you going to let your children decide WHEN they are going to go to school.......WHAT is right and wrong.......WHEN they will have bedtime??? Do you see my point? Chances are that without Baptism/Christian upbringing that they will choose NOTHING. I have seen this happen more often than not........BELIEVE ME!!
Just like to point out the irony here. This channel is trying to call out Catholics for doctrinal development(as if he didn’t have and with his tulip)meanwhile the guy who runs the YT channel and Jordan cooper don’t even believe in the same Gospel. Goy for Jesus believes sola fide is essential, but Jordan Cooper does not. Maybe y’all should figure out what the foundations of your beliefs even are before coming after Rome.
@@aGoyforJesus the way i see the gospel defined by what id deem as ignorant Protestants which I consider you to be, is the list of essential beliefs one must hold to be “saved” you include sola fide in that list hilariously, and cooper does not include sola fide in his, therefore yes, you do indeed have different gospels.
Protestantism is a religion without a soul. It is not mystical…it is not supernatural…the Catholic Church has these elements. The Catholic Church is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is the true faith and Church, all else is heresy and fake
Popery is a religion without a soul. It is not mystical…it is not supernatural…the Orthodox has these elements. The Orthodox Church is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is the true faith and Church, all else is heresy and fake
Papism is a religion without a soul. It is not mystical…it is not supernatural…the Oriental Church has these elements. The Oriental Church is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is the true faith and Church, all else is heresy and fake
