On Sola Scriptura and Tradition (Part 2) 

Yes, the majority of the conversations today are very; either or, this or that. And often made from a position of ignorance with no historicity or scholarship, relying heavily on “higher” logic/philosophy, which often just boils down to rhetoric.

Outstanding brother.

Because it's a cohesive historical argument. Protestantism has a very difficult time even on their best day arguing that the Church that Jesus founded is not one physical entity but rather a Gnostic unknown disembodied group of people all mixed into various Protestant groups.

@@N1IA-4 obviously Protestants don't characterize their doctrines as "gnostic".

@Scott Oakland "a gnostic unknown disembodied group" is obviously a loaded characterization.

@@Adam-ue2ig Of course not. But that doesn't make their belief system as more or less Gnostic.

Agreed! A blessing to Dr. Cooper in this space that’s so often dominated by Rome

What do you mean with "Catholic character of the reformation"? I didn't get it

Agree

I also love Pr./Fr. Bryan Wolfmueller("Bryan Wolfmueller) and Pr./Fr. Joshua Sullivan ("Ask the Pastor") the are also good in those polemics. I just have one question: I see a Russian flag in your channel name, do you belong to Evangelical Lutheran Church in Russia or you are just a RU-vid convert?

Why former? What changed your mind?

Greetings, also former Orthodox here!

Nice. I'm also currently going through catechisis in the LCMS.

Prima Scriptura is accepted by Anglicans and Episcopalians. Sola Scriptura is accepted by Lutherans While most Protestants think that the adhere to Sola Scriptura they adhere what we would call Solo Scriptura. You explained Prima Scriptura right. Sola Scriptura means Bible is our sole authority at the top, so it means that tradition is not excluded but is subordinate to Scripture. And Solo Scriptura is what Non-denominational modern evangelical would love and that is the there is no other autgority besides Bible. I hope this helps. I think that Jordan would make a great video about Prima vs Sola Scriptura but he will probably not see your message.

Prima scriptura is actually sola scriptura as sola scriptura meant to the reformers and still does today to classical protestant denominations. I don't know the origin, but based on my exposure to the term, prima scriptura as a term may have been invented by RC aplogists to allow them to continue to misconstrue sola scriptura and mischaracterize protestantism.

@@JW_______ maybe if your an Anglo Catholic but I don’t think baptists are going to accept the early fathers on baptism and bishops

@@esoterico7750 because they wrongly believe that those traditions contradict scripture

​@Slovak Lutheran Monarchist I don't see the distinction there between prima scriptura and sola scriptura

PS After my baptism I was quickened beyond all understanding!

issues etc!! its a classic

Two other pastors I listen to are RU-vid channels Bryan Wolfmueller and Konsvinger Lutheran (Chris Rosebrough). I've just started listening to Issues Etc online podcasts.

Ryan Reeves has a good series on RU-vid on the Reformation.

Don't miss the classic by Swedish Bishop Bo Giertz - "The Hammer of God".

The source that says there are over x0,000 of denominations also say there are over 200 Catholic denominations. Lutherans, Baptist, Presbyterian, evangelical all hold to the 5 solas, the trinity, etc. There are differences based on secondary issues like church organization, baptize at birth or for believers, etc. While we have different theological frameworks to view scripture, we still hold to the 5 solas. Even the number of x0,000’s of Protestant denominations is laughably off and wrong. It’s a weak argument.

@@CCiPencil Wow. Thank you so much. I was just thinking of that argument and the peace of seeing another fellow Protestant say that is HUGE. Thank you so much.

@@calebjohnston_youtube God Bless you brother.

@@CCiPencil Thank you. God bless you too

@@CCiPencil Hey quick question! How do we argue against inconsistency? Couldn't it be argued that sola scriptura is dangerous because of the differences in theology all over the Protestant groups? Especially fundamental differences such as the effects of baptism, the Presence in the Eucharist, the form of Sola Fide and such?

Protestants have no ability to define anything, period.

Micah, these are great questions and the answers are: no, nothing, and no.

In a practical sense no issue is ever "closed" to debate. there are many non-trinitarian "Christians" such as unitarians, jehovas witnesses, etc. Church councils have only ever had as much authority as people have believed them to have. From a Lutheran perspective, yes the ecumenical councils closed the debate and we accept their formulation of the doctrine of the trinity because we accept their authority as gatherings of theologians who correctly derived the doctrine from the scriptures and attested to its usage in the apostolic age. I would argue that it was not the RCCs magisterium as you mention that "closed" the debate but the ecumenical councils that represented the whole orthrodox church, whose authority is naturally recognized by any modern orthodox Christian denomination, even if they wouldn't actually say they do (i.e. Baptists).

@@andrewborchelt305 You lost me at your first sentence - “what you bind on Earth will have been bound in Heaven” Of course other ecclesial communities can have their interpretations of scripture that depart from the teaching of the apostolic church, but that just means they would be in heresy. Under your rubric, heresy would not even be possible, because there would be no ecclesial body to bind anyone or any community to a teaching Your first sentence is a non-starter

@@andrewborchelt305 Arianism is a heresy. It is an aberration of the Christian faith. You only include them in your imagined version of Christianity to make room for your preferred heresy, Lutheranism.

Not often!

Thanks!

@@DrJordanBCooper question in this video you suggest a book called Summary of the Christian Faith on page 86 it says the angels most likely fell because of pride of which the root is unbelief what are fallen angels in unbelief about (even demons believe and they shudder)?

Protestants adopt their own traditions. Each denomination has man made traditions and passes on to successive generations, only that they are not apostolic.

Yet, even if your assertion holds, that does not excuse nor allow Rome to invent out of whole cloth items such as the immaculate conception, the bodily assumption of Mary into Heaven, Purgatory, indulgences, or prayers to the saints (spare us the tiresome attempts to distinguish dulia from latria. In practice it's latria, especially wrt the idolatry surrounding Mary). The point is that Tradition may make clarifications to the proper interpretation of Scripture, but that allowance of the proper role of Tradition which is in service and subservient to Scripture, which is what sola scripture means, does not allow the abuse of Tradition by introducing such things which detract from the person and work of Jesus Christ. In this, Lutherans are far more conservative than Rome, which allowed these untraditional inventions to come into the Church, and hold to a proper understanding the the role of Tradition.

@@pete3397 The only thing I plan to spare you ("us"= you and the mouse in your pocket) is the delusion that you have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Just as you cluelessly confused local synods with ecumenical councils you now make uninformed accusations that the doctrines you mentioned were just "invented" by "Rome". The doctrine of purgatory draws from a late second temple Jewish text called 2 Maccabbees that was included in the earliest codices of Christians and included in the canonical lists of early synods and St. Augustine. So swing and a miss. The idea of bodily assumption is found in Scripture itself and the testimony that Mary was assumed into heaven is ancient as the thorough study by Matthew Levering attests (Mary's Bodily Assumption, 2014, Notre Dame Press). This work was praised by prominent Protestant theologians like Hans Boersma at Regent. So another swing and miss. Regarding your comments on latria and doulia, it clear you haven't the slightest clue of the semantic range of these words in the LXX, NT, or patristic sources. Latria was used in a technical sense among the Father's and associated with sacrifice not some sign of respect for a Christian image. There is also a broader semantic range for proskunein than Gavin Ortlund recognizes and he would have known this if he had taken the trouble to consult BDAG or a Hatch and Redpath. If you are unfamiliar with these standard lexical tools, you have no business making comments on Greek terms from the LXX, NT, or Fathers when you don't know the relevant languages or tools necessary to do research. The suggestion that these points were invented whole cloth is sheer nonsense. So stop pretending like you have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

​@Steven Peterson Not to mention some doctrines the Roman Church now endorse are definite contradictions to what it held 500 or 1000 years ago. Does that mean the earlier Tradition is false or errant?

@@wesmorgan7729 Why don't you provide a single example of doctrinal contradiction from universal magisterial pronouncements rather than making bland and unsupported assertions.

@@wesmorgan7729 Rome: We can redefine doctrine anytime we want because "Magisterium."

The earliest lists of the old testament canon in the second century (List of Melito and Byrennios List) do not include the Apocrypha. Many fathers did not consider the Apocrypha as divinely inspired scripture including St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianus, Origen, St. Epiphanius, and many more. By and large, the Fathers believed that the church has recieved the Old Testament Scriptures handed down by the Jews from earlier times (which never included Apochrypha), and scripture attests to this sentiment: Romans 3:1-2 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Romans 9:3-5 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

@@electric336 Hi Electro Tech. The canons suggested by the Church Fathers were varied. Some Church Fathers included certain books others omitted them. It is also important to note that the Early Church mainly used the Greek Septuagint, which contains the Apocrypha. The question still remains, does Scripture alone work when there is already disagreement on which books are inspired and which ones are not?

​@@peterw1177 Hi Peter, There are very few matters on which the early Church Fathers were in 100% agreement. Do we shrug our shoulders and say "I guess we'll never know the truth"? No, we study their reasonings and most often go with what the majority believed. In this case, a large majority of the fathers did not hold the apocrypha at the same level as scripture. The fact that some of the books from the Old Testament Apocrypha are found in early Greek manuscripts of the Bible is not as decisive as some people contend. These manuscripts used to create the Septuagint also contain other written works that are not in Old Testament Apocrypha and everyone rejects them as having any divine authority like 1 and 2 Esdras. No Greek manuscript has the exact list of Old Testament Apocryphal books accepted by the Council of Trent, whereas they all contain (at least) the same books of the Hebrew cannon. Now, to answer your question of if sola scriptura "works" for the early Christians who didn't have a set canon, well yes. Despite there not being a unanimous, but a majority, agreement on what scripture is inspired, the Early Church Fathers (e.g. Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Barnabus, and more) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture.

@@electric336 Hi again Electro Tech. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) offers the Paradigm that the Church follows to this day in resolving differences concerning matters of faith. Acts 15: 2 “Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.” Acts: 5:28, “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage.” Even though Paul was right, the Church had to make a decision on the matter of circumcision. Church Fathers on their own did not have authority to define doctrine. They were welcomed to share their views, but in the end the Church made the final decision following the example set by the Council of Jerusalem. Imagine if the apostles were to follow the majority principle when dealing with the problem of circumcision, what would the outcome have been? Had the Church not made a decision about the canon, would the New Testament be what it is today? We both agree that Scripture is authoritative and as you well said the Church Fathers did indeed use Scripture to teach and also defend Christianity. Having said this, I would like to show how some of the Church Fathers that you mentioned cited Apocrypha books as Scripture: 1. Athanasius, Defence Against the Arians 11: And they are not ashamed to parade the sacred mysteries before Catechumens, and worse than that, even before heathens: whereas, they ought to attend to what is written, `It is good to keep close the secret of a king [Tobit 12:7];’ and as the Lord has charged us, `Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine [Matthew 7:6].’ 2. Gregory of Naziansus, Oration 28.8: And how shall we preserve the truth that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written “Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord,” [Jeremiah 23:24] and “The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world,” [Wisdom 1:7] if God partly contains and partly is contained? 3. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 11.15: And wouldest thou know that He who was begotten of the Father, and afterwards became man, is God? Hear the Prophet saying, This is our God, none other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him. He hath found out every way of knowledge, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterwards He was seen on earth, and conversed among men. [Baruch 3:35-37] These are just a few but most of them did not limit themselves to their own canons.

But nor does your apostolic church guarantee me free from diseegrement cause isn’t the Orthodox Church who claims apostolic tradition also claim ur heretics for adding the filique clause in the creed and affirming it or Coptic church which reject hypostatic union which also is apostolic church or church of the east who is nesteroiams. So ur little game that you playing against Protestant I can play against you also

The problem though is that Rome did go off the rails in the roughly 400 years leading up to the Reformation and that the inventions of that 400 year period could not be squared with the positions taken by the Church in the first 1000 years of its existence. Thus, tradition was conflicting with tradition. Luther made the following point in his debate with Eck: "The very callous decrees of the Roman pontiffs which have appeared in the last four hundred years prove that the Roman church is superior to all others. Against them stand the history of eleven hundred years, the test of divine Scripture, and the decree of the Council of Nicaea, the most sacred of all councils." Moreover, the rendering of the final results of the debate as judged by the University of Paris are rather noteworthy (they repeat themselves but they are following the order of the debate format): 1. The Scriptures are obscure. 2. The Scriptures cannot be used by themselves. 3. The Scriptures must be interpreted by Masters, especially by the Masters of Paris. 4. The Fathers are obscure. 5. The Fathers cannot be interpreted by themselves. 6. The Fathers must be interpreted by Masters, especially by the Masters of Paris. 7. The Sentences [of Peter Lombard-the foundational medieval textbook in systematic theology] are obscure. 8. The Sentences cannot be used by themselves. 9. The Sentences must only be interpreted by Masters, especially by the Masters of Paris. 10. Therefore, the University of Paris is the chief guide in matters of Scriptural interpretation, for its decrees against Luther and Melanchthon are clear and can be understood by everyone. Thus, the official Roman Catholic position with respect to the items at debate between Luther and Eck are that the University of Paris is the sole authority qualified to determine the correct interpretation of Scripture. Notably, that would exclude the Pope and the College of Cardinals.

@@pete3397 Go off the rails? Well that is a conveniently obscure sweeping generalization. Why don't you take the trouble to get specific and tell me in exactly what way Catholic doctrine as espoused by an ecumenical council "went off the rails" and who in the world do you think you are to stand as judge over an ecumenical council. These are two things that I just have to hear. On the first point, you need to make sure that you give the historical and theological context for the debate associated with the council rather than conveniently ripping it from that context. You need to state the Church's position AND the reasoning for that position in an accurate form to make sure that you have understood it (to show your honesty and informed handling of the issue) and then show the world your theological acumen in seeing what the Bishops of Christ's Church gathered under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in an ecumenical council could not see. That should be quite enough rope to tie yourself in a nice, little heretical knot..

@@pete3397 "the official Roman Catholic position" Why do you keep making clueless statements? The University of Paris was the most prominent early Catholic University that was lectured at and attended by figures like St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, and St. Albert the Great. It did not, however, have magisterial authority. The Church has never had an academic magisterium. It has an ecclesial magisterium. This is one thing that distinguishes Christ's Church from Protestantism.

@@AnselmInstitute Take it up with Paris, they're the ones who said they had sole authority to make proclamations on Scripture, not the pope. This simply points out that your insistence on the papacy as the sole norm and rule has not even been adopted by other Romanists through history. It is a recent innovation and part of the "going of the rails" that I mentioned above.

@@pete3397 If you insist on making clueless statements, then my time is up. No one at Paris claimed that they had authority over an ecumenical council or the Pope. That is the result of your eisogesis and wildly overactive imagination. Even if someone did that would make them wrong and not representative of some ancient and widespread consensus. How in the world could there be ancient and widespread consensus that some institution that started in 1200 AD had authority over the Church when the Church preceded that institution by 1200 years. If you insist on being clueless, I won't stand in your way.

@YAJUN YUAN Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, unhistorical, and unworkable.

@YAJUN YUAN It's not in the Bible. It was an innovation of the 16th century. You should it isn't workable. You say the Sabbath should be kept. Dr. Cooper disagrees with you. You both use the Bible too prove your point. I just gave you an example with Arius of how it isn't historical.

Council of Constance wouldn't have universal authority for Luther.

@@jonamarinch That's right. Heretics, by definition, reject the authority of ecumenical councils. That is precisely what makes them heretics. The Arians rejected Nicea. The pneumatachoi rejected Constantinople. The Nestorians rejected Ephesus. The Monophysites and Monetheolites rejected the respective councils that condemned their heresies. Etc.

@@AnselmInstitute Okay, but the good orthodox Christians also have had to reject local councils, which have claimed to be universal, like Hieria. And sometimes they also saw the duty to resist true ecumenical ones (the Franks in the council of Frankfurt, even if due to misinterpretation of Nicea II, who at the end were not declared heretics nor excommunicated).

@@jonamarinch Neither Hieria nor Frankfurt were ecumenical councils. They were local synods.

Yeah and it is anachronistic to refer to Athanasius defending Nicea as being the same thing as current roman catholics defending 21 or more councils. Luther had no problem with Nicea just like Athanasius. But both of them would reject plenty of councils of rcc. Like Trent for example or Vatican II. This dogma that if church says something then it must be right is so against everything Christ and His apostles taught. And it is impossible to defend it if you look at history. And even in OT there are plenty of falling away from the faith and reformations where Israel got back to the word of God.

Yet Roman apologists argue against this position. Tom Brown writes "the Catholic position is that Scripture has divine authority because it is God-breathed, the Holy Spirit having inspired the texts’ authors. That is, Scripture has divine authority because of its divine author, not because of the role of God’s Church in producing it…”. So, does Rome hold that Scripture has divine authority because it is the Word of God, or does Rome hold that it is Scripture because the Church says so? Or does Rome decide on both in order to use either position as an argumentative club as apologists find convenient?

@@pete3397 The Catholic position is that Scripture is the Divinely inspired Word of God. That is what Scripture itself teaches and what the Catholic Church has always taught. The question is whether or not everyone's interpretation is just as good as anyone elses. The answer to this question is: Obviously not. So, whose interpretation do we go with when people differ on important points? The answer from Scripture: you trust the leaders of the Church when they come together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as in Acts 15. You trust the Church because it is the pillar and foundation of Truth that the gates of hell will not prevail against. You obey the Church because the Scriptures teach us to "obey your leaders" not select whatever teachers tickle your ears and follow them. In short, Christians believe the Church over and against heretics because Christians say every Sunday: "I believe in the Church."

@@AnselmInstitute So, you're saying that the Word of God should not be the norma normans for doctrine, but is norma normata and can be set aside at will to emphasize Tradition. Your position is effectively that when Tradition and Scripture disagree, Tradition wins. Because the pope. Literally that is your entire argument in a nutshell. You'll understand why rational, sane people find it to be completely uncompelling. You've raised up the Pope to equality with Christ. And you've equated the Pope with the Church which is against the precedents set by the councils of the Church which you say you support. You manage to take away with the left hand what you offer with the right.

@@pete3397 Again what conversation are you taking part in? Have you made the slightest effort to read and understand what I have written? Why are you making up your own version of what you imagine I think or what the Church teaches rather than responding to what I wrote? If you would tell that overactive imagination to quiet down and actually read what I wrote that would make discourse possible.

@@AnselmInstitute I'm pointing out that your repeated insistence on the need for a sole authority in the papacy has not addressed the reality that Roman Catholics cannot themselves agree. A failing that you argue repudiates the tenets of the Reformation. Your own argument fails by the evidence that Rome is not itself consistent in what it believes and says. If Protestantism's great failure is that it is inconsistent and cannot speak univocally, then the same criticism applies to Rome. And this is amplified when Rome insists on Tradition outweighing Scripture to insist on particular doctrines even doctrines that are against previous conciliar precedent.

Precisely which ecumenical councils have Lutherans rejected?

@@pete3397 The Council of Constance, for one. I wrote on this in response to a question someone posted on my channel. It is below: Luther's debate with Eck. This began at Leipzig on June 27, 1519. The debate occurred at a castle belonging to Duke George and included a disputation between Eck and Karlstadt on the freedom of the will (a four day debate) and proceeded to a disputation between Eck and Luther that went on until the debate closed on July 14th. The topic for Eck and Luther was magisterial authority. This included both Papal authority and that of a council. Both before the debate and afterwards in expanded form, Luther published a pamphlet entitled: Resolutio Lutheriana super porpositione sua decima tertia de potestate papae. This was a treatise on thesis/proposition 13 in the debate which concerned papal power. In this text Luther emphasizes his own interpretation of Scripture over against that of ecclesial authorities. He argues that the Church Fathers and ecclesial decisions must be judged in light of Scripture (WA 2, 184: 1-3; see Bernard Lohse Martin Luther's Theology on this point.). This approach will also influence his view of Church councils. The problem with this is that councils are making decisions on how to read Scripture in a way that is orthodox and Luther is pitting his interpretation against that of a Church council (see below). That is the point the Luther ignores (and Gavin and Jordan ignore). The way that we know that Scripture is being interpreted in an orthodox manner is via a Church council and not the private judgement of Luther simply because he says, "well this is just what the Scriptures teach." The councils are our means of determining which interpretation of Scripture is orthodox and which is heretical. In terms of the debate itself, again, it involved both papal authority and conciliar authority. Regarding Papal authority, Luther's position was opposed by Eck partially in the following denial: "We deny that before the time of Silvester (314-335) the Roman Church was subordinate to the other Churches" (WA 9, 209). So, Luther denied early Papal authority. However, he also denied conciliar authority regarding doctrine because he held that the council of Constance had erred in condemning the Husite doctrines. Herman Grisar summarizes Luther's position: "Luther was now obliged to express his views on the condmenation of the 'Bohemian heretics'. Driven into a corner he declared, that among the Husite doctrines condemned by the Council of Constance there were some very Christian and evangelical propositions" (Grisar, Luther v. 1, 364). He also denied the council's teaching on Papal primacy. On these points he rejected the council's purpose which is to offer authoritative judgments on what is orthodoxy and what is heresy. He presumed that he had to agree with those judgements for them to be binding (i.e. authoritative) which is not just non-sense; it is insane. In this move he made an individual the judge of a council. That individual would read the bible and then decide if he thinks the council is interpreting the bible correctly based on ***HIS OWN INTERPETATION OF SCRIPTURE***. This approach is the origin of the complete splintering of Protestantism. Luther never reversed this judgment that he could judge a council by his own interpretation of Scripture. His interpretation was imagined to be authoritative and the council was not. Given Luther's future actions, his rebellion and fomenting of rebellion, the proposition that he rejected the authority of the Church and her councils fits him very neatly. He would praise some councils (like Nicea) but left it to himself to judge which conciliar pronouncements were correct. He then developed a view of the Church primarily in terms of the communion of the saints that essentially ignores key questions related to Church offices and how authority is received in the first place through appointment and the laying on of hands and the implications of all of this for apostolic succession. His letter to the princes in 1520 flattered the princes by suggesting that they had authority over the Church to convoke a Church council. These were political moves to protect himself from being disciplined for fomenting heresy, schism, and rebellion. If he could win the princes, he could have political protection. If he could flatter the people that they did not have to obey their superiors, he could conveniently place himself prominently as their guide. There is much more that could be said, but this will have to do for now.

@@AnselmInstitute So again, which ecumenical councils have Lutherans rejected?

@@pete3397 I have already told you. And no the Church doesn't have to wait for heretics to approve of an ecumenical council to make it ecumenical. The council fathers of Nicea weren't waiting around for Arian agreement to say "oh now that the heretics agree we can call this an ecumenical council".

@@AnselmInstitute Moving past your agreement that Lutherans have not rejected the ecumenical councils, I will ask the following: have councils - upon which you stake the entire validity of your argument - ever erred? I'll answer for you to save you the embarrassment of having the argument that yes, yes they have. Multiple times. All we have to do is go back to St. Athanasius and how the Arians you condemn managed to be in the majority at several councils (Arles and Milan) and condemned the good old saint as a heretic. There were also those such as the council of Sirmium that put forward a compromise between orthodoxy and Arianism. So, given that councils can err as is demonstrated by history, Luther was not in the wrong to note that councils have erred and must themselves be subject to the rule of Scripture and that, by the obvious rule of historical reality, councils have been vehicles for the abuse of Scripture and doctrine in the life of the Church.

But that is Lutheran teaching? The rich man already is relying on Christ (faith/trust) and Jesus commands him to continue to cling to His Word and not reject it (and so lose his salvation).

@@j.g.4942 What you expound (that faith produces the works) is a strand of Lutheran teaching, but that is not the teaching of this passage. The teaching of this passage is that he loved his goods more and this prevented him from "being perfect". So love of goods prevented him from being perfect. What would have enabled Him to be perfect? Love of God and neighbor to the point of giving his goods to the poor. It is love that perfects us, not simply faith. That is the reason that love is the more excellent way (1 Cor 13) and that one with faith to move mountains without love is nothing (1 Cor 13). It is love that causes our faith to work and do good to our neighbor as faith works through love (Gal. 5:6). It is a faith that works through love that counts. But not all faith does so as James teaches ("Can such faith save him?"). Love is received with the gift of the Holy Spirit because God is love (1 John) and the love of God is poured into our hearts through the Spirit who is given to us (Rom. 5:5). It is this love that causes us to obey God's commands as Jesus taught "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (Jn. 14:15). Love of God and neighbor are the two great commandments and summarize the 10 commandments (the first 3 are about love of God and the 2nd 7 about love of neighbor). Those commandments were once written on stone, but now they are written on the heart of Christians as God said He would write His law on our hearts and would take away our hearts of stone (like stone the first 10 commandments were cut into) and we would be "cut to the heart" with the law of love that is the Gospel (as the disciples at Pentecost were "cut to the heart. Pentecost is the Jewish celebration associated with the giving of the law at Sinai 50 days after passover). So it is LOVE not faith that causes us to obey God's commandments. This was the teaching of Trent on justification. I would encourage you to read it directly with openness as it begins with a condemnation of Pelagianism and then gives its positive teaching which is saturated with Scripture. It is this teaching that Luther explicitly rejected in his 1535 commentary on Galatians where he denies the necessity of love for justification on multiple occasions. So the response of Trent to "faith alone" was that faith was insufficient because love is needed. You need eggs for a cake, but eggs is not enough and if someone yells at you "eggs alone make a cake!" without recognizing the need for flour and milk, then you might just have to leave them alone with their scrambled eggs that they are calling a cake. Faith alone does not bring about salvation because love is necessary. Faith is necessary too, but it is not enough because love is needed.

@@AnselmInstitute To say, "that faith produces the works is a strand of Lutheran teaching", is the same as saying the Trinity is a strand of Lutheran teaching (Articles 6 and 1 of the Augsburg Confession respectively). Yet you're right that not the teaching of this passage, it'd be closer to: even those who've benefited greatly from the temptation to possess cannot possess heaven apart from God; yet your point is the order of love and faith as ground for salvation. You say that love is the cause of our obedience, love of God results in obeying (being under His Word or hear, as the etymologies go) His commands. How do we receive those commands first? We say by the Holy Spirit ordinarily through Word and Sacrament (Baptism/Absolution and Holy Communion); yet there is no benefit if they, and Him, are not received in trust/faith (if they are not heard). Of course that trust/hearing is also given by the Holy Spirit as He is the one who begins our relationship, drawing us toward God the Father in Jesus Christ. The best example is in the exercise of the keys as it is commonly practised; First one comes recognising the broken trust/faith and confesses, then the priest absolves in line with 1 John 1, then there is penance. I'm not sure of the East, yet as far as I know in the West it is explicit that sin/failure is removed in the absolution not after penance (I'm unsure if Trent had an explicit absolution as I find today). Is the removal of sin/failure, elsewhere called being made righteous or aligned to Christ, originating from the one confessing's love or their faith/trust? Simply, it could be understood for us, love is the keeping/obeying/hearing of God's commands as well as the cause of such; Faith/trust is the hearing/obeying/keeping of Christ's victory. Christ's victory enters us into New Life and love is living out that New Life, to reject God's way of life is to have faith in a different god. As to salvation, we use that so many ways, "I am saved, am being saved, and will be saved". Trust/faith is right relationship with God in Christ, Love is walking the way of God in Christ, entrance into the Heavenly Jerusalem in the Resurrection is also called salvation. All that said, the troubled soul is sent to God's Word which stands forever, confession and Absolution and Holy Communion; not first sent to work.

@@j.g.4942 Faith produces works (FPW) necessarily is not like the Trinity because FPW is neither the consensus of the Fathers nor taught by an ecumenical council. It is in fact condemned by an ecumenical council. What produces works is not faith alone which does not justify. Instead faith works through love. That is the teaching of Scripture and that is the teaching of Trent.

@@j.g.4942 "You say love causes our obedience". It is Scripture and an ecumenical council that says this. "If you love me you will keep my commandments."

Did you watch the video? I'm guessing not.

@@hudsonensz2858 Did you read Church history? I certainly don't think so

@@orthodoxpilgrimofficial I've read several books and early church fathers. Like I said watch the video. The argument isn't that the Early Church fathers defended Sola Scriptural but rather when they defended doctrines they made Biblical arguments, because that was their authority.

@@hudsonensz2858 Some Church fahters wrote against heresies and used only the holy scripture, that doesn't proof the Protestant sola scriptura claim, because the heretics used it by themselves and ignored the apostolic tradition.

@@orthodoxpilgrimofficial the point isn't that tradition isn't necessary, the point is that the Scriptures are the basis on which tradition operates. Tradition helps us understand and apply scripture.

Most, (with a few exceptions that lacked broad consensus of use) of the new testament are quoted as scripture by the apostolic fathers and were clearly in use by the early church. their divine inspiration is believed because they were treated with the same reverence as the OT by the apostolic fathers. that places the "tradition" of a 27 book new testament on a different level from other disputed traditions due to the evidence of the cannons apostolic character and pedigree. therefore it follows logically that scripture would be superior than other forms of tradition when developing doctrine. and indeed Dr cooper has cited many examples of later fathers doing just that, appealing to the scriptures as the preeminent source of apostolic authority when denouncing heresies. if a doctrines sole source is "tradition" and there is no evidence of practice in the early church then who is to say it was not made up out of thin air in a monastery or the back rooms of the Vatican. The argument that the Catholic church had secret unwritten tradition passed down by the apostles that they didn't tell anyone about until the middle ages or even the 500s is not a compelling one to me, and is a situation that begs to be abused by human fallibility or even sin. I would not expect to convince you of sola scriptura but I cannot see how that line of reasoning is arbitrary. my apologies for the rant. God bless

You basically just troll here, don't you.

@@dave1370 basically, have you seen me before? I do genuinely enjoy the material though.

@@christopherlampman5579 I saw you in another comment on here slander Luther and people from said tradition. Then I saw this comment.

@@dave1370 slander would suggest I said something untrue. I like Lutherans and respect them as the most intellectually respectable Protestants. It is true that I have said some negative things about Luther, but things were all true and not really “slander.” You, however, call me stupid with no evidence to support that. How hypocritical to accuse me of slander.

@@christopherlampman5579 no, it's slander to say that Luther was a drunk. He states, " Paul does not say that eating and drinking are works of the flesh, but intemperance in eating and drinking, which is a common vice nowadays, is a work of the flesh. Those who are given to excess are to know that they are not spiritual but carnal. Sentence is pronounced upon them that they shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Paul desires that Christians avoid drunkenness and gluttony, that they live temperate and sober lives, in order that the body may not grow soft and sensual." You also imply that his rhetoric was intended to fuel something like the Holocaust. Luther wasn't an anti-semite, but he was anti-judaism, as were many, if not all, of the Church Fathers as well. It's also slander to say that he is THE hero of the Lutherans when that is not the case. Lutherans hold to the Lutheran Confessions, not Luther himself.

That will never happen.

@@Catholic-Perennialist would be cool though

@@Jerkasaur I don't think Dr. Cooper has the cahones. He is quite brave on Twitter though. The snark is very strong with him.

@Phlebas I would say that Cooper has not yet shaken the Soy Boy moniker.

@Phlebas Among men, shaming is a technique utilized to correct poor performance and bring out the best in peers. Those who reject the process end up under-developed.

is the scripture part of the apostolic tradition? pretty easy to get sola gratia from the apostolic writings...

I think that the Christian traditions generally agree that it's only God's grace that saves us. The point of disagreement is how that grace saves us, through faith UNTO good works, or faith AND works

False. Luther is reiterating everything that can be found in the early church fathers.

@@dave1370 False otherwise the Church and the ecumenic councils would have taught

@@paladin8657 Church councils have never talked about justification. Luther is attested to in the church fathers and in scripture. "Whoever believes in Him will never be put to shame"

The father's put all of his writings first, I wonder why

@@StoicHippy Because they're Paul's spiritual descendants, they being hellenized gentiles as Paul was a hellenized Jew who preached primarily to gentiles. Hebrew writings like Matthew, James, and Revelation stand contrary to Pauline theology, and therefore get relatively little attention, or even negative attention.

@@Catholic-Perennialist won't ever say Paul is contrary to other epistle writers, not interested in that kind of criticism, you could say that the canonicists had more writings of Paul when they were organizing the Bible, but that still is unnecessary criticism of scripture

@@StoicHippy When you read through the new testament 9-10 times, these inconsistencies will stare you in the face whether you invite them or not. The best way to remain orthodox is to never read your Bible.

@Catholic Perennialist And there you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen... Denying the authority of the Scriptures in order to own the Prots.