The Great Justification Debate - Robert C. Koons & Jordan B. Cooper 

@Eucharist Angel must not have watched the video.

Have you read some of the apologists reponses to catholicism?

@Eucharist Angel Catholicism is true Christianity. What you define as Christianity simply is a watered version of it.

@Eucharist Angel Ah your a prot. not a Christian. Not even a kind Prot.

@@CedanyTheAlaskan yikes

I have come to the exact same conclusion reading the church father and studying more church history than reading a few quotes here and there. After listening to Koons and to Cooper, I have come to realize that in fact Sola Fide is taught in the church fathers properly understood. That Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin taught about justification was justified (no pun intended) when reading the fathers. Futhermore, it was supported by the context of Scripture.

@@wilsonw.t.6878 I am talking about the novelty of Luther's idea of forensic justification by imputation, specifically. I don't find it very helpful, but I could say like Jimmy Akin and Pope Benedict XVI that I can agree with sola fide, too, if it is rightly understood - that is with faith as a synecdoche for faith working through love. While we are both probably familiar with the same church fathers that speak of faith as key in justification, I am not aware of any that ever saw justification in terms of imputed righteousness. Are you familiar with any church father quotes that support Luther's view of imputed righteousness? I feel like any church father you look at that has a quote speaking of faith in way you may want to use to support sola fide is also going to speak of salvation in terms of the inner transformation of man. Here is the same conclusion from the Protestant scholar Alister McGrath. Note, McGrath’s newest edition of “Iustia Dei” makes an even stronger conclusion about the consensus of the early church fathers teaching justification as infused righteousness than his earlier editions. It seems to me there is simply no way to say Luther was right about imputed righteousness unless we admit the entire church fell into error for 1500 years until he came along and corrected it by understanding what Paul really meant. "The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external. In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification." **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126** "These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing." **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127** "The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127** "In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct. Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification." **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135** "Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum (italics added). " **Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186** God bless!

@@Stormlight1234 what do you think of Dr. Koons response to Romans 4?

@@contrasedevacantism6811 I think Dr. Koons was trying to steer his response in the general direction I would be tempted to take it, as well. I am no bible scholar either!, but it seems to me that the initial justification vs. final justification distinction renders Dr. Cooper's objections completely inert. Even if Dr. Cooper doesn't find that interpretation as compelling as his own, given sola scriptura, how can he say with any certainty that his is correct and the Catholic is wrong? It is just an exegetical preference at best. I also think talking about Romans 4 in the context of circumcision is necessary as can be seen by Scott Hahn's commentary here: "4:4 Paul’s commentary on the righteousness of Abraham, like his remarks on the righteousness of God in 3:24-26, stresses the gratuitous nature of the blessing. Justification is not a wage paid out to an employee as due compensation for his labors. Rather, God confers it as a gift that he is not obligated to bestow. That Paul felt the need to clarify this suggests that some had come to view circumcision in precisely these terms-as a work that God credits as righteousness." Hahn, S. W. (2017). Romans. (P. S. Williamson & M. Healy, Eds.) (p. 59). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A division of Baker Publishing Group. Everyone agrees that Romans 4 demonstrates the absolute gratuitous nature of Abraham's (and our) justification. We also both agree that there are no works on our part that merit us initial justification. I just don't see how Dr. Cooper can avoid the final justification implications of so many verses in the Bible. I have not heard any convincing arguments from Protestants on how verses like these fit the various Protestant conceptions of sola fide: Romans 2:13 “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” Romans 2:6 6 He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 2 Cor 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” James 2:24-26 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.” Revelation 20:11-15 11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; 15 and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Matthew 25:31-46 31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” God bless!

Did you guys not read the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus?

@@TheOtherCaleb of course Dr. Cooper is not a calvinist. He is a true Lutheran. He was more calvinist when younger until he found the truth and became Lutheran

@@Dilley_G45 I am pretty sure he was raised in the PCA.

@@TheOtherCaleb I don’t think that’s what the comment is saying. Cooper was brought up Calvinist so he’s referencing that like cooper he was brought out of Calvinism due to reading the fathers.

Yeah it seems pretty straight forward. You really have to reach and pretty much ignore a majority of the text.

I've just started watching, but Dr. Koons did say that his family was Lutheran back to the reformation, and he only converted at 50 out of it.

At 1:00:00 Here Dr. Jordan explains to Dr. Koons what is biblical justification as opposed to the Roman Catholic confused and contradictory views of justification and faith. The Romanists believe (falsely) that Protestants are reasoning thusly: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead (James2:17). Therefore, dead faith justifies." But the correct view is that therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone. It is an active faith that produces works. This distinction didn’t click in Dr. Koon’s head. The first “act of faith” to receive the Gospel is repentance. These were the first two commands Jesus told His disciples at their first encounter: “Repent!” and “Follow Me”!

@@TesterBoy Thats not different from the Catholic view.

It's like he's yelling in the mirror while wearing a shirt that says "I'm a protestant " in backward letters of course

Dr. Koons is a philosopher. I doubt he actually misrepresented the Lutheran view lol.

Exactly

@Zachary Trent You must have misheard the discussion. Dr. Koons ends up agreeing with Dr. Cooper in the end.

Modern Lutherans are semi-pelagians. Luther was an absolute predestinarian.

@VDMA LCMS The Bible teaches double predestination. Only the Calvinist believes that salvation is ALL by grace. Lutherans, like other semi-pelagians believe in common and prevenient grace, the possibility of apostasy or losing salvation, etc. Secondly, unless you accept double predestination you cannot logically claim to believe in unconditional election. I do not think Lutherans or Arminians are necessarily lost but semi-pelagians are only a step away from outright Pelagianism. Either God is sovereign or He is not sovereign and any theology that makes man the center of his salvation is praying to a finite and impotent God who in the end is unable to save. Luther's debate with Erasmus mirrors Augustine's debate with Pelagius and later Calvin debated Pighius over the same issue of the bondage of the will. Your quote from Luther seems to be directed at the controversy within Lutheranism after Melanchthon reneged on Luther's rejection of free will. In fact, Luther does not focus so much on total depravity as on God's sovereignty. You semi-pelagians make man the cause of his own salvation. Luther makes it clear that free will is dashed to pieces not by the doctrine of total depravity but by God's absolute sovereignty. It is in section 9. But you refuse to believe what Luther wrote: >>Sect. IX. - THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, “Free-will” is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert “Free-will,” must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them. But, however, before I establish this point by any arguments of my own, and by the authority of Scripture, I will first set it forth in your words. Are you not then the person, friend Erasmus, who just now asserted, that God is by nature just, and by nature most merciful? If this be true, does it not follow that He is immutably just and merciful? That, as His nature is not changed to all eternity, so neither His justice nor His mercy? And what is said concerning His justice and His mercy, must be said also concerning His knowledge, His wisdom, His goodness, His will, and His other Attributes. If therefore these things are asserted religiously, piously, and wholesomely concerning God, as you say yourself, what has come to you, that, contrary to your own self, you now assert, that it is irreligious, curious, and vain, to say, that God foreknows of necessity? You openly declare that the immutable will of God is to be known, but you forbid the knowledge of His immutable prescience. Do you believe that He foreknows against His will, or that He wills in ignorance? If then, He foreknows, willing, His will is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so: and, if He wills, foreknowing, His knowledge is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so.

@VDMA LCMS I absolutely reject Lutheranism. Luther was crystal clear that God is sovereign and that foreknowledge implies that every single detail of the future is foreknown by God because it is all predetermined by God. All of your equivocation and sophistry cannot repudiate what Luther wrote against Erasmus. He said that free will does not exist. And it's not because you ate a Jesus cookie or got sprinkled by some papist or some Lutheran minister. No, circumcisian nor baptism nor eating cookies with wine will save anyone unless they have true and living faith, which is impossible without regeneration. If you prefer to call me a lost Presbyterian, so be it. But I don't worship cookies and wine. I worship the sovereign and living God who predetermined the fall of Adam and the salvation of the elect through the eternal decree of the covenant of redemption. There is a reason that Lutherans are now in communion with Rome. It's because Lutherans are crypto-papists. Calvinism is the only theology that teaches that salvation is ALL of God's sovereign grace. Grace is irresistible because it is God who causes the elect to believe and persevere.

@VDMA LCMS You do a rather poor job of defending Lutheranism. Too bad that Jordan Cooper stupidly endorsed Roger Olson, who endorses no only Arminianism but Open Theism. Cooper said that Arminianism is not semi-pelagian and also that Lutheranism is not semi-pelagian. Well, if modern Lutherans actually followed Luther they would not be semi-pelagian. But as it stands both Arminians and Lutherans are semi-pelagian if not outright pelagian.

@VDMA LCMS >>>Did Luther believe in double predestination? Perhaps, and I will give you that point, because I really do not care. >>Sect. IX.-THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, “Free-will” is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert “Free-will,” must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them. But, however, before I establish this point by any arguments of my own, and by the authority of Scripture, I will first set it forth in your words. Are you not then the person, friend Erasmus, who just now asserted, that God is by nature just, and by nature most merciful? If this be true, does it not follow that He is immutably just and merciful? That, as His nature is not changed to all eternity, so neither His justice nor His mercy? And what is said concerning His justice and His mercy, must be said also concerning His knowledge, His wisdom, His goodness, His will, and His other Attributes. If therefore these things are asserted religiously, piously, and wholesomely concerning God, as you say yourself, what has come to you, that, contrary to your own self, you now assert, that it is irreligious, curious, and vain, to say, that God foreknows of necessity? You openly declare that the immutable will of God is to be known, but you forbid the knowledge of His immutable prescience. Do you believe that He foreknows against His will, or that He wills in ignorance? If then, He foreknows, willing, His will is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so: and, if He wills, foreknowing, His knowledge is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so. From which it follows unalterably, that all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be done thus contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will of God. For the will of God is effective and cannot be hindered; because the very power of God is natural to Him, and His wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived. And as His will cannot be hindered, the work itself cannot be hindered from being done in the place, at the time, in the measure, and by whom He foresees and wills.

Well put. I have heard Dr. Cooper mention many times before that he doesn't buy the initial justification vs. final justification distinction, but it is Catholic teaching that resolves his challenges with Romans and Ephesians, nonetheless. I also think the Lutheran position has a harder time making sense of the entire corpus of scripture that speak so clearly about the role of works in final justification. I have not heard any Protestant theologian really make a compelling case for how these work with sola fide. Romans 2:13 “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” Romans 2:6 6 He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 2 Cor 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” James 2:24-26 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.” Revelation 20:11-15 11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; 15 and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Matthew 25:31-46 31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” God bless!

Layperson but I think it's similar. Since justification is linked to faith, the absence of faith is the absence of justification. To apostatize is to no longer have faith and by extension lose justification.

p.s. and evangelicalism (which isn't actually a monolith) was inaccurately represented

@chris Regarding the quotation from Luther above, is there any place for a Law/Gospel distinction in the Catholic understanding? If so, what does that look like in your understanding? Side note: Really appreciate your blog!

@@sportsfan1515 There are certainly elements of the law/gospel hermeneutic that apply to Catholic thought. For instance, the idea that the law of God convicts us of our sins and drives us to God for our salvation. It seems to me that where the law/gospel paradigm breaks down is the law and the gospel are not as absolutely distinct as Lutherans want them to be. Even the third use of law debate in Lutheranism aside, Lutherans will not affirm that there is a new Law of the gospel that we are bound to keep as Christians. This is the law to love, as a contingency of our final salvation, that Christ calls us to in John 13: John 13:34-35 34I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 35By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” The Catholic Catechism (section 1950-1986) explains very beautifully more on the idea of the New Law of the Gospel. I also spent a bit of time on it in my post #2.3 on sola fide in section 21. Thanks for the kind words, too! I'm glad you found something on my blog useful. God bless!

@@Stormlight1234 Hi, I hope you are doing well. I was wondering what the name of your blog is, I would love to read it.

@@maximilianstein7326 follyofthecross.com. Thanks and God bless!

Yes, and the Catholic church has definitely done that.

​@Zachary Trent Then you don’t seem to have understood my arguments in my debates. Because it is actually the Catholic, not the protestant, who has no way of knowing the canon epistemologically other than believing the magisterium got it right, which is circular and subjective. Unlike Catholics who rely on Rome telling them what the canon is and simply believing them, protestants know the canon based on its intrinsic factors. First, Scripture cannot contain any errors or contradictions either with other inspired scriptures, nor contradict legitimate science or history. If it does, then it’s not scripture since Scripture is God breathed and is incapable of being wrong. During my debate against Trent Horn, he completely fabricated this argument to make it sound like I was saying that as long as a book doesn’t have any errors in it it is scripture, which is not at all what I said. Second, Scripture was written during specific time periods when there was still active prophecy, first with the old testament beginning with Moses and ending during the time of the last prophet Malachi who was still alive when the last book of the Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, was written. Then, beginning with the New Testament when there was a resurgence of active prophecy and ending when the last apostle John died. Third, it was written by either prophets or apostles, or their contemporaries during the time they lived, such as Nehemiah and later Mark and Luke. Fourth, the apostle Paul explicitly stated that the oracles of God, referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, were entrusted to the Jews, just as he stated the apostles were entrusted with the gospel. And just as the apostles needed to know what the gospel was to be entrusted with it, likewise the Jews needed to know what the Scriptures were in order to be entrusted with them. And we know that the Jews never accepted those 7 extra books, nor the later Greek additions to Esther and Daniel, which are in Catholic Old Testaments, since none of them meet the previous godly attributes that are found intrinsically in the books of the Hebrew Bible. This latter point is what Jordan Cooper brought up during this debate/discussion. It doesn’t sound like you paid attention or perhaps understood my arguments, because I brought these up during my debates. Again, the protestant can know with certainty what the canon is without depending on Rome to tell them, unlike catholics who simply believe the magisterium is correct, without testing the books of their canon to the intrinsic godly attributes aforementioned. So I would like to turn the question back on you. Without using the subjective circular argument that you know what the canon is because you trust the magisterium, how can you know for certain that your 73 book canon is the right one, including the extra books in your old testament?

I would say that Paul is contrasting works done in the flesh, outside of justified state, in order to make oneself righteous or to earn righteousness, with faith (faith here meaning obedience and not mere mental assent) in the work of Christ that we enter into and become a part of. Christ works both in and through us. Abraham's faith was faith was counted as an act of righteousness. In other words it want simply mental assent but a faith formed in love needing to not merely "believe" but trust in the promise. Salvation is God's work but because it is his work in us and through us, both making us righteous and causing us to obey and preserver to the end where God crowns his work in us with eternal life. Abraham's trust in Christ is contrasted with his attempt to accomplish the promise in his own through Ishmael, against trusting in God to bring forth the promise in his timing. Works of the flesh vs supernatural work of God.

@@aubreygmcghee that might be. Romans 4:5, Paul says to the one who does not work but believes. However, we know that those who work good receive eternal life (Romans 2:7, Gal 6:10). So it could, as you said, working before coming into union with Christ. None of those works profit anything for justification. However, it is interesting hat Paul uses Abraham and David at times when they were already believers. Also, the context has a lot about Jew/Gentile/Law/Circumcision.

@Zachary Trent I was a devout Catholic and converted to being a protestant later in life. And once I began to study the early church as a protestant, it became immediately apparent that they did not agree on virtually every doctrine you can think of, let alone the canon. The only consistency with the early church was its inconsistency, and that includes popes and councils, which Luther even brought up during his interrogation at the Diet of Worms in 1521. So the old adage, to be deep into history is to cease to become protestant, is a logical fallacy, since the exact opposite happened to me. Rather, to be deep into scripture is to cease to become Roman Catholic.

@@BornAgainRN Your comment is a non-sequitur: first, you say that the early Church didn't agree on many matters, therefore the idea of 'one, holy Catholic apostolic Church is inexistent; but then you procede to the protestant paradigm where one is absolute free to interpret the Scripture based on the doctrine of the 'private judgment' which by experience and history is demonstrably problematic, just see the controversy between Arminians, Calvinists and Lutherans on the questions of grace, predestination and many other things. So what is the point of your critics since you are in a paradigm that is not immune, but rather very unatable relating these issues? Secondly, you demonstrate your bias when you write "reading as protestant"... You should not read them as a protestant nor as a roman-catholic, but you must read them as they simple are. Did St. Athanasius, Basil and Cyril thought that they were not part of one Church even if they engaged in polemics against heretics? Now the phrase of Dr. Newman is an interesting one because I do think that he is partially right. Partially because there is a hard-work to do in order to reach the Roman-Catholic 'status quaestiones' in the Fathers; but surely is harder to reach the protestant faith in their writings.

@@heinrich3088 the only reason I brought up that I was a Catholic-turned-Protestant was to bring up the fact that the adage "To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant" is a false assumption, since the OPPOSITE happened to me. The context of what I wrote was to address this false assumption. It had nothing to do with "private judgment." It was also to point out that the writings of ECFs & even ecumenical councils CONTRADICTED each other on a number of issues, including the authority of the pope or councils over each other, and even what books belong in the Bible. The fact that the writings of ECFs contradict each other is significant, because if you attempt to rely on them for doctrine, instead of the Scripture themselves, you end up "choosing" a particular belief that simply agrees with you own personal or ecclesiastical worldview. So, going by the Scripture "alone," you come more easier to the Protestant view of justification rather than the Catholic view, which "developed" over centuries.

@@BornAgainRN Actually I read them and I do not find any great contradictions in their writings as you seem to imply. If you can provide an example, it would be good. As to the protestant cause, this seems to be based on a reversed history. You are forgetting that the Reformation has a historical and intelectual period behind it, especially the the late fourthteen century development of theological methods. Also the political climate that shaked Europe post western schism does play a role. Now, was the early church fathers 'protestant' in spirit? By their writings they stress confidence on the monarchical role of the bishopric, and the danger of being separete from it. There is much more from this relation and idea of Church, but it would be good first, if you provide what you think is a major contradiction, and why it is irreconcilable with one Catholic Church.

@@BornAgainRN Plus, I'm sorry if I sounded rude 😉

;)

Even though I'm likely going to be more onside w/ the Lutheran than the Catholics, I'd be surprised if Suan didn't want to jump in. We all would be doing some tongue biting.

Jimmy Akin thinks so. See his debate w Cooper.

It's forensic in the sense that it is in the basis of Christ merit that we qualify to recurve saving Grace to begin with. It is transformative because when we receive that Grace we are made righteous.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7HJs5sbAnyo.html

The question is wrong. The question is whether or not JUSTIFICATION can be both forensic and transformative. And the answer is no. Justification is always imputational and forensic, not transformational. But God's purpose for justification is sanctification as a process. Justification is accomplished on the cross. Sanctification is how God works in the elect believer after the effectual call. It is God's grace that effectually and irresistibly raises the elect sinner from his or her trespasses and sins. It is also God's grace that causes the new believer to repent and to make progress in the Christian life and the struggle against sin.

@@cranmer1959 Charlie you sound like you’re teaching Calvinism which is unbiblical and ahistorical.

@Eucharist Angel the new testament was written by Catholics, how are we the ones on the wrong?

I know this is a year late, but that’s the guy who believes in geocentrism and thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. Oh and he’s also an antisemite. I’m catholic, but we will need to find someone else as an authority on this, because he’s hard to take seriously.

@@koppite9600 That's always a crazy statement that I see some unfortunate Catholics make. You didn't write the NT, let's get real here.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 do you know of a protestant in those days? They were Catholic, just read the fathers

@@koppite9600 The Christian world wasn't 100% Catholic when the bible was canonized. It was a largely Catholic church that canonized the bible books, but they didn't write it. Jews wrote the OT, and the apostles and their disciples actually wrote the NT.

It’s obvious Paul is talking about initial justification and works of the law cannot justify our initial salvation. Where Protestants go wrong on justification is that they love to take one passage out of the Bible to create a man made dogma. The Bible says faith justifies us, but so does Christ, grace and works. Works do justify us as we continually cooperate with the grace of Christ. To deny this is to deny what is plainly written in scripture. It’s hilarious how Protestants have to do so much coping when it comes to James

So you create a parallel church because you get something right? Paul didn't create one he went to a council to sort it out, Luther rebelled.

@@koppite9600 Luthet was a catholic Priest and monk. The Pope excommunicated him because DR. LUTHER was pointing out the errors that had crept into the Roman church. Therefore it was the POPE that started the Lutheran Church

@@Dilley_G45 let's consider David vs Saul situation. Why do you think David didn't found a new nation? It is because he remained loyal to God's elect, Saul. Luther was wrong to accept excommunication, he should have listened to the Church like David did. Even Jesus respected the Pharisees just because they occupied the seat of Moses, he didn't move away, he stayed and was killed.

@@koppite9600 again...the Catholic church was moving into heresy. Luther followed God's command in calling out false teaching. Luther did the right thing. It's not a out dying for the sake of dying...Luther was ready to suffer BUT in the end he didn't have to die

@@Dilley_G45 why didn't he wait for a council? You see Paul disagree with the Judeans on circumcision but he goes to the Council to have it sorted out. He should have exercised patience, Jesus promised us the Church will not see the gates of Hades, why didn't he have faith in these words when doubts arose? For me, Luther acted like a superstitious person, always have faith that the Church will not fall because Jesus said it will not, or what do you think could have happened if Luther didn't get excommunicated? Would the Church have fallen by now? Then what about those assuring words of Jesus? Would they be false?

Zzz

There are many problems with this view, not least that it's incompatible with the understanding that Scripture is the *Word of God* antecedent to the church's recognition of the same. But also, it contradicts Vatican I, which states: "These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church." (Session 3, chapter 2.)

​@@chrismathew2295 I am not contradicting Vatican I on purpose, though I can't blame you for interpreting my summary in that way. I'll take responsibility for that. There are many things that are the Word of God that are not sacred scripture. For example, the New Testament describes all kinds of prophesying individuals who spoke the Word of the Lord by the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and their words have been lost to time. There is also sacred tradition which is the Word of God in another form. I am not claiming they were composed by unaided human skill -- that position cannot be held by a Christian. The canon we have are the works produced under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through their true human authors that have been committed to the Church. And no. It is not contradictory to say that scriptures human authors were true authors and God is the author any more than it is a contradiction to say that Christ is fully God and fully man. God meets us where we are, He works in and through us. We are not Muslims. We don't think God wrote the Bible in heaven before He gave it to us.

@@wheatandtares-xk4lp I'm not arguing that "God wrote the Bible in heaven before He gave it to us." The strongest view that Protestant scholars take on this matter (i.e., verbal plenary inspiration) does not, in any way, suggest the Mohammedan view of Scripture. I don't deny that God used men to write Scripture, nor is this denied by any Protestant scholar. I am arguing, rather, that the canon is *objective* in virtue of it having been authored by God ("God-breathed", to use the language of St Timothy) and that the church recognised it with the aid of the Holy Spirit, which you seemed to deny in your original post. I'm not surprised you think this, though-I think that this low view of Scripture is almost required for the Catholic apologist's canon argument to get off the ground. If, as you later admit, the "canon we have are the works produced under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through their true human authors", then there is a fact of the matter about what works are God's word *independent* of the church's recognition of the same. The church recognises it because Scripture is "self-authenticating" (autopistic)-or to use Jesus' metaphor, the sheep hear the voice of their shepherd (Jn. 10:27). God's words shall not return to Him empty (Is. 55:11); thus, He providentially ensures that His people, whether the Jewish nation in the intertestamental period or the early church, recognises the canon. Michael Kruger uses the imagery of thermostats and thermometers. Thermometers measure the temperature as it is, whereas thermostats determine the temperature. For the Catholic apologist's argument to get off the ground, one must imagine the church as a thermostat, determining the canon-for as you wrote, "Without church authority, there is no canon." But the Protestant view is that the church was like a thermometer, recognising Scripture for what it is, because the Spirit testifies to the authenticity of the Word. Of course, God revealed many things to prophets that were not inscripturated. All the words of Jesus were the words of God, though not all of Jesus' words are recorded in Scripture. So, we agree that there is a distinction between the words of God intended for inscripturation and the words of God not intended for inscripturation. But notice, and this is key: this distinction only exists in the mind of God. When the church was deliberating on the canon, they weren't trying to distinguish between "the words of God intended for inscripturation and the words not intended for inscripturation." Instead, they sought to recognise whatever of God's words persisted in their day, and those words of God not intended for inscripturation were those which fell into obscurity. The Gospel of Barnabas was rejected because it wasn't God's word simpliciter. So, though there is a distinction of this kind, the Holy Spirit still aided the church in recognising the written words of God available in their day as Scripture.

@@chrismathew2295 Did you know the bishops' canons of the early church in the first 300 years varied all across the mediterranian? Some had the book of enoch, others denied Jude and 2 Peter and Revelation (a kind of NT deuterocanon, in fact). It was by church councils that the canon was set. In fact, the Western and Eastern church councils set different canons, which is why the Eastern Orthodox have a couple extra books in their canon. As a Catholic, I fully affirm those councils were themselves led by the Holy Spirit. All of them, even though they disagreed. And the fact that they, led by the Holy Spirit, all affirmed books like Tobit (the deuterocanon) from the Bible handed down by Jesus's disciples through the Church, we simply haven't removed them. The simple historical and ecclesiastical truth is that canon is not, in fact, objective. It is an instantiation of divine and human cooperation. And I think you have to believe that too, otherwise you would be insane to support Martin Luther taking the deuterocanon out of the bible that had been taught from since Christ's life, simply because he couldn't find the Hebrew for the deuterocanon (he only had the Septuagint Greek at the time. Of course, we have some Hebrew for it now (e.g. Sirach) that he didn't have. In fact, Martin Luther _would have_ kept Sirach in his canon if he had the Hebrew we have today) To Be Deep in History Is to Cease to Be Protestant. Learn more, you will see.

@@chrismathew2295Also the The Gospel of Barnabas was written in the 1300s at the earliest. Word of God or not, the Bible's role is not to communicate post-apostolic works, so nobody's dumb enough to suggest it should be in the canon.

Catholicism is obviously correct. The Father's might be a little closer to the deposit of Faith then you or me.

@Zachary Trent Might want to watch it again. It was pretty one-sided.

@@zarnoffa cooper talks more and probably a better public speaker but koons subtle and humble observations compelled me more.

@@merseabless8305 Oh, I don’t judge on style.

Something happened at some point in Luther's life though. Luther went from addressing abuses to literally calling the pope the antichrist. To say he was the best friend is bit much.

@The Hesychast No, what he regretted was the Anabaptists citing him as an ally and, yes the chaos they caused. He said THEY should be forced to stay under popery. In fact "Provisionist" Pelagianism proves him right. There is more Grace under the pope than under the baptists.

He did look to Constantinople. He didn't like the answer Patriarch Jeremias II gave him.

@@EricBryant Yup, it was late in the game and sadly the Lutherans rejected their critique of the Augsburg confession- they were tone death to the Bishops. Do you know what year they reached out to Constantinople … it was late. Luther, Philip Melanchthon and others had their opportunity to submit to the eastern Bishops.

"through faith" and "by faith" mean that faith is an instrument. I learn "through reading." Reading is the instrument of my learning. I travel "by car." My car is the instrument of my travel.

@@Mygoalwogel Show me where the bible teaches faith is an instrument comparable to a car, or a pen, or a tool? The truth is the bible doesn't teach faith is an instrument of anything at all. The bible does teach faith is a virtuous habit and a free act of consent to everything God reveals. By knowing the predominant biblical way of portraying faith without reference to instrumentality, justification and redemption must be described in terms of faith as a habit, and act, and not an instrument. Your reference to "through" and "by" faith indicating the instrumentality of faith is only a self-serving projection into various bible verses presuming penal substitution is true, when the theory is so problematic, it cannot be true or from the bible. Penal substitution is most definitely a reformation invention based upon the need for some to rebel against the one true faith and the one true church. If the instrumentality of faith is hypothetically presumed, a question arises about faith. If the man believes and is saved and belief is an instrument of salvation, like a pen is an instrument of the poet who writes the poem, how is penal substitution not pelagian or semi-pelagian? If the man is saved by faith alone, and the poet wrote the poem via, by or through the pen, the poet is credited with the poem as the believer is credited with righteousness. The poet has a natural act caused by the man to have credit complementing the justified man. Both men use instruments to achieve the ends obtained and both naturally use an instrument. Such causation in justification must be pelagian, or semi-pelagian condemned in the early church. Penal substitution requires the consent of an early church heresy to misread some NT passages to arrive at a false understanding of faith, justification, the righteousness of God and the atonement. The Lutheran doctrines of faith alone, grace alone, scripture alone, and the glory of God alone are all attributable to an oral tradition invented from the machinations of a rebellious mind, foreign to the biblical text and church history and any authoritative church council.

@@MrJohnmartin2009 Merriam-Webster by preposition 4a : through the agency (see AGENCY sense 3) or instrumentality of What are you so mad about?

@@Mygoalwogel You can't demonstrate "through" means what the webster dictionary defines "through" as. Faith as an instrument is a reformation anachronism invented by Luther and Calvin apart from church history, the councils, the fathers, and any biblical text. Faith as an instrument is impossible for faith alone is false anyway as shown below. If justification is by faith alone, and those elect in heaven as from the Lutheran doctrine, then faith alone is false for all three possible scenarios. 1) There is no faith in heaven and the elect are justified without faith, contradicting the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone. Therefore faith alone is false. 2) Faith alone infers faith is required for the elect in heaven and there is faith in heaven, contradicting St Paul who says faith turns into vision. Therefore faith alone is false. 3) The Lutheran doctrine of faith alone is true and there is no faith in heaven and consequently, there is no elect in heaven. Therefore no men are saved according to reformed theology, contradicting the book of revelation which reports a large multitude in heaven. Therefore faith alone is false. If Lutheran faith alone is affirmed, faith alone is always false when contextualised by the elect in heaven who are justified by the atonement applied in a way other than by faith alone. The prepositions of "through" and "by" relative to faith mean the habit or act of faith directs the believer to believe everything revealed to obtain justification. The supernatural truths revealed are the object of the human intellect as truths and will as understood goods through a process of partial knowledge and free consent to believe without fully understanding the truths revealed. There is no need and no possibility to have faith understood as an instrumental cause of justification. Faith is only an act or habit lost after death and replaced by direct vision in heaven with the elect having full knowledge of the truths and granting full consent to the goodness of those truths by participating in divine love. The elect know and love God perfectly without faith or hope after losing both when not required.

It will provide answers for sure. How accurate will those answers be?

Who cares? Any Christian would do what the church says. What has the magesterium said?

@@koppite9600any Christian would believe what scripture says

@@user-nd5jh7eu6i Whoever doesn't listen to the Church consider him a Gentile or a tax collector. Any Christian should know that. Heretics quote scripture too, and they bring confusion. So, Church first because ... "I will build a church on Peter and it will not see the gates of Hades" Mathew 16

@@koppite9600 epistemically the decrees of the magisterium are no more ambiguous than this so called subjective interpretation of scripture. Secondly you’re assuming the church in that instance is the Roman Catholic one and not say the local congregation that Christ anticipated in Matthew 18

@@user-nd5jh7eu6i I know not to get technical unnecessarily in these debates. It doesn't help a lot. When the magesterium gives guidance, it is our obligation to follow. Scripture can be interpreted liberally within the Church. There has been no doubt that Popes descend from Peter. They are the leaders of the Church. That's not in doubt.

Saying that he depends on the authority of the church is really a copout, and something that is said by Catholics when they don’t have an answer.

It would be a cop-out if it were my responsibility to determine the correct interpretation of any given Bible passage and to derive doctrines from that. It's not so your assertion is ridiculous. Christ did not leave us a Bible telling us what to believe but a Church made of flesh and blood human beings. The head of which was Peter to whom Christ gave authority to bind and loose. He didn't give it to Luther and he certainly didn't give it to random laymen with Bibles and clever opinions about how it should be interpreted.

@@sensusfedorum9081 When you read the Bible it’s pretty much a story about a lot of flesh and blood people making lots of mistakes. And when you consider the history of the Papacy and the Catholic Church, you see the same pattern of flesh and blood people making mistakes. And really that is all human institutions. We need to have a tool that can hold these institutions and their flesh and blood members accountable. As Christians we believe the Bible is inspired by God and since it gives us rules for living our individual lives and our lives among the community of believers, why would we rely on a flesh and blood person?

@@sensusfedorum9081 yet, Jesus held individuals accountable for knowing what Scripture said when He asked them, "Have you not READ?" And the "Bible" in Jesus' day was the Old Testament, which not only did He expect them to have read, but also know what Scripture was. And while Jesus built a church, the Holy Spirit "breathed" Scripture. So, God did indeed leave us a book, and He expects us to know what it says & means, and hold us accountable just as Jesus did in the first century with the Jews. So, making the claim when you don't know something that your "authority is the church" IS a cop-out since God PERSONALLY holds us accountable for knowing. And Peter wasn't the only one who was given the power to bind and loose, but also every believer who is part of the church (Matthew 18:18). But this is not the same thing as "personal interpretation." No Protestant believers this, and the Reformers certainly didn't. We are responsible before God for knowing not only what Scripture is, but also what it means. That is why God gave us our Bible, which we can know what it means. Otherwise, God would not have given it to us if it was too confusing to understand.

@@BornAgainRN A few questions: Where does this leave all the Christians who lived before the canon was established? Where does this leave all the Christians who did not have access to a Bible before they became widely available? If all members of the Church have equal authority (an incoherent concept) as you seem to insinuate with your reference to Matthew 18:18, how is it that doctrinal disputes are to be settled so that the unity of the integrity of the Church be maintained? If you do not mean to suggest each member of the Church has equal authority then you must accepts a hierarchy. If you accept a hierarchy then how do you justify a Protestant hierarchy that disregards Christ's specific reference to Peter as the one to whom He gave the keys of the kingdom on whom He shall build His Church?

You Russian "Orthodox" make asses of yourselves as well since the time of Nikon I. You forced the Old Believers to either leave the church or confess the lie that the liturgical reform was "necessary for salvation." They were right and you Nikonites have spoken against the Holy Spirit.

@@Mygoalwogel American Christianity is flawed from the beginning by allowing Masonic ideologies and twisting history to favor Protestantism and Masonic Puritanical Satanic lies

@@Mygoalwogel American say "In God We Trust" but their money is filled with Masonic imagery that is Satanic. George Washington was a Mason, most American Politicians have been Masonic, with deep hatred towards Catholics so much that it is the reason why you infiltrated yourselves into Vatican II and the only 2 "Catholic" couldn't be real Catholics because you despise both Orthodoxy and Catholicism the true roots of Christianity.

@@Mygoalwogel not a soul believed in Sola Scriptura before and Protestants killed more Catholics than Catholics killed Protestants during the Reformation however You and your country continue to lie about historical events. What's more pathetic is that you believe the Crusades lasted like 15 years and that Europe was enslaved by Roman Catholics when it is not even close to reality.

@@AudenLassoChaveztigre The logical result of my comment and yours is that the Old Believers are the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Unless you want to include Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East as contenders.