Great Law Gospel sermon Dr. Cooper. Hearing the law and the gospel properly distinguished, the Law preached in all its severity, and the gospel in all its beauty has been one of the greatest blessings in my Christian walk. Hopefully you continue to post more sermons!
I appreciate this message. We attended a reformed Baptist church that quietly introduced headcovering for women. When we talked to the leadership (who were introducing it) they said that we should really study it out for ourselves either privately or with them. If after studying it out we were convinced that it was for today then we needed to obey that commandment to wear headcovering, to not obey meant were were in rebellious sin against Gods commandment for women to wear headcovering. I countered them by asking; did you have to study out any of the 10 commandments before you chose to obey them? Do you first need a burning conviction that adultery is wrong in order to call it sin. Or is it only a sin if your convinced of it. We didnt stay in that church. Their doctrine/ gospel was different than what I was taught.
There is a good case to be made for women wearing headcoverings in church (1 Cor. 11), and it was a pretty much standard practice until not that long ago (the Southern tradition of women wearing hats in church was seen as a fulfilment of that verse). However, the manner you describe of them introducing it is slimey and manipulative. Changes in practice like that must be made in the open, and before all.
@@sharqueeshajohnalaneesha2019 yes. I totally agree. My husband's background is mennonite and several sister in laws wear headcovering in church. It was a long held practice in their church, in that setting its beautiful and clearly understood. I've no problem with it but just the way it was introduced in this church; it created a subgroup, it clearly caused division between the more holy/righteous and the unwashed masses.
Hey Jordan! Do you or J&S ever intend on publishing any words from Abraham Calovius? I've recently found his reputation intriguing and his praises seem universal, but I can't find any translated works of his. If you even consider it, I'd be happy to pitch in funding! Thanks!
@@jaema8281 fourth response have no idea what is going on
Месяц назад
I can't help but think that Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox (not all, but many) might consider themselves as the gatekeepers of Tradition™️, in which they unnecessarily bind the conscience of many with traditions which might notb actually be necessary. (Ie mandatory icon veneration, prayer to the saints, etc)
My suggestion would be to establish a tradition of faithfully following the Gospel. IMHO, that would spell the end of your religion, but it would culminate in you being right with God!
There goes Dr Cooper again...... separating tradition from the Word of God. This isn't how the early church functioned. First off, they had very little in the way of Scriptures other than the OT. They relied on the ORAL teachings and traditions. St Paul confirms this to the Thessalonians: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." I would ask Dr Cooper whether Paul's spoken words were somehow less authoritative than Paul's written words here. If tradition (the positive kind, or Holy Tradition) were hermetically sealed and separated from Scripture, why did Paul tell the Thessalonians this here? There is no evidence that the early church fathers bifurcated tradition in this way. And it doesn't fly to say "well this church father elevated Scripture here and there, and made this the final test of all things" because, in context, they weren't saying that at all. Without the authority structure of Holy Tradition, Scripture, and Magesterium, the believer is adrift in his own (or groups own) interpretation of Scripture which differs, at times radically, from one another. Furthermore, the "Word of God" is not strictly limited to Scripture. Jn 21:25: "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." All of Jesus' words and acts are authoritative, irrespective of whether they were written down or not.
The Early Church also had very little in the way of Tradition in the years immediately after Jesus's death so making appeals to Tradition such as the misapplication of "traditions" in Thessalonians points this out. When Thessalonians was being written, the Gospel was being preached to the people in person. You're implying some sort of "secret knowledge" imparted to purely oral Tradition that cannot be clearly document or attested to. That's akin - exactly akin to arguments made by the Gnostics who also cited "secret knowledge" of the Apostles. And we can see what validity those claim had. What we can expect is that the traditions that needed to be passed down were actually written down and subsequent tradition in the Church was to support the understanding of Scripture, not to hold up practices outside the scope of Scripture. The early Church wrote down what was necessary and everything else was deemed to be unnecessary such that John 21:25 does not provide a brief for the development of Traditions that fall outside the scope of Scripture. John clearly states this Now, if you can find a tradition that has an impeccable pedigree that can be directly traced back to the Apostles that is outside Scripture, I'm sure we'd all like to see what that tradition might be. But such a thing does not exist. If the Church recognized words of Christ that believers should follow they would have written them down at the time they were writing the gospels and the epistles instead of waiting over 100 (or 200 or 400) years to do so. Traditions that claim to be based on the words of Christ that cannot be established by Scripture can be chalked up in one simple, clear word: fantasy.
@@pete3397 that is an erroneous assumption. You are basically parroting arguments that most Protestants and Lutherans argue for: that if it isn’t written down somewhere it may be discarded. Show me scripture that indicates this rule was in place for the Church. It never was. Nor did the early church fathers hold or articulate this view. You are presupposing sola Scriptura into your paradigm
If one wants a more fully-orbed discussion on Tradition in the early Church, I suggest you watch Those "Unwritten" Catholic Traditions? They Were Actually Written Down (w/ Rod Bennett) on the Cordial Catholic on Tou tube. Both men are converts from Protestantism.
Месяц назад
@@N1IA-4 “RULE TWENTY-SIX That every word and deed should be ratified by the testimony of the Holy Scripture to confirm the good and cause shame to the wicked… RULE TWENTY-EIGHT That we should not be readily and thoughtlessly carried away by those who make pretense of the truth, but we should recognize each from the sign given us by the Scriptures” St. Basil the Great The Morals “Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” St. Basil the Great Letter 189 "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 4 “And who, [Macrina] replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?” St. Gregory of Nyssa On the Soul and the Resurrection "These [The Canonical Scriptures] are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness." St. Athanasius Letter 39 Even Aquinas stated that "only the Canonical Scriptures are the standard of faith" in Commentary on John 21, Lecture 6. You KNOW that Lutherans don't say that traditions can simply be discarded if they're not written down. They simply must be ratified and checked according to Scripture, which IS what the Fathers held.
@@N1IA-4 I'm presupposing that the early Church wrote down what it wanted to be preserved as essential to the faith and that anything else was not considered dogma nor essential to the formation of doctrine and belief. That's pretty obvious and to argue otherwise is to assume the validity of Tradition without means to support that tradition from Scripture. We do have early writings that we can read and they don't support much of anything of what Rome supposes is Tradition. Some of it is perfectly fine: the dating of Easter, the celebration of Christmas, but when you abuse Tradition to argue for various aspects of Marian idolatry and worship you've crossed the line into clear abuses of both Scripture and Tradition to support man made fantasies. This is the problem with Rome's fixation on Tradition in that it wants to place Tradition on par with Scripture, but in so doing, places Tradition, i.e. Man above the Word, i.e. Jesus. And, yes, Lutherans have a problem with such profane arrogance on the part of Rome when it does so.
Does Scripture say that God requires only repentance from us? Scripture says in Eze. 33:14-16 (ESV, emphasis in capital is mine): 14 Again, though I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' YET IF HE TURNS FROM HIS SIN AND DOES WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT, 15 if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 NONE OF THE SINS THAT HE HAS COMMITTED SHALL BE REMEMBERED AGAINST HIM. HE HAS DONE WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT; HE SHALL SURELY LIVE. According to Luther through faith alone ALL sins of believers (past, presents and future ) are imputed on Christ who already bore the punishment of those sins (the believers deserve) on the cross. Luther did write that believers still need to repent for their future sins - otherwise those sins won't be imputed on Christ: It is true that He [God] does not impute it [sin], but to whom and on what account? Not to the hardhearted and smug but to those who repent and who by faith take hold of Christ the Propitiator, on whose account sins are forgiven them and the remnants of sin are not imputed to them. Luther: Lectures on Galatians 5-6, 1535, Luther’s Works, Vol. 27, page 75 But to do what is just and right after repentance as stated in Ezekiel. 33:14-16 will add what Christ did on the cross, according to the teaching of Luther. Which one we should follow, Scripture or tradition of Luther?
Surely this question is just the James "faith vs works" conversation in a Luther wrapper? "Turns from his sin and does what is just and right" are not two separate things, they are one and the same. How can you say that you have repented if you do not do what is just and right? Faith without works is dead, right? The act of repenting IS turning from sin and doing what is just and right by definition. How can you rely on Jesus' sacrifice if you do not repent and do what is just and right, as Jesus himself asked us to do?
Unless you are saying that you need to do good works to deserve absolution, what exactly is your claim? Lutherans, Reformed, all believe that works are necessary. If you read the epistle to Romans, St. Paul clearly connects the term "justification" with the forgiveness of sins. In a Catholic setting, mortal sins are forgiven "by faith alone" - anytime you go to confession, it is only the faith that led you there that merited the absolution from the guilt of those sins. You are forgiven at that exact moment, not after X days of living a virtuous life. The faith that led you there is the same faith that works in love, so we all believe doing what is just and right is a necessary consequence of having the faith. Luther's caution with adding to the cross is only valid in the sense of attributing the forgiveness we receive to the amount of virtuous deeds we do or the degree of virtue we have. In other words, we believe divinely infused virtues are a necessary result of the justifying grace, as opposed to being necessary prerequisites for receiving forgiveness of sins. One should not forget Sola Fide is an argument against Temporal Punishment in Purgatory, where a person would earn forgiveness of venial sins through good works.
@@Dilley_G45 Exactly! I don't understand this push to extreme pedantry where we have to separate literally everything away from "faith" alone, as if your actions aren't the biggest and most obvious sign of your faith. Our good actions themselves don't save us, but are a sign and a result of our salvation.
