A Critique of John Vervaeke's Interpretation of Martin Luther

Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is a critique of John Vervaeke's lecture on Martin Luther in which he blames the reformer for many of our current societal ills.

[@johnvervaeke]

I would like to thank Dr. Cooper for this excellent response. I owe Dr. cooper an apology. He has reached out and requested a dialogue. Paul V and I tried to arrange something but schedules conflicted. Dr Cooper came back later and tried to set up a meeting and I did not follow up because I was extremely busy. That is not a justification but it is an explanation that I was not simply dismissing him. Hence my apology. I will reply with a video to Dr Cooper’s points and then I would like to j Invite him to my channel for a discussion. Perhaps with Paul V. I hope we also talk about our shared deep love for Neoplatonism.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

No worries. I can certainly understand being busy. Glad you were able to watch. I look forward to talking in the future.

[@johnvervaeke]

@@DrJordanBCooper Great!

[@mj6493]

Kudos to both of you for being willing to engage, re-evaluate, and move the conversation forward.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Being willing to reconsider is BIGGER and BETTER than being right the first time. You are an example to us all. Thank you so much.

[@vicaba02]

It would be excellent to see you in dialogue. Thanks for the video Dr. Cooper.

[@JRMusic933]

Its remarkable to be how often interpretations of people like Luther often says more about the people interpreting than anything else.

[@j.harris83]

Keep pursuing a conversation with John and have more conversations with Paul Vanderklay

[@PaulVanderKlay]

Good. I'm glad you're doing this. This was one of the weakest points of AFLMC series. He had some later Calvinists in his Luther and of course he painted Luther with a lot of nominalism which I think Luther via Salkeld really wanted to address. I haven't listened to this video (today is Sunday for this working pastor) but I will definitely catch it when I've got the time.

[@SeniorCebolla]

I look forward to your video about this video about that video! 😵‍💫

[@anselman3156]

This is my follow up to viewing your upload today. Have a blessed Lord's Day.

[@scythermantis]

I am glad I watched this video because I have to say that I felt the Descartes part of the series was definitely the most powerful; however there was always something in me that sat 'wrong' (I have at various times in my life done an in-depth study of Martin Luther simply because I found him so important and fascinating; one of them was me just in a library writing out things on my own from all the books I could find, not for credit or anything) but I am not a scholar obviously. It's nice to get a counterpoint to this.

[@jordanserna]

The narcissism of Jordan Cooper all but proves Vervakes argument. Cooper’s public posture towards John not only signals his intellectually infancy, but the infancy of his character relative to John as well. Now of course these must both be assessed as relative to John, and not the person of Christ. Because both of your salvations are certified guarantees.

[@jaema8281]

​@@jordansernaDo you feel referring to someone as a "narcissist" and psychoanalyzing their behavior and labeling their character is a Christ-like behavior yourself? I find it funny that Jordan B Cooper and Vervakes are friendly and amicable to each other, yet you, an unrelated person, write a harsh condemning statement like this. If you feel your point stands, that's one thing, but I certainly don't think it's controversial to say that this was clearly a rude comment, as there's not even an argument or example here. It's condemnation for the sake of condemnation.

[@augustinian2018]

30:16 Touché about N.T. Wright often thinking he’s critiquing Luther when he’s critiquing some partitions of the later Lutheran tradition. I always have to smile when Wright comes to many of the same conclusions as Luther without realizing it.

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Having watched this critique and AFTMC and John's respectful response I'm very much looking forward to the sit down you'll have with each other, you both obviously have great passion for your work and it comes through in your words, thank you again John and Jordan, peace.

[@suppression2142]

Wow I'm not Lutheran but even I can see that John Vervaeke definitely misrepresented Luther immensely here, although I'm sure it wasn't on purpose he really believes he's right it seems. I wish you two could have a dialogue and just talk about this.

[@toddbonin6926]

A sincere question for Lutherans: I was born into a devout Roman Catholic family who, for a variety of reasons, descended into the 1960s-70s religious roller coaster of the Charismatic Renewal followed by Pentecostalism, various Fundamentalist churches and Faith Healers ... all played out from my infancy through my college years. As an adult, I didn't want what I saw in my youth. I did, however, want a relationship with Jesus. I sought it in the much more comforting and "sane" world of the Episcopal Church, but in the last 40 years, the Episcopal Church morphed into something I no longer find remotely Christian. There are Christian Episcopalians to be sure ... but I don't care for the church. So I started looking again. Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran are the churches in my town. I love Luther. I have since I was a little boy and read his biography. I love Lutheran theology (LCMS that is). It inspires me and makes sense. I don't like Calvin. But if Luther was right - and Lutheran theology is the "most" correct - why has the Lutheran church been such an abysmal disaster? I'm serious. I'm not being disrespectful. I need answers. Why the disaster of 19th Century theological liberalism that sprung from Lutheran Germany and has ruined Christianity? Why have all the historically Lutheran countries in Europe become the most atheistic countries today? Why are most Lutheran's in the Americas today so liberal? Why doesn't Lutheranism last. No matter how hard the Communists tried, they couldn't kill the Orthodox faith anywhere. They couldn't kill the Catholic faith in Poland, Hungary or Slovakia (and Czechia was a problem before Communism). But the Communists pretty effectively erased the Lutheran faith wherever it was practiced under them. Formerly Lutheran Estonia boasts itself the most atheistic country in the world. I very much want to be Lutheran. But I'm only going to join one more church before I die. I need answers. Why doesn't Lutheranism survive persecution? Why is it so susceptible to falling away? I'm getting old. I don't want to spend my final decades in yet another apostatizing church. If the Lutherans have the right idea, why does their fig tree bear such rotten fruit? Please help me. Thank you.

[@j.g.4942]

I'm young and descend from a group of Lutherans who fled the Reformed king of Prussia's Union church almost 200yrs ago, thus being isolated from much of that mess. I think simply put it's that we haven't built walls in the form of practice. Philip Melanchthon was swayed by Calvin, we called his school philippists, or those who concede the faith (we see this in the union churches of Europe). We excelled in music with Bach, Handel and Pachelbel, in preaching with Luther and others, all this took away for those locals not excellent but faithful. We used language more personal than communal. I'm sure there's more examples, but these lead into the Pietist revolution from our Lutheran Orthodox which obliterates the walls remaining and relies on the beauty in the tradition (and goes on the form the methodists, and mutate into the American revivals into this new 'evangelicalism'). But without walls the winds of change hit hard, so we have Kant and his mystic opponent/friend Hamann, and others fighting in the congregation for orthodoxy and for modernism, revival, secularism and all the rest. To put it in an analogy, we have the jewel of the Gospel of Christ, if we fail to show it to others, if others fail to see it, they drift away; it depends on the congregation and the pastor as to how the setting is constructed to protect and highlight the Jewel, or to obscure it or even to neglect any setting leaving this great Jewel in danger of being forgotten. I see that my synod has neglected the setting, I see other Christians (I call them bapto-costals) have destroyed the setting, I see still others embellish the setting so much that the Jewel, while there, is obscured. I'm young and hope to help those God has given me in this synod God has brought me up in; however sometimes it seems the practices of the Copts, or Antiochian Orthodox reflect the teachings of my synod better than my own. Whatever the case they have better walls. I don't have any answer but speak with the pastor/priest and seek Christ's gospel where he has placed us. I agree and struggle with the true you write; yet the difference is I am young and have grown up here, this is part of my tentatio, I don't know what you suffer from the devils that drive you back to Christ.

[@toddbonin6926]

@@j.g.4942 thank you for such a thoughtful response. I knew the Hohenzollerns were Calvinist and pushed for the United Church to legitimize their claim to the throne. I can see how that weakened many churches. But that wasn’t the case for Scandinavia. But, a Scandinavian friend told me today that she was “barely Lutheran” because Scandinavians just aren’t religious. Maybe it’s a cultural thing. I am continuing to pray about it and listen to podcasts and videos and seek the truth. My journey has been hard. I’m excited to hear from a young man as devoted to the Savior as you are. I’m assuming you’re in Germany, which is most encouraging. I support a church outreach program called Torchbearers that works with youth in Baden-Wurttemberg. My ancestors were Swabian, and I would love to see the faith resurge there. J.G. Thank you again for responding. I will pray God’s richest blessings on you as you follow Him.

[@j.g.4942]

@@toddbonin6926 Actually I'm in Australia, our synod also has ties with 10-15 other synods across South East Asia and I've met a few of our brethren from these countries (even a Jordanian pastoral student who returned home to pastor). I do hear too of smaller faithful synods in around the Baltic; and perhaps I should look into these Torchbearers too. Thank you for your prayers and may our Lord have mercy on you and your family.

[@toddbonin6926]

@@j.g.4942 thank you!

[@lemondedusilence5895]

Luther has to be the single most misunderstood historical figure that I can think of off the top of my head. There’s an infinity of interpretations ranging from him being a nominalist to a nazi to a proto revolutionary lol

[@anyanyanyanyanyany3551]

Luther being a Nazi (or proto-Nazi) is definitely one of the most wildest interpretations out there.

[@charliecampbell6851]

@@anyanyanyanyanyany3551uh, have you read The Jews and Their Lies? There's some stuff right up there with Nazi dogma

[@Dilley_G45]

​@@anyanyanyanyanyany3551 a very biblical Christian standing up to authority would have had a hard time under a neo pagan/atheist Nationalsocialist regime

[@VaporChad.]

​@@anyanyanyanyanyany3551the book "About the jews and their lies" says otherwise

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

Not a Nazi, certainly, but an anti-semite.

[@bionicmosquito2296]

So much to say on this. I am glad you engaged on this topic and this video from Vervaeke. It is difficult to watch any criticism of Luther that does not first portray the just criticisms Luther had of Catholic Church practices at the time - and the Church’s response to his desire for disputation on the points. The difference of his earlier 97 these vs. the later 95 theses is telling, as the earlier list did not result in the condemnations from the Church that the later list did. The difference: the later list went after indulgences where the earlier list did not. I think if Dr. Cooper wants to make further progress into this discussion it would be good to demonstrate further historical misrepresentations of Luther, including (as touched on) Luther’s criticisms of scholasticism were more regarding the later (post-Thomas) scholastic thought and not Thomas himself. This will open the door to discussing natural law (as developed further in Lutheran and, further, certain Protestant traditions thereafter) as a necessary component of resolving the meaning crisis. In other words, how Luther (and Lutheran practices) can be applied to resolving the meaning crisis. This idea should be well-thought through prior to any discussion with Vervaeke and VanderKlay, both of whom are honest discussants.

[@PaulVanderKlay]

Body language of frustration at minute 30:00 was quite telling. :) Reading Modernists back onto Luther clearly triggers Jordan. :)

[@DrJordanBCooper]

This is true.

[@vngelicath1580]

I love how you're keeping tabs, @Paul, you're such an engaged conversation partner -- especially for someone as busy as you!

[@andrewternet8370]

Ooooooooooh Dr. Cooper's getting into This Little Corner! Fun stuff!

[@Liisa3139]

It is interesting to observe a person to reveal how he doesn't get religion at all. I mean, if you could buy your way to heaven with good deeds, that would be a ridiculously simple faith. To draw from the rejection of such belief that deeds are arbitrary, is utterly simplistic. Like Kierkegaard emphasized: there is a paradox in the heart of Christian faith. You should do good - even knowing that it won't be enough to "buy" you a ticket to heaven. As you go doing it, as you submit, you will find that your faith grows stronger and you start enjoying the gifts of God more. You will continue to have hardships in life, but with the change of heart you will see them differently. You will be able to see hardships as blessings. Being just human, you will not make it every time, but you have the vision of the process. Life is full of meaning every step of the way.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

I read Zombies in Western Culture. He refers to Luther toward the end. I thought, "I guess it is not only Roman Apologists who get Luther completely wrong." It is as though a lot of the critics drink from the same sources

[@b.melakail]

If different peoples are coming to a similar conclusion then that is a point in their favour.....

[@marcuswilliams7448]

@@b.melakail I might well evidence widespread ignorance, actually, and based on the available evidence (A LOT of Luther's works are translated into English), that is the case.

[@smez]

If individual conscience was the final authority, the Book of Concord would be much shorter 😅

[@MattFRox]

I came over here following JV's link from his response to this critique. I'm super glad I did. New sub n da house

[@flashhog01]

Great video Dr. Cooper. It is frustrating to see people who approach a topic with a conclusion, work backward in order to justify that conclusion and then present it as something academic.

[@Joeonline26]

Very unfair characterization of Vervaeke and his work. I'm guessing you're not too familiar with him since this is not at all how he is. People are allowed to reach different conclusions without intellectual 'foul play' being a factor my friend.

[@j.g.4942]

@@Joeonline26 very much agree. However, as pointed out in the video, the Luther portrayed in Dr Vervaeke's lecture doesn't reflect Luther's works.

[@Joeonline26]

@@j.g.4942 Sure. Dr. Cooper is welcome to say that and I'm sure Vervaeke would welcome the intellectual challenge. I'm just saying that @flashog01 comment regarding approaching a topic with a conclusion in mind and working backward is unfair on Vervaeke. I also think Dr Cooper wouldn't be in agreement with @flashhog01's unfair characterization of Vervaeke.

[@j.g.4942]

@@Joeonline26 a bit harsh from Dr Cooper in the video too, but as you say it's unfair to Dr Vervaeke

[@Joeonline26]

@@j.g.4942 Yeah, Dr. Cooper was perhaps a bit harsh, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was simply anxious to defend something he is passionate and knowledgeable about. I don't know the reason why Vervaeke didn't appear on Cooper's channel, but I know Vervaeke is a very busy man lately. Nevertheless, I'm sure it would have been a productive discussion

[@stanislaw_sk]

Lutheran scholar Simeon Zahl has a great paper in Modern Theology on the Luther's critique of the Aristotelian notion of virtue: "Non-Competitive Agency and Luther's Experiential Argument Against Virtue". Zahl is definitely someone you should consider interviewing on your podcast. His exposition and defence of Melanchton's theology of justification in "The Holy Spirit and Christian Experience" is profound

[@irememberyou12]

this is probably the best criticism of virtue ethics.

[@Verulam1626]

Thank you for this? Do you have any other recommendations?

[@toddvoss52]

Even as an ex Lutheran , now Catholic, I agree with your defense of Luther here . I understand why you got frustrated .

[@Stormlight1234]

Many good points here, Dr. Cooper. I agree many people often do not allow for nuance with much of Luther's thought and paint in too broad of strokes. However, I also see many Lutherans often try to go back and rationalize or even whitewash Luther to soften his statements on Aristotle and philosophy and impact on the history of Western thought. Luther most certainly had a distrust of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy (more than just philosophy used corum deo) and had a great impact in Protestant thought and moving away from Aristotelian-Thomistic ideas. Luther successfully was able to get Aristotle lectures banned from Wittenberg for a time. He and Melanchthon disagreed on this point and many Lutherans to this day distrust Melanchthon because he sympathized more with the Aristotelian traditions of the Church. See Kusukawa. (1995). The Transformation of Natural Philosophy. I also highly recommend the book "Luther and late medieval Thomism: A study in theological anthropology" by D. Jansz to see the many misunderstandings that Luther had of Aquinas and how much they actually agreed on that Luther didn't realize. I agree that the Book of Concord affirms divine simplicity and people like Melanchthon and Gehard continued to argue for many classical theistic categories. I also agree it isn't a rejection of realism that would make Luther the catalyst for the modern world (and agree he didn't do this). I would argue, however, it is Luther's anthropology (depravity of the will and intellect) and his voluntaristic view of God (influenced by nominalism) that lead to the slow erosion of classical theistic tenants from much Protestant thought today. "He is God, and for his will there is no cause or reason that can be laid down as a rule or measure of it, since there is nothing superior to it, but it is itself the rule of all things. For if there were any rule or standard for it, either as cause or reason, it could no longer be the will of God. For it is not because he is or was obliged so to will that what he wills is right, but on the contrary, because himself so wills, therefore, what happens must be right. Cause and reason can be assigned for a creature’s will, but not for the will of the Creator, unless you set up over him another creator." (Luther, The Bondage of the Will) "When the sophists speak of original sin, they are speaking only of wretched and hideous lust or concupiscence. But original sin really means that human nature has completely fallen; that the intellect has become darkened, so that we no longer know God and His will and no longer perceive the works of God." (Luther’s Works, vol. 1: 114). These ideas are not compatible with the full Aristotelian-Thomistic system and seems like it played a part in A-T ideas continuing to be disregarded over time in Protestant thought as there was such a distrust placed on our ability to use reason about God. I would argue that the loss of Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law in Protestant thought has left it unable to defend Christian morality and is often why we see many Protestants contributing to the moral confusion of the modern world. This is all secondary, however, to the overarching problem that Luther's rejection of the authority of the magisterium and replacement with sola scriptura. This created an environment where questions of morality that were previously grounded in natural law and promulgated by the Church no longer have any binding import on anyone. If you want to know the morality of contraception, masturbation, homosexual unions, transgender issues, etc., etc. there simply exists no binding authority on any Protestant. Everyone can argue until they are blue in the face that their interpretation of the Bible is correct and go their separate ways. This is Luther's legacy. "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit, and he himself a prophet." **Luther, Martin. The Letter of doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp (1525)** Contra this, the Catholic Church has maintained Aristotelian-Thomistic positions on issues of ethics that Luther, in large part, helped to reject and continue to stand unified against the chaos of the modern world. Lutheran theologian Carl E. Braaten observed these similar ideas about Luther's philosophical impact back in 1992 in the pages of First Things: "In much of modern Protestant theology, doubt prevails as to the viability of such an appeal to reason and natural law in the construction of Christian social ethics. The bridge between church and world has been shattered. Thus what the churches have to say on social issues has no way of reaching the other side, and the churches end up in dangerous isolation from society, speaking only to themselves." "The modern representatives of the two branches of the Reformation, Lutherans and Calvinists, have not so clearly retained a firm foothold in natural law theory. In fact, they swing erratically between a position of utter rejection of natural law and one of conditional acceptance. Almost never do they concede as much to natural law as we find in modern Catholic social teaching." (PROTESTANTS AND NATURAL LAW by Carl E. Braaten January 1992) And so does Lutheran Theologian Thomas D. Pearson : Ultimately, Luther creates a new account of natural law morality: instinctive, not rational; provisional, not ontologically secured; pragmatic, not divinely commanded; chastened by sin, not robust with natural human possibilities. When he invokes natural law, it is with a different insight than that supplied him by the classical natural law tradition. (Luther on Natural Law) I pray that many Protestants continue to find the ideas contained in classical theism and natural law, as they seem like the best bet to combat the chaos we are finding around us in the modern world today. God bless!

[@mikelarrivee5115]

Your response to vervakes claim that Luther doesn't care about Tradition is not hitting the mark, vervake said that Luther didn't care about traditions because he cared about knowing himself more than he cared about what the tradition said. That's what the claim is, and I think that's right and I also think that since care is a relative thing, if Luther cares about knowing himself the most then relative to knowing himself, knowing the traditions is something he doesn't care about

[@drewpanyko5424]

Since you have reviewed more clips of Vervaeke, why not post a part 2...?

[@socksthemusicalcat]

How badly do you have to read Luther to turn him into an Anabaptist?

[@paulblase3955]

There is nothing that you do or can do to earn or merit your salvation. However, it is pretty clear that there is a lot that you can do to resist it. If you refuse to recognize that salvation is a free gift of Christ and insist on your pride and hubris, then - as C.S. Lewis observes - eventually God will say "ok, have it your way".

[@phillnash]

I do wish academics would include an abstract, outline their structure and itemise the contents of their talk to make it easier to navigate, and determine whether it is worth listening to.

[@traviswoyen2243]

I remember when Vervaeke released that episode. I watched it and my first thought was..."oh crap, am I going to have to go back and fact check all 187,321(poorly estimated) hours of video I've watched so far in this series?"

[@j.g.4942]

Yeah I picked it out to hear his insights on Luther, compared to everything else I've heard of him I was severely disappointed. I suppose it's true what I've experienced, understanding Luther and the tradition called by his name is lost all our British Christian brethren (Church of England and all her British and American daughters as well as the Roman Catholics who've survived on those Isles); either Luther's a Brit or spawn of Satan.

[@nyworker]

Awesome!! John V the psychologist is very ruled by his passions and commits the syllabus of errors you pointed out.

[@Lobopandilla]

Good to see you again

[@Athabrose]

Thanks Dr. Cooper. Please continue.

[@SibleySteve]

I am a former (ELCA) Lutheran and if I could find a pastor like Jordan Cooper in Grand Rapids, I would definitely attend that parish. I have looked, and it's not easy to find a gentleman-scholar like Dr Cooper who is not a pompous ego maniac, but rather a well-read example of a classic protestant rather than an apologist from hell. I have drifted into the Episcopal movement but I still have a Luther t-shirt with some obnoxious quotation printed on it. I like John Vervaeke as well, but not as a brother in Jesus Christ, more of as a fan of an entertaining philosopher who is really enjoyable to listen to. I enjoy living in Grand Rapids but we have an over-abundance of Calvinists and not enough confessing Lutherans.

[@paulblase3955]

Re the Occamist Law: the question would better be "why is the Law what it is"? If (as previously argued) God is not arbitrary, than His Law is not arbitrary. If God was alone, there would be no need for a Law, just as one man alone on a desert island has no need for law. Law comes in when there is more than one individual involved; it sets boundaries and standard for our relationships with one another. God's Law is the foundation for a sane and stable human (and, presumably, angelic) society. It's the standard and rule for how we are to relate to God (first Table) and each other (second Table). Sin is our inherent unwillingness to follow this standard in false pride and hubris.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

"All of that participation is GONE. It's GONE!"..."That I may be His own and live under Him in His Kingdom..." That doesn't even scratch the surface, but it is enough to demonstrate to the contrary that a sense of participation in Luther and later Lutheran Theologians (Read Nicolai's Joy of Eternal Life, for example) is gone is just selective reading.

[@redknightsr69]

Aside from classical Anglican and Lutheran theology, would you consider Presbyterianism a classical protestant theology?

[@MortenBendiksen]

Humanitys essence is God's breath. Of course we're not inherently worthless. But, without that we are of course less than nothing, not even filthy rags. This is just a recognition of the reality of our participation, and of our utter dependence on it. But of course, read in a modernist frame, where we already assume our total independence of selves, it sounds as if the actual reality of the self as it is, is worthless, while we're really trying to remind people that theyr actual worth does stem from a source that they tend to forget. We are reminding people that IF the universe were as they tend to think, they wouldn't have worth, they wouldn't even be able to exist.

[@anselman3156]

Have you ever read the critique of Luther/Lutheranism in Johann Adam Moehler's Symbolik? A response to that could be a future project for you.

[@paulblase3955]

I'd like seeing further analysis, yes.

[@anyanyanyanyanyany3551]

Dr. Cooper do you have a video on Divine Simplicity? I'm still struggling on this topic because some Protestants deny Divine Simplicity as a philosophical impossibility (essence is not or cannot be being) or something like that.

[@Joeonline26]

A Lutheran trying to critique a cognitive scientists interpretation of Luther is just funny to me for some reason

[@diannalaubenberg7532]

Not merely critique, but also correct misconceptions. After all, Dr. Cooper has plenty of academic credentials to his name. If it were me trying to critique Vervaeke, it would be completely hilarious! (simply because I would be really, really bad).

[@vngelicath1580]

This is kind of a tangent, but is Virtue Ethics-habituation applicable only within the common kingdom/first use of the law, or does Aristotle's habituation have application for sanctification (with the caveat that the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause)?

[@thewiseandthefoolish]

I would argue that habituation applies to the third use of the law, as it, in a sense, is the Spiritual mode of the first use of the law, but deeper and done in conformity to Christ with the aid of the Spirit. Joel Biermann’s Virtue Ethics speak of the 3 part Creedal Frame corresponding to the 3 uses of the law and how the Spirit doesn’t just whisk us out of the world but places and divinizes us back within it; however I’m not sure I remember where he landed on this particular point of habituation within that paradigm. Not sure where Cooper lands either. However, I would argue that in connection to their Virtue Ethics, God sanctifies the Human Nature not just particular deeds. Humans by nature will and try, we aren’t inert beings. Therefore he sanctifies our habituation as well. For further elaboration in that I would need to give credit where it is due: do a search for Matt Cochranes blog, the 96th thesis, and search for the article, “sanctification is not the think system”.

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

Thank you, you're teaching me a lot about Lutheranism.

[@paulblase3955]

Dr. Cooper: re "arbitrary". The question is: why are some saved and others not. Does God say "you and you will have faith; you and you will not"? I say not, and I think Luther does too. We cannot do anything to earn redemption, we can, however, reject it.

[@robertcox14]

"Flagellation" as "self-destructive?

[@mikelarrivee5115]

Ok so I've got a problem with this idea that a Lutheran can consistently hold that both a virtue ethics and an idea that someone can do nothing to make themselves saved in the eyes of God. The eyes of God are the only eyes that matter for a judgment of virtue so if you can't make yourself better in God's eyes then you can't make yourself better at all. The second problem that I have is the idea that you cannot understand the gospel through human reason. This statement far too often leads to people thinking that because the gospel is revelation, therefore it is not possible for human reason to understand it. The main problem of course with this is that it contradicts large portions of the Bible which talk about the nessescity of both wisdom and understanding and the fact that it is humans precisely who are the ones who unite the two.

[@j.g.4942]

Perhaps I can help? As to the first question, if salvation is our will conforming to Christ's will, or union with Christ; then we say we cannot of ourselves change our own will, that is the work of God. (We talk about will in this way because the standard/mark is the will of Christ and deviating from that is 'missing the mark' or sin; and we teach that none are born conformed to the will of Christ, the Holy Spirit is the one who conforms us to God's will, 'justifies/makes right') If salvation is the glorification of the body and soul at the Resurrection, again we say we cannot raise ourselves from death and claim the powers of God. (it's Ephesians 2:1-10) However, we can still say what the will of God is (in so far as He has revealed it through creation or scripture ...). Virtue ethics (I wasn't taught this term as such, just the 10 commandments and explanations) could then be seen as a study and practise of God's will with a recognition that one's will must be conformed to God's before being truly able to do God's will. In short, one can be conformed to God's will and seek to live it out. As to the second our issue is that reason is not above revelation/Scripture/trust/love. Reason can be used to justify one apart from Christ, as is the case with atheists, apostates, pagans, and countless others. Therefore reason must rather submit to revelation, or sight submit to hearing, or Creation submit to Creator (this is more the paradigm that I've received in the Lutheran tradition, and see reflected in Luther, Chemnitz, and the earlier Christians I have read). So if we say that 'you cannot understand the gospel through human reason' we mean that you cannot rightly understand the Gospel (Christ's victory over sin, death and the devil) without submitting to God's Word; for apart from God's revelation in Scripture and the Church one cannot understand the nuance of Christ's work through just God's revelation in Creation (see all pagan religions and philosophies struggle with the crucifixion, and reason it away). Or you cannot see aright without first listening to God. Our classic example of reason over scripture is Calvin's opinion that Christ must have climbed through a window into the locked upper room.

[@mikelarrivee5115]

@@j.g.4942 ok so in regard to your answer of my first question. My basic problem is that you are saying that everything that is done in terms of our salvation is done by God. If we go with that that means we can do nothing to affect our salvation which consequently means that the salvation that we get from God is unconditional positive regard if we are saved. I don't want unconditional positive regard. I do want God's mercy but I also want God's justice and what is there for God to be just about if I'm not responsible for anything? There wouldn't be anything, which is why I disagree with that model.

[@mikelarrivee5115]

@@j.g.4942 in regards to your answer to the second question, I don't have a problem saying that the holy spirit is active in revelation, my problem is the idea that when the holy spirit is active in revelation it is somehow not my reason that is active. I don't see why it can't be both. I prefer viewing it as both because if I veiw it as just the holy spirit and not at all my reason, then what happens is that those things are basically declared as too high to be understood and that has the affect of disincarnating them from the world

[@j.g.4942]

@@mikelarrivee5115 with regard to the first, we can abandon the gift of Baptism and despise the gift of Holy Communion, just as people despise the gift of marriage or ordination and so loose it. We are responsible for the gifts God has given, basically if God declares you His son (as in Baptism) you can call Him liar and suffer condemnation, but you can't make Him declare you His son in the first place. What do you mean by salvation? As to the second, I'm pretty sure you said what I said in different words. Reason with the Spirit is good, Reason against the Spirit is evil; or more plainly Reason with the Good/True/Beautiful is good, Reason against God is evil.

[@mikelarrivee5115]

@@j.g.4942 but by the same token, if I can't make God call me his son, then he can't make me call him his father, that's fairness and God is fair. I'm not saying that I do not call God my father, I do, but God is not a tyrrant of a father, he is a just father who operates on the same level as I do and plays by the same rules.

[@leedufour]

Thanks Jordan!

[@GodwardPodcast]

Appreciate a Protestant voice!

[@MortenBendiksen]

What's arbitrary about God loving us, and thus doing all possible to saveus from ourselves despite ourselves?

[@AnUnhappyBusiness]

Great video, thank-you!

[@mcnallyaar]

43:00 Luther had to deal with the same thing everyone had to deal with circa 300 when the church suddenly became patriarchal and a state religion. This is why, like Dr. Vervaeke, I am not a Christian. It's fine. Dr. Cooper is right. The problem is with Christianity itself. I am not a Christian, but I do believe that Jeheshua of Nazareth was an embodiment of the Logos.

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

He’s mad at Calvin he just doesn’t know it lol

[@j.g.4942]

And Zwingli, Zwickau prophets, and the rest of the enthusiasts; those Luther was mad at too

[@SlyRef]

You do a great job with response videos. I don't really see the need to debate with these people or try to have a socratic dialog or whatever. Just preaching the truth and nailing it to the door of KZbin works well.

[@Margrave_of_Brandenburg]

I'm just as upset as Dr. Cooper after watching this and there's only a handful of clips! This man's presentation of Luther is ridiculous. I hope someone like Dr. Cooper gets brought into the meaning conversation with Peterson et al. I really want to see them actually engage with Luther / Lutheranism and not just a caricature of the ideas, even if they still don't like him, at least it'd be honest.

[@grey.knight]

I just can't listen to the unbelieving lotus eaters anymore. All I hear is vain empty words.

[@MontoyaBrandy]

I feel your pain! I hear it constantly from Roman Catholics! I want to pull my hair out!

[@patcandelora8496]

The good professor should either make more of an effort at accuracy. Or stay in his lane.

[@leonpope861]

What do you think about ISAIAH Sixty Four _ Six, JEREMIAH Seventeen _ Nine 🤔 How about going back to PROVERBS Sixteen _ Eighteen,Fourteen _ Twelve 📖

[@justicebjorke2790]

42:15 remain in your institution, community, role… unless it’s the monastery, and you’re a monk. In which case, by all means denigrate the institution, abandon your community, forsake your role-and then marry a nun and convert your old monastery into your family home? Laughable

[@annakimborahpa]

Why not let Martin Luther speak for himself? 1. When Dr. Luther was criticized for adding the word 'alone' (Allein) to his German New Testament translation of Romans 3:28 so that it would read "For we hold that a man is justified by faith 'alone' (Allein)" he twice replied: A. "If your papist worries you about the word 'alone', just tell him plainly that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says: 'Papist and donkey are one and the same thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas.' ["I wish it, I command it. Let my will take the place of a reason." (here Luther is quoting the Latin from 1st-2nd AD author Juvenal's satirical poems Satyrai)] For we must not be the pupils or disciples of the papists, but on the contrary their masters and judges. We ought to swagger and hammer on their donkey-heads, and, as Paul challenged the sanctimonious fools of his day, so I will also challenge these donkeys of mine." [G.W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian (London, 1956), p.36.] B. "I am sorry now that I did not add the word 'all' so that it would read 'without all works of all laws', and thus ring out loudly and completely. However, it shall stand as it is in my New Testament, and though all the Papist-donkeys go mad about it, they shall not move me from this." [A. Hilliard Atteridge, Martin Luther (London, 1940), pp.19-20.] C. Although subsequent German translations removed the word 'alone' (Allein) from Romans 3:28 to accurately transmit what St. Paul originally wrote in Greek, Luther steadfastly held on to the doctrine of Sola Fide (Justification By Faith Alone) derived from his additional word, stating "He who does not accept my doctrine cannot be saved. For it is God's and not mine." [Martin Luther, D Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1833), vol. II, p.107] D. Following Luther's example, the doctrine of Sola Fide (Justification By Faith Alone) was adopted by the major 16th century Protestant Reformers who initiated movements that continue on to the present day and which include: (A) John Calvin (Reformed) in his (1) Commentary on Genesis 15:7 and (2) Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 14, Paragraph 10, (B) Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer (Church of England/Anglicanism) in No. VIII of 39 Articles of Religion in his Book of Common Prayer, and (C) Calvin's student John Knox (Church of Scotland/Presbyterianism) in his book On Justification By Faith Alone. 2. Regarding the Catholic Mass, Dr. Luther stated: A. "I declare that all the brothels (though God has reproved them severely, all the manslaughters, murders, thefts and adulteries have wrought less abomination than the popish mass." [Martin Luther, D Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1833), vol. XV, p. 774] B. "It is indeed upon the Mass as on a rock that the whole Papal system is built, with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its collegiate churches, its altars, its ministries, its doctrine, i.e., with all its guts. All these cannot fail to crumble once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass fails." [Martin Luther, Against Henry, King of England, 1522, D Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1833), vol. X, p. 220] 3. Regarding the Pope, the Catholic Bishop of Rome, Dr. Luther first taught about and then later personally addressed him: A. "Hence it follows that all things which the Pope, from a power so false, mischievous, blasphemous, and arrogant, has done and undertaken, have been and still are purely diabolical affairs and transactions (with the exception of such things as pertain to the secular government, where God often permits much good to be effected for a people, even through a tyrant and [faithless] scoundrel) for the ruin of the entire holy [catholic or] Christian Church (so far as it is in his power) and for the destruction of the first and chief article concerning the redemption made through Jesus Christ." [Dr. Martin Luther, 1537, The Smalcald Articles, The Second Part, Article IV: Of the Papacy, Paragraph 3, Translated by F. Bente and W. H. T. Dau, Published in: Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921)] In 1580 Dr. Luther's Smalcald Articles were added to the Book of Concord which is authoritative in Lutheranism. B. "I would not dream of judging or punishing you, except to say that you were born from the behind of the devil, are full of devils, lies, blasphemy, and idolatry; are the instigator of these things, God’s enemy, Antichrist, desolater of Christendom, and steward of Sodom." [Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, 1545, pg. 363 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 41] 4. It would not be appropriate to quote from Dr. Luther's second to last published work Against The Jews And Their Lies from 1543. However, it is my personal conjecture from reading excerpts of it and as well as from his last published work Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil from 1545, that these two final two works (he died in 1546) are the feverish rantings of an imbalanced mind, perhaps the result of an alcoholism induced dementia, since I don't think he was thinking clearly when he wrote them.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Hehe. Yup, good ol' Luther. A rude crude wonderful dude. In his _“On Translating: An Open Letter,”_ written in 1530, he explained his translation of Romans 3:28: “I knew very well that the word solum [Latin = alone, only] is not in the Greek or Latin text…It is a fact that these four letters s o l a are not there…At the same time…it belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had undertaken to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our German language that in speaking of two things, one of which is affirmed and the other denied, we use the word solum (allein) along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say, ‘The farmer brings allein [only] grain and kein [no] money.’ …This is the German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add the word allein in order that the word nicht or kein may be clearer or more complete.” [Luther’s Works, American Edition, Volume 35, 188-189] From EWTN: "Catholics do not claim that one must do meritorious works in order to come to God and be justified. In fact, Catholic theology claims it is completely impossible to do anything meritorious whatever prior to being justified. ... So I am happy to report that Protestants need not fear that Catholics claim one must merit forgiveness. One does not. That is not what James 2 says. ... And, finally, James can draw his conclusions in verses 24 and 26 that man is not justified by intellectual assent alone and that intellectual assent which is alone is dead. This solution thus makes sense out of the entire passage, and as a happy coincidence, it is acceptable to both Protestants and Catholics since both agree that one is not saved by intellectual assent alone, as per James's negative rhetorical question in verse 14." So quit this talking point. It's a non-issue.

[@annakimborahpa]

@@Mygoalwogel "So quit this talking point. It's a non-issue." Oh, really? 1. Then why did subsequent German versions of the New Testament OMIT 'alone' (Allein) in their translation of Romans 3:28 if "It is the nature of the German language to add the word allein in order that the word nicht or kein may be clearer or more complete”? 2. Why did the subsequent 16th century Protestant Reformers promote Martin Luther's doctrine of Justification By Faith Alone in their own non-Germanic languages? 3. What you quoted from EWTN corresponds to a general, if not a complete, agreement between Catholicism and many parts of Protestantism including Lutheranism regarding justification. However, Lutheran catechetical materials are based on the work of Philip Melanchthon (1497 - 1560) who modified, tempered, and systematized Martin Luther's teachings. Also, Luther denigrated the Letter of James as "a right strawy epistle" and according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Luther removed James' letter from his original New Testatment list of books. [Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford, 1977), p.724] 4. Melanchthon eventually broke with Luther (post-mortem) regarding the capacity of man's free will to cooperate with God's grace. Luther taught total depravity: "Man having become a corrupt tree can will and do nothing but what is evil' and "It is false to say that the will of man is free and can decide one way or the other. Our wills are not free but in bondage." [A. Hilliard Atteridge, Martin Luther (London, 1940), p.7] Melanchthon taught human free will is a necessary component in the justification process by which God saves. 5. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 makes a distinction between faith and agape (the divine love of God and neighbor) and of which one is the greater stating: "if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love (agape), I am nothing" [13:3, ESV] and "So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." [13:13. ESV] It seems obvious to me that the justification of human beings before God involves grace, faith and agape. Grace is necessary for faith; Grace and faith are necessary for agape. When asked by a scribe what was the greatest commandment, Jesus replied 'The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”' [Mark 12:29-31] 6. So once again, Martin Luther translated Romans 3:28 as "For we hold that a man is justified by faith 'alone' (Allein)." Does this match up with Jesus and St. Paul? "Hehe. Yup, good ol' Luther. A rude crude wonderful dude. " How wonderful? 1. In the popular uprising of 1524-25 when the German peasants took Martin Luther's assertion of Sola Scripture to decide for themselves how the Bible should be interpreted and when their understanding did not correspond to Luther's own interpretation of it, he sided with the German nobles to crush them by publishing his Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, writing that they should be put down like mad dogs. 2. The antisemitism that permeated German society when the country became unified in the 19th century (for example, in the writings of German nationalist composer Richard Wagner) and then reached fever pitch with the Third Reich's Holocaust of European Jewry in the 20th century can be traced directly to Martin Luther's Against The Jews and Their Lies published in 1543. How did antisemitism find such fertile ground in Germany? Because for centuries after the Reformation, Martin Luther had been exalted in Germany and elsewhere as a Protestant hero worthy of adulation and emulation. In the decades after World War II, Lutheran bodies both in Germany and worldwide have condemned Luther's antisemitism and distanced themselves from his writings.

[@j.g.4942]

@@annakimborahpa You've obviously done more study than me however point 3 is false, Lutheran catechetical material is written by Luther (Luther's small and large catechisms) and James was not removed in Luther's Bible rather moved with Hebrews to the end before Jude and Revelation. You also colour history in a way I've never seen it coloured before, more things to study and contemplate. PS. was just looking again at "Luther and anti-Semitism" and perhaps they weren't published but he did preach some more on the Jews in 1546 and here's quotes lifted from Wikipedia; interesting reads: "We want to deal with them in a Christian manner now. Offer them the Christian faith that they would accept the Messiah, who is even their cousin and has been born of their flesh and blood; and is rightly Abraham’s Seed, of which they boast. Even so, I am concerned [that] Jewish blood may no longer become watery and wild. First of all, you should propose to them that they be converted to the Messiah and allow themselves to be baptized, that one may see that this is a serious matter to them. If not, then we would not permit them [to live among us], for Christ commands us to be baptized and believe in Him, even though we cannot now believe so strongly as we should, God is still patient with us.[27]" Luther continued, "However, if they are converted, abandon their usury, and receive Christ, then we will willingly regard them our brothers. Otherwise, nothing will come out of it, for they do it to excess."[27] Luther followed this with accusations: "They are our public enemies. They do not stop blaspheming our Lord Christ, calling the Virgin Mary a whore, Christ, a bastard, and us changelings or abortions (Mahlkälber: "meal calves"o). If they could kill us all, they would gladly do it. They do it often, especially those who pose as physicians-though sometimes they help-for the devil helps to finish it in the end. They can also practice medicine as in French Switzerland. They administer poison to someone from which he could die in an hour, a month, a year, ten or twenty years. They are able to practice this art.[27]" He then said: "Yet, we will show them Christian love and pray for them that they may be converted to receive the Lord, whom they should honor properly before us. Whoever will not do this is no doubt a malicious Jew, who will not stop blaspheming Christ, draining you dry, and, if he can, killing [you].[27]"

[@annakimborahpa]

@@j.g.4942 1. Philip Melanchthon was the organizer and editor of Luther's catechisms that, after Luther's death, included emphasizing man's free will in cooperating with God's grace and distancing them from Luther's teaching of total depravity and man's lack of free will. Melancthon was also the principal author of the Confession of Augsburg. Whereas Luther's instincts were domineering and totalitarian, Melancthon's instincts were self-effacing and conciliatory. 2. I was going with an old edition of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church regarding Luther's removal of the Letter of James. We do know Luther did not hold it in high regard, referring to it as "a right strawy epistle." 3. Those quotes you made from Luther in 1546, the year of his death, contain what Jews refer to as 'blood libel'. For Luther, his outlook on the Jews was an all or nothing proposition: Accept my interpretation of the Bible or else feel the wrath of the German nobility that supports my cause. This was the same strategy Luther employed in the German peasants' revolt decades earlier. Fortunately for the Jews, Luther soon died before he could order a pogrom. 4. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the story of Fritz Erbe, a Thuringian farmer, who after reading Luther's German translation of the New Testament and employing Luther's principle of Sola Scriptura, was convinced that he should not baptize his children. This was a crime in Lutheran controlled territory and he was imprisoned deep in dungeon chains in Eisenach's Wartburg Castle from 1540-1548. Erbe died two years after Luther did, all the while refusing to recant to Luther's ministers who incessantly preached to him while looking down from thirty feet above. This was the same castle where Luther had made his New Testament German translation decades earlier. The Reformed Baptist James White has a youtube video about Fritz Erbe. 5. The German state Protestant church whose origins are traced to Martin Luther is officially known as the Evangelische Kirche and it is comprised of both Luther and Reformed congregations. As mentioned previously, since the Holocaust and the end of World War II, Lutheran bodies, particularly in Germany, have distanced themselves from Martin Luther. However, Philip Melanchthon is held in high regard in Germany, particularly for his scholastic contributions to upper schools and universities, so much so that he honored with a national title, Praeceptor Germaniae.

[@j.g.4942]

@@annakimborahpa Still not sure where you're getting the information that Melanchthon edited Luther's catechisms (both the tract for parents and the collection of sermons published in 1529), if he did he did a bad job softening Luther ("the lazy and the arrogant neglect the catechism ... even I doff my hat to it"). Of course Melanchthon presented and wrote the Augsburg Confession, Luther was in exile and so couldn't attend. Maybe you're getting confused with that, because Melanchthon definitely altered the Augsburg confession, yet I know of no lutheran communion which affirms the altered version. And I'll look into your other points, I didn't know that expulsion was what 'blood libel' referred to and haven't heard of Mr Erbe.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

I mean you can YoYo. If that isn't Lutheranism promoting social good than I don't know what us :P

[@RickDelmonico]

The Bible is a hologram and Jesus is on every page.

[@justicebjorke2790]

50:05 must teach and proclaim the Word of God because “I made those vows?” And what about the vow he made to, say, celibacy? 🤔

[@koppite9600]

The rebellion of Kora in the OT God killed them all.

[@jameswilson8946]

Vervaeke is right.

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

This is my core problem with Christianity: The all-powerful god utterly controlling the destiny of each of us weak human beings--and then assuming there is some kind of story going on, something we aren't sure of. No, if the god is truly all-powerful, humans really are nothing, we think nothing, we do nothing, we live in a block universe, a done deal. That's the guts of the Christian mental model of reality. It horrifies me.

[@grey.knight]

Your theology is weak because you want a different reality than the one we live in.

[@matswinther8991]

Vervaeke's lecture is the most grotesque misrepresentation of a thinker that I've ever seen.

[@j.g.4942]

Haven't seen much from Rome or the EO have you?

[@christopherlampman5579]

What it classical Protestant thought? Luther called half of his Protestant contemporaries devils is disguise. This weak sauce certainty of orthodoxy caused my own deconstruction from evangelicalism to the traditional church.

[@ethandelaney7423]

Reformed Theology and Lutheranism. Infallible Scriptures, but authoritative church.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

Bring up the fact that Luther approved of polygamy and fueled anti-semitism with his writing and the Lutherans will say "The truth of Lutheranism doesn't hinge on the character of Luther. " Mischaracterize Luther, even a little bit, and they swoop in like the Avengers to save his reputation. _Semper contradictans . . ._

[@j.g.4942]

To be fair the argument is that polygamy is less evil than adultery, and Luther hated the religion of the Jews rather than their skin or nose (even retracted some of the harshness of his writings). Yet Cooper's point is more, the truth of Luther is revealed in part by his writings; and also you can't ignore writings to change who Luther is. He was vulgar, naive, studious, fat, and a monk, a priest, a doctor, a sinner. Yet the Lutheran tradition is defined by at least the Augsburg Confession & small catechism at most the Book of Concord, not Luther; therefore the character of Luther doesn't define the truth of Lutheranism

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@j.g.4942 I wonder when the Lutherans will get honest and simply call themselves evangelical catholics?

[@j.g.4942]

@@Catholic-Perennialist not sure what Lutherans you're talking to, our ones are Evangelical, Concordist, Traditional, Catholic, Orthodox, pietistically anti-pietist, stubborn old Germans. Just called Lutheran for ease of communication in our English world.

[@j.g.4942]

@@Catholic-Perennialist actually I think I remember this discussion, you believe Luther is not Evangelical Catholic, but rather an interesting individual who influenced no tradition?

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@j.g.4942 Sounds like a sect.

[@KRGruner]

Just watched Prof. Vervaeke's response to this video, and he is 100% correct. Luther sinned (big time) in his rejection of Natural Law (Vervaeke's Truth, Good, and Beauty). No getting around it. Aquinas rules.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Luther didn't reject natural law. And I'm also quite fond of Aquinas.

[@KRGruner]

@@DrJordanBCooper LOL, OK. Could have fooled me. I will not argue this, it's clear cut. If you want to say he did not reject Natural Law explicitly, that is irrelevant. His entire doctrine represents a de facto rejection of the Natural Law as a supreme guide to life. I am technically a Lutheran myself (from my Estonian-born father's side), but I reject that religion's teaching's. IMO, Aquinas and Luther are not compatible.