A Debrief on my Two Debates on Justification

[@vngelicath1580]

The reason for the cognitive dissonance is that there are two Romes living in one Catholicism. Trent and V2. On the one hand, many liberal/ecumenical-minded Lutherans often forget to take into consideration the binding nature of Trent and only embrace Rome in view of the 1960s. On the other hand, many confessional/polemical-minded Lutherans are stuck in the 16th-Century and forget that Rome has developed. We need to keep both in mind and let those who are within the Church explain how the two are reconciled.

[@Rben20]

Can you share examples where there is development on justification? I’m genuinely curious, looking at Catholic and Lutheran views on the subject.

[@HolgerSonntag]

Good point. But Catholic apologists always highlight that they have a unified magisterium that's always taught the same thing. And contrast that with the 50 gazillion Protestant denominations where everybody is their own pope who believes what they want to believe based on their shifting private interpretation of the Bible. Of course, the magisterium always teaching the same thing is an elastic concept. Newman's idea of doctrinal development tries to address this problem. At the same time, Vatican 2 didn't seek to alter Trent's teachings on justification. So Trent still is Rome's definitive statement on this particular point, whatever individual theologians or ecumenical commissions may think about that today. A fundamental problem in these types of discussions is the use of equivocal/undefined terminology. E.g., if a Catholic apologist says, speaking to an American audience shaped by Protestant terminology: we believe in (initial) justification by faith, that doesn't mean they just became a Lutheran or we all agree on this. Rome defines faith as an infused virtue. So there is man's activity/work contributing to justification from the beginning. Lutherans on the other hand, consider faith in justification only as that which receives Christ and his complete righteousness and salvation as God's final verdict over us in time. Hence the importance of Romans 4, as Dr. Cooper pointed out. I think that is important to keep in mind when folks from different churches use the identical biblical terminology. They don't always mean the same thing. As Luther noted, heresy is in the meaning, not the words.

[@samuelholm316]

Hi, Dr. Cooper. I'm a Swedish evangelical/pentecostal (our denominations and concepts don't fully correspond to the ones in the USA) and I really like your videos! Although I don't always share your view on something, they for sure make me think. Oftentimes, however, I just feel inspired and better equipped defending and explaining core parts of my faith. Gud välsigne dig, as we say in Sweden! #Godblessyou

[@eggmann74]

Galatians 2:21 "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

[@kenmcguire5837]

The great thing about discussions/debates between Lutherans and Roman Catholics is that there is so much common territory. It means that there indeed CAN be an interesting discussion - and that we can actually stand together against many other views on this topic floating around. But a hard thing is that Luther - and to a large extent Lutheranism - view Roman Catholic teaching through the lens of Luther's teacher Biel - whose views are by no means normative for Roman Catholicism. And then there are the various ways the parties involved understand their history. Speaking as a Lutheran, there is a wide variety in "Lutheran" views on the topic. Lutherans who are primarily shaped by pietism say one thing. And those shaped by various Lutheran renewals of the 19th and 20th centuries say other things - and even those renewals that emphasize going back to Luther and the Confessions have different focuses. And those who want to listen to the Lutheran Scholastics will have yet other voices... And as much as American popular culture views Roman Catholicism as a theological monolith, it is nothing of the sort. Unlike Lutherans, their definition is not premaritally theological. And so so there are prominent voices - like Pope Benedict XVI - who to my Lutheran ears sound more Lutheran than too many who wear the Lutheran label. But there are other Roman Catholic voices who, putting this as kindly as I can, are less aware or interested in "Lutheran" concerns. As frustrating as this is for Lutherans, we can only discuss things with the person with whom we are discussing. But this does bring up differences in the centrality of Justification between Wittenberg and Rome. As a Lutheran, I rejoice that so many Augustinian voices have a prominent voice in the Roman Catholic Church. This allows us to have a much more productive discussion. But I keep on going back to thesis 28 of the Heidelberg Disputation where Luther offered, IMHO, an important clarification/corrective to medieval Augustinianism - "The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it." Almost certainly your focus on Romans 4 is better for debate, but in the passage I quoted above I see a very important seed for all we Lutherans have said about Faith and Works. For a brief moment in your discussion with Jimmy Akin, it sounded like you were going to talk about how even our Love/Charity has to be "formed" by having a restored good-faith relationship with God. But the discussion went elsewhere. It was a good discussion, but like all things mortal was incomplete.

[@SacredHeart98]

It's so good to watch a polite and civil discussion like this without all that polemicizing climate that not only often bears no fruit, but also is quite annoying.

[@lc-mschristian5717]

Thanks for sharing. I listened after the live video. God's peace be with you.

[@ewene2656]

I’m about 50 minutes into the Jimmy Akin debate on Pints with Aquinas. I thought you started off nervy (understandable as you were on a popular Catholic podcast and your interlocutor was an experienced, veteran Catholic apologist); however you grew into the discussion and I thought Akin was very respectful. Looking forward to watching the rest of the debate.

[@luisdizon2486]

We need a Catholic-Lutheran-Reformed-EO four way fight on soteriology. It'll be so much fun.

[@rockjock32492]

Appreciate this content and you taking time to explain this. God be with you.

[@vngelicath1580]

The sufficiency of Scripture goes along with the issue of perspicuity. In both cases, there is widespread confusion. This is why I love the language of the 39 Articles, " _Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation_ ." This is really all Sola Scriptura meant for the Reformers (of all confessions). Scripture is sufficiently clear concerning any and all things pertaining to our salvation, and that Tradition may not add anything to the articles of faith, if Scripture is obviously silent (wiggle room for pious opinions, etc). This is a generous concession to Tradition, just with a huge caveat to keep it in line.

[@benmizrahi2889]

" This is really all Sola Scriptura meant for the Reformers (of all confessions)." Not exactly, generally speaking, it is true only for Lutherans and many Anglicans.

[@judithtaylor6713]

Thanks very much Dr Cooper. I’m pondering your statement ‘justification by faith is not the conversion experience’.

[@danielfawcett3991]

On the created grace issue, Jenson mentions that Luther is one of the few western theologians that agrees with Lombard that the Holy Spirit himself dwells in the believer, not just His gifts. This is then mentioned in the Formula. Personally, I prefer infused righteousness to inherent righteousness, because it is clearer. Inherent righteousness sounds like its origin is me, rather than God. I know that isn't what it means, but that's how laypeople will hear it.

[@severalstories3420]

Dr. Cooper, I have a question that comes up for me in all of these discussions and if you could either answer the question or maybe simply point me to the most thorough resources to answer it I'd be so thankful. My question is this: what is the good in remembering one's baptism if the Spirit cannot coexist with mortal sin (sorry I forgot the correct formulation of that), and if it is at least not unheard of that we mortally sin? I understand the venial/mortal distinction is at least given a nod by Lutheran theologians, but I can't get my head around what happens to the Holy Spirit in a man when he sins mortally--or, for that matter, how often the relationship is repaired. Is it sort of like the Roman Catholic system of being in and out of a state of grace? Isn't that the consequence if forgiveness is given at (but not before) the absolution during divine service (or elsewhere?) Basically my questions all swirl around the interactions between the new man, the old man, the Holy Spirit, mortal sin, and absolution. What is the most thorough explanation of how those elements interact you know of? What is a sample timeline for a life with regard to each of them? When is the person forgiven? Are they not forgiven before? And if not, then why gratitude? Etc. You can imagine the questions that spin out of this are endless.

[@Stormlight1234]

I think you ask a great question that I would like to understand the Lutheran position better on too. I get confused on the mortal/venial sin distinction when I read Lutheran theologians on it. I think your question is related to the question I also asked on this discussion thread about assurance of salvation too. God bless!

[@severalstories3420]

Chris I sure hope at least someone gets to it. Honestly, I’ve used ctrl + f to search similar terms in every Lutheran theology book I have on kindle (...lots) and I can’t get a THOROUGH answer the way I was used to finding in Roman Catholicism when I was into that.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

I'm not sure I entirely understand what exactly you're asking, but hopefully the following will be of some help. Luther wrote the following in the Smalcald Articles: Some fanatics may appear (and perhaps they are already present, such as I saw with my own eyes at the time of the uprising) who hold that once they have received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or once they have become believers, they will persevere in faith even if they sin afterwards, and such sin will not harm them. They cry out, "Do what you will, it matters not as long as you believe, for faith blots out all sins," etc. They add that if anyone sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never really had the Spirit and faith. I have encountered many foolish people like this and I fear that such a devil still dwells in some of them. It is therefore necessary to know and to teach that when holy people, aside from the fact that they still possess and feel original sin and daily repent and strive against it, fall into open sin (as David fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy), faith and the Spirit have departed from them. This is so because the Holy Spirit does not permit sin to rule and gain the upper hand in such a way that sin is committed, but the Holy Spirit represses and restrains it so that it does not do what it wishes. If sin does what it wishes, the Holy Spirit and faith are not present, for St. John says, "No one born of God commits sin; he cannot sin." Yet it is also true, as the same St. John writes, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (Smalcald Articles, Part III, III Repentance) The distinction between venial and mortal sins is that venial sins are sins committed from the weakness of our flesh, which aren't committed by a wilful intent to sin, but are inadvertent infringements such as on occasion drinking too much alcohol, eating too much, making hurtful comments without thinking etc. One doesn't lose the Holy Spirit through committing venial sins Mortal sins on the other hand are those sins where one is aware that one is committing a sin in breach of God's Commandments, but one goes ahead anyway and commits them, irrespective of the fact that one is conscious of the fact that one shouldn't be doing them. In this situation one loses the Holy Spirit, because as Luther says the Holy Spirit doesn't allow sin to gain the upper hand, and if it does gain the upper hand so that one deliberately commits sin then the Holy Spirit isn't present. Also true faith can't co-exist in a person who deliberately sins against his conscience. The Holy Spirit needs to be present in a person in order for him to have genuine faith in Christ, and mortal sin expels the Holy Spirit. In order to reacquire true faith one needs to be regenerated again through the Word. But as this is a work of the Spirit it's not under a person's control as to whether he will return. It is up to God as to whether he will grant a person repentance so that he is restored again to the faith, and once again has the Holy Spirit.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

Luther didn't hold that all who are baptised as infants are regenerated and given the Holy Spirit and faith, whereas confessional Lutherans do believe this. Luther, on the basis of Scripture, held to double predestination in his book The Bondage of the Will, and denied that the Holy Spirit is efficacious through the Word to everyone who hears the Gospel. The same therefore applies to baptism. Only those who are recipients of God's mercy as opposed to his hardening (Romans 9:14-18) are irresistibly regenerated in baptism so that they receive the Holy Spirit and faith. It can happen however that God allows a person to fall from grace into mortal sin and lose the Holy Spirit and faith for a time (as happened to David). In this situation to regard oneself as still regenerated through having been baptised would be an error. One's baptism isn't an absolute guarantee that one will be saved. Baptism is only valid if it is combined with faith, and to fall into mortal sin destroys faith. One can only look to one's baptism as ensuring that one will be saved if one does so whilst being in possession of true faith. The idea that confessional Lutherans seem to have, which is that because they were baptized as infants they can depend on this as confirming that they will be saved is erroneous. First of all there's no guarantee that they were actually regenerated by the Holy Spirit and given faith when they were baptized. And secondly assuming they had been regenerated through baptism, there's no guarantee that they're actually still in possession of true faith. One needs to follow Paul's instruction which is to test oneself to see if one is still in the faith. 2 Corinthians 13:5 ESV Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? - unless indeed you fail to meet the test! When one passes the test then one can confidently rely on one's baptism as showing that one will be saved. By the way I regard myself as a Lutheran. However I don't accept that the Formula of Concord was Scripturally correct in denying double predestination. Paul taught it, Luther held it, and so do I.

[@christianf5131]

Hi, Dr Cooper, Do you have any videos or works tackling the book and issues that Alister McGrath brings up in Institutia Dei?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I deal with that work in my book The Righteousness of One. I have not (yet) done anything on the newer edition.

[@christianf5131]

@@DrJordanBCooper I will be purchasing your book, thanks! I look forward to your possible interaction on the 4e

[@stephengriffin4612]

Dear Dr. Cooper, I saw your discussion with Mr. Akin, and enjoyed what I could understand. I agree with you that discussion is a better term than debate. It was respectful and well thought out on both sides. In this video, you refer to Luther, Kemnitz, the Church Fathers, et al. and what you as a Lutheran believe. What authority do you use that proves that your interpretation is in conformity with what Lutheran teaching? In an extended sense, what authority did Luther and his compatriots use to prove the correctness of their own positions?

[@benmizrahi2889]

While I am not Cooper, I think I can at least try answer the two questions in a short form: Luther himself used only the Bible as his authority and corroborated his interpretation with the Church Fathers when they agreed with the Biblical doctrines. Remember that the idea was not to break with Catholic traditions, but rather with medieval abuses which goes against the Bible and against church tradition as existed before the Council of Trent. The best way to judge whether one is in conformity with Lutheran teachings or not, is to read for oneself the Lutheran confessional writing, as found in the Book of Concord, and judge for oneself if one's teaching conform to them or not. You can find the Book of Concord online at: bookofconcord.org/

[@killingtime9283]

34:00 Jimmy Akin saying that this ongoing sanctification/renewal/growing in justification or whatever you wanna call it, is perfect because it’s Christ, did surprise me, if it’s perfect, if one is perfectly sanctified wouldn’t that make you perfectly sinless?

[@killingtime9283]

@@anonimo-um2ng @anónimo2323 Sure I'm onboard with that, as a Lutheran I could say something similar in regards to the Augsburg confessions. But I never made the claim that Akin's view was perfectly representing the teachings of Trent. I think it's fair to critique his presentation, since he is claiming to represent what Trent teaches, even if it's not authoritative in the absolute sense. To be honest the whole discussion left me a bit confused at the end, it sounded like there wasn't any conflict at all between the Lutheran and Trent's view on justification, so I actually suspected that Akin's view maybe wasn't really representing what the council of Trent laid out. Unless the split in the Church is just a big misunderstanding, with Protestant's and Roman Catholics talking past each other for 500 years due to difference in terminology when discussing justification, which I find highly unlikely. Hmm, honest question, so would you say that Akins reading of Trent, and his talk of Initial Justification is not representative of what Trent Taught?

[@vituzui9070]

Yes, the default rule is that we must confess every mortal sin. However, as any Catholic will tell you, if you forgot some sins simply by a non-culpable weakness of memory, then God will still forgive you those mortal sins in confession. So it's not a problem. Confession removes all sins, even those you forgot. The only time when confession doesn't remove your sins is if you deliberately avoid confessing a mortal sin that you know about.

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

Just play ignorant.

[@Stormlight1234]

I agree with Dr. Cooper that the imputed vs infused righteousness debate has major implications for so many things downstream in the Christian life. In my experience as a Lutheran, because we were taught that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us and simply covers our sinful nature rather than fully healing it, there wasn't really an emphasis on the life of prayer and ascesis/growing in holiness (I'm certainly not saying this doesn't exist at all in Lutheran thought, but it doesn't seem to be heavily promoted). It now seems to me that the novelty of Luther's view of imputed righteousness in justification was largely responsible for my not knowing about what Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange calls the one thing necessary for the Christian life, this is growing in God's sanctifying grace through the interior life (viz. prayer, sacraments, and ascesis): "The interior life is for all the one thing necessary. It ought to be constantly developing in our souls; more so than what we call our intellectual life, more so than our scientific, artistic or literary life. The interior life is lived in the depths of the soul; it is the life of the whole man, not merely of one or other of his faculties. . . And it is important to us not only as individuals, but also in our social relations, for it is evident that we can exert no real or profound influence upon our fellow-men unless we live a truly interior life ourselves." -- Garrigou-Lagrange, R. (1938). The three ways of the spiritual life. When we see justification as Luther did, as a cover for our sinful natures that still remain after justification, then we don't have nearly the same level of urgency to grow in the sanctifying grace that God infuses in our soul. When we see justification as Catholics do, that God infuses grace inside of that completely wipes out sin (Ez. 36:25-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-11), making us a new creation (Gal 6:15 ), then the urgency to cooperate with God (2 Corinthians 6:1-2, John 15:5) to keep and grow in this sanctifying grace takes on a whole new dimension. Again, this has huge implications for the day to day life of a Christian: "Sanctifying grace, the principle of our interior life, makes us truly the children of God because it makes us partakers of His nature. We cannot be sons of God by nature, as the Word is; but we are truly sons of God by grace and by adoption. And whereas a man who adopts a child brings about no interior change in him, but simply declares him his heir, God, when He loves us as adoptive sons, transforms us inwardly, giving us a share in His own intimate divine life." -- Garrigou-Lagrange, R. (1938). The three ways of the spiritual life. The interior life - the life of prayer, sacraments, and the ascetical life - isn't just for super-Christians and monks/nuns; it is something God calls us all towards in order to grow in grace so that we continually draw nearer to full union with Him (theosis/divinization). These ideas are beautifully echoed throughout the writings of the Church faithers and also in the Catechism of the Catholic Church here: 2013 “All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity.”65 All are called to holiness: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”66 (915; 2545; 825) In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ’s gift, so that … doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints.67 2745 Prayer and Christian life are inseparable, for they concern the same love and the same renunciation, proceeding from love; the same filial and loving conformity with the Father’s plan of love; the same transforming union in the Holy Spirit who conforms us more and more to Christ Jesus; the same love for all men, the love with which Jesus has loved us. “Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he [will] give it to you. This I command you, to love one another.”41 (2660) 460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”79 “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”80 “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”81 (1265, 1391; 1988) -- Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference. I highly recommend reading at least the first chapter of the book, "The Three Ways of the Spiritual Life" by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. He gives such a great explanation of the Catholic view of salvation with a ton of biblical support. He also teaches about the basic outline of the spiritual life (purgative, illuminative, and unitive way) which hopefully will end up sparking an interest in anyone reading it. As just seen above we are all called to this spiritual life (only possible through God's grace that He gratuitously puts inside of us: CCC 2010-2015, John 15:5). Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange also spends a bit of time in the first chapter explaining the difference between this extrinsic vs. intrinsic righteousness debate between Luther and the Catholic Church. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange shows throughout the book that this has extremely important implications on the spiritual life. That book changed everything for me. Once I realized how rich the traditions of the spiritual life were in the Catholic Church and that my Lutheran view of imputed righteousness was a huge reason why I never knew about them, I dove head first in. You can even access the book for fee online here: www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/three-ways-of-the-spiritual-life-12556 God bless!

[@Edward-ng8oo]

You say it seems to you that Luther's view of imputed righteousness was largely responsible for you not knowing about the necessity of sanctification. I think that's a mistaken impression on your part. The necessity of sanctification is part and parcel of Luther's teaching, but it's just that it hasn't been emphasized enough in contemporary Lutheran teaching. For instance if you have a copy of What Luther Says you can find the following entries and more on the necessity of sanctification. WLS 2256 In a word, apart from Christ all are damned and lost; in Christ all are good and blessed. Therefore even the sin inherited from Adam and remaining in our flesh and blood cannot harm and condemn us. However, this should not be taken to mean that permission is thereby given freely to sin and do evil. For since faith brings forgiveness of sins, and Christ came in order to destroy and take away sin, it is impossible for that person to be a Christian and a believer who openly, impenitently, and securely lives on in sins according to his evil lusts. For where such a sinful life is found, there is no repentance; but where there is no repentance there is no forgiveness of sins and, therefore, no faith, which receives the forgiveness of sins. But he who really has faith in this forgiveness resists sin, does not follow its lusts. Rather he fights against sin until he finally gets rid of it entirely. Moreover, although we cannot get rid of sin altogether in this life and some of it always remains, even in the most saintly, yet believers have the comfort that these sins are covered for them through the forgiveness of Christ and are not put to their account for condemnation as long as they continue to believe in Christ. WLS 2259 Christ did not die or remove sin that we might remain wicked. Christ has purchased two things for us: first, gratiam, grace; secondly, donum, the gift (of sanctification) . First, then, I attain the forgiveness of sin without any contribution or good works of my own. God justifies me, considers me holy and His child because I believe in Christ, not because I do this or that Secondly, when I believe, the Son of God has thereby already laid the first stone - or the cornerstone - and adds to this faith the gifts, dona. He attacks sin in our body and soul. . . To be sure, these sins are all remitted and forgiven in accordance with grace and pardon, that is, God will not impute them to believers. But from the standpoint of personal purification (Ausfegen) all are not gone. . . What, then, are we to do with the sins that remain after we have come to faith? The Holy Spirit says through St. Paul (1 Cor. 5: 7) : We want to sweep them out. But this sweeping continues till the grave. The forgiveness of sins takes place in a moment, when we receive and accept the Word of God by faith. WLS 2260 Christians are clean, why does Christ say that they must constantly be cleansed? Or why do they pray the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses," and: "Thy will be done," whereby they certainly confess that they still have sin and are unclean? . . . How do these two thoughts harmonize? Answer: In the way I have said: that a man is first declared clean through God's Word for the sake of Christ, in whom he believes. For through this faith in the Word he is incorporated into the Vine, Christ, and so clothed in His cleanness that it is imputed to him as if it were his own. Moreover, this cleanness is as perfect and complete as it is perfect and complete in Christ Himself. All this is done by the Word if it is received and apprehended by faith. In this Word I hear the will and promise of God that He wants to forgive my sin for Christ's sake and wants to regard and consider me clean. Since I cling to the Word, whatever of uncleanness and sin still remains in me is not imputed to me. Now where there is this cleanness through faith in the Word, God comes with cross and suffering . . . that faith may increase through practice and the remaining uncleanness and sin may grow less from day to day and be swept out until death. This is called pruning and cleansing the branches that are on the vine and are already clean through the Word, as He said above. Note that in this way He plainly points out that the cleanness of Christians does not come from their fruits; but, conversely, their fruits and works come from the cleanness which they already have from the Word that cleans the heart, as Peter says (Acts 15:9). WLS 2194 If the article of justification is lost, all Christian doctrine is lost at the same time. And all the people in the world who do not hold to this justification are either Jews or Turks or papists or heretics; for there is no middle ground between these two righteousnesses: the active one of the Law and the passive one which comes from Christ. Therefore the man who strays from Christian righteousness must relapse into the active one, that is, since he has lost Christ, he must put his confidence in his own works. The erroneous nature of the Catholic view is that it views sanctification as being a necessary component of being justified when the Scriptures teach that justification is only through faith in Christ, and not in any way through works.

[@Stormlight1234]

​@@Edward-ng8oo Greetings, Edward! I think you said some very insightful things that I largely agree with. I also think you may be misunderstanding the brunt of my thesis, though. "You say it seems to you that Luther's view of imputed righteousness was largely responsible for you not knowing about the necessity of sanctification" I am not talking about sanctification, in general. I am talking about the necessity of very specific spiritual practices that have been a part of the historic practices of Christians going back to Jesus that help us grow in God's grace (which is what Catholics also call growing in justification because we use that word differently). I completely agree with you that modern Lutheranism has largely lost what was a core teaching of emphasizing the Christian life of cooperating with God in sanctification. When I was Lutheran, I was a big proponent of those (like Dr. Cooper) that were trying to help reclaim this teaching through talking about the pedagogical nature of third use of the law and highlighting the mystical union of Christ in believers. I wish more Lutherans were aware of what their own confessions say about this, especially in the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord sections IV and VI. The modern world is largely responsible for the muting of these teachings. Nonetheless, I am saying when I was a Lutheran, I was never taught about the specific spiritual practice that have been practiced by Christians for centuries. Even Jesus makes it seem like these things are necessary. These are first and foremost, the things Jesus speaks of in Matthew 6 (Prayer, fasting, and almsgiving). More than that, I never heard an emphasis on (or was even taught anything about) other spiritual teachings of the historic Church like mental prayer/lectio divina, contemplative prayer, purgative, illuminative, and unitive way, daily examen prayer, discernment of spirits, etc., etc. Furthermore, I think there is more evidence of this in the fact you don't see any Lutheran ascetical communities like you see in the Catholic and Orthodox Church. I think Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange makes an important point about how this seems to flow directly from our different views over what the nature of justification is. Luther's was that we are only ever seen as righteous before God by Jesus' righteousness covering our sinful natures. Luther also thought our pre-justification sinful nature remains after we are justified (simul iustus et pecattor). I think the key is that Catholics see one specific component of justification being the infused grace that God puts inside of us, what the Council of Trent calls the formal cause of justification. Our spiritual life, then, is the process of growing in grace on our way to beatitude with God. This is what Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange says is the one thing necessary in the interior life. I hope this helps clear things up a bit. Again, I completely agree that Lutheranism has a long tradition of teaching the necessity of sanctification, generally speaking, like doing good works. I know there are some spiritual traditions in Lutheranism, as well. I am a big fan of Gerhard's "Meditations", for one. However, it seems to naturally flow out from seeing justification as a completely extrinsic thing that has largely divorced the Lutheran traditions from what historic Christians have always taught about the necessity of entering deeply into the interior life (prayer, ascesis, fasting, mortifications, etc.). God bless!

[@heinrich3088]

@@Stormlight1234 Don't worry, St.Athanasius and the ancients would be qualified as semi-pelagians in their theological categorizations: "Wherefore having already begun and set out in the way of virtue, let us strive the more that we may attain those things that are before. And let no one turn to the things behind, like Lot’s wife, all the more so that the Lord hath said, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and turning back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven.’ And this turning back is nought else but to feel regret, and to be once more worldly-minded. But fear not to hear of virtue, nor be astonished at the name. For it is not far from us, nor is it without ourselves, but it is within us, and is easy if only we are willing. That they may get knowledge, the Greeks live abroad and cross the sea, but we have no need to depart from home for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, nor to cross the sea for the sake of virtue. For the Lord aforetime hath said, “The kingdom of heaven is within you.” Wherefore virtue hath need at our hands of willingness alone, since it is in us and is formed from us. For when the soul hath its spiritual faculty in a natural state virtue is formed. And it is in a natural state when it remains as it came into existence. And when it came into existence it was fair and exceeding honest. For this cause Joshua, the son of Nun, in his exhortation said to the people, “Make straight your heart unto the Lord God of Israel,” and John, “Make your paths straight.” For rectitude of soul consists in its having its spiritual part in its natural state as created. But on the other hand, when it swerves and turns away from its natural state, that is called vice of the soul. Thus the matter is not difficult. If we abide as we have been made, we are in a state of virtue, but if we think of ignoble things we shall be accounted evil. If, therefore, this thing had to be acquired from without, it would be difficult in reality; but if it is in us, let us keep ourselves from foul thoughts. And as we have received the soul as a deposit, let us preserve it for the Lord, that He may recognize His work as being the same as He made it.” Life of Anthony, 20.

[@louisegriffiths8415]

@@Edward-ng8oo what does Luther mean by the passive righteousness which comes from Christ?

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@louisegriffiths8415 Luther means by passive righteousness that the righteousness which justifies us before God is Christ's righteousness which is imputed or credited to us through faith. It's not our righteousness which we possess through leading a holy life which justifies us before God, but rather the righteousness of another which does so, which means that we are passive and obtain this righteousness simply through God given faith in Christ. Justification is through faith alone without our works, although of course it's also true that faith which doesn't produce good works is dead, and a dead faith can't save. Paul talks of this passive righteousness in Philippians 3:9: But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. [8] Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ [9] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith- (Philippians 3:7-9 ESV) The ESV Study Bible has the following helpful note on verse 9: Found in him means being spiritually united to Christ and therefore found not guilty before God as divine judge. Paul had trusted in a righteousness of my own based on obedience to the law rather than the right standing before God that comes through faith in Christ. God “imputes” Christ’s lifelong record of perfect obedience to the person who trusts in him for salvation; that is, he thinks of Christ’s obedience as belonging to that person, and therefore that person stands before God not as “guilty” but as “righteous.”

[@jacobstefanec7683]

It would be great if you did a program on the texts that deal with the last judgment, as you mentioned.

[@benmizrahi2889]

@@anonimo-um2ng Please define Sola Fide. Judging by the nature of the verses you have brought, it seems like you bought into the Evangelical caricature rather than the actual definition used in the Lutheran church. Edit: I also have no idea if people who keep bringing Matthew 5:20 actually assume the Pharisees have any righteousness whatsoever?

[@Stormlight1234]

Dr. Cooper, would you be willing to explain the assurance of salvation in Lutheran thought in depth sometime? I am having a hard time seeing how this is even possible on a sola fide conception of justification without ending up in an antinomian position or a contradiction caused by the living vs dead faith distinction? Point of clarification (for anyone reading this): I am not taking about assurance in the sense that one cannot ever lose their faith, I am talking about assurance in the sense that if I believe I have saving faith then I cannot be mistaken that I do. Lutherans definitely believe it is possible to lose your salvation. The question as it pertains to the dispute with Catholics is whether one can only lose their salvation through apostasy (losing their faith) or if there are sins that are so grave that their *inherit nature* causes one to lose their salvation, regardless of whether they have faith or not? The latter is the Catholic position on mortal sins and how they destroy the life of grace inside of us even if we still believe Jesus is the Lord and died for our sins. The Bible seems to also indicate it is possible to have faith and yet fall into mortal sin (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.). Context: It seems Luther sometimes claimed sola fide means if we have faith there is no sin that can separate us from God: “Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone." (On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church) This seems like antinomianism (whether Luther said it was or not) and it contradicts the Bible (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.). On the other hand, Melanchthon seemed to advocate for a view that a saved person with a living faith wouldn't ever commit a grave/mortal sin: “Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV, 115; cf. Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article III) This seems more biblical, in calling for a living vs. dead faith distinction (James 2:17), but it also seems to remove the possibility of having assurance of salvation because then you have to look at your own works for evidence of having a living faith or not. Since sin clouds our judgment (Psalm 36), you could easily be mistaken about having a living faith and blind yourself to the fact you may be committing mortal/grave sins, for example a church going alcoholic. Finally, if you simply say that a mortal sin destroys our faith and drives the Holy Spirit out, then you are basically affirming the Catholic position (except we say mortal sin destroys charity/grace and drives out the Holy Spirit). You also have something that seems to directly contradict the assurance of salvation because again you may be committing a grave sin without being fully aware of it. We have an infinite capacity for self deception! "As to their effect, sins are divided into mortal sins and venial sins. Mortal sins are those which result in the death of the sinner. This term takes in all the sins of the unbelievers. In the case of the believers those sins are called mortal which force the Holy Spirit to depart from one’s heart, which destroy faith. " (Francis Pieper. Dogmatics Vol. 1) I just don't see how one could be certain they have a living faith at any time. It seems to me you can only have assurance of salvation on a pure antinomian view, which most Lutherans and Martin Luther, himself, are ardently against (see Luther's "The Antinomian Disputations"). Anything less than antinomianism appears to contradict sola fide + assurance of salvation, though. I realize there are some very fine distinctions when you drill into the weeds on the nature of saving faith and assurance. I would find it very helpful to see where I am misunderstanding Lutheran thought on assurance of salvation. Thanks and God bless! p.s. Please, don't take this as a hostile question, I am very much wishing to understand Lutheran thought on this better.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

Christians shouldn't be in doubt about whether they are saved. Christ has atoned for the sins of the world and believing this justifies and saves a person. If a person starts to doubt whether he is saved then he is either doubting whether his sins have actually been atoned for, which is to disbelieve the Gospel, or he is doubting whether he has true faith. Luther had this to say on the subject of doubt: He who doubts the gracious will of God toward him and does not hold with certainty that he is in grace - he cannot believe that he has forgiveness of sins, that God cares for him, and that he can be saved. Augustine correctly and piously says: A man most assuredly sees his faith if he really has it. - Our adversaries deny this. Far be it from me, say they, to hold with certainty that I am in grace, that I am holy, that I have the Holy Spirit, even if I live a holy life and do everything I should. This godless notion, on which the entire kingdom of the pope rests, you young people should flee and abhor as the deadliest pestilence, since you are not as yet imbued with it. We old folks have been trained in it from our youth and have imbibed it to such an extent that it is deeply implanted in our hearts. This is why it requires no less labor to unlearn it than to learn the true faith. We must, therefore, by all means feel completely convinced that we are in grace, that God is pleased with us for Christ's sake, and that we have the Holy Spirit. (What Luther Says 1268) With regards to the quote you give from The Babylonian Captivity, Luther definitely didn't hold that one could commit mortal sin and still be saved. He held that mortal sin expels the Holy Spirit, and along with the Holy Spirit also faith. Anyone who continues living a sinful lifestyle without repentance doesn't have genuine faith. Luther wasn't meaning that mortal sin is compatible with salvation, but rather that faith in Christ brings forgiveness for all sins including mortal sins. Luther insisted on the need for Christians to live their lives in obedience to God's commandments and to resist sinful lusts. I suppose what you're saying is how can one be certain that one's faith is genuine since there are people who claim to be saved yet lead sinful lives. Paul says to test whether we are in the faith (1 Corinthians 13.5) which amounts to examining ourselves as to whether we truly love Christ and the Gospel, and have the desire to live our lives in accordance with God's commandments, and to love others. Since the Holy Spirit is needed in order to actually love God and his commandments, one can be sure that one's faith is genuine if one actually does love God and heartedly approves of his commandments. John says: And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: [6] whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1 John 2:3-6 ESV) The ESV study Bible note on verse 3 rightly states that "obedience to God does not bring about justification (which comes by faith alone), but obedience as a pattern of life does give evidence that one has been born again. To know him involves a personal relationship that transforms practical behavior."

[@Stormlight1234]

@@Edward-ng8oo Greetings, Edward. I think you hit on my objection toward the end when you said: "I suppose what you're saying is how can one be certain that one's faith is genuine since there are people who claim to be saved yet lead sinful lives." That is the whole point. If people can have a living and dead faith, then it seems like a necessity that people may be mistaken about which state they are in. Again, there are probably many Christians in the world that think they love God, go to church often, and yet live in grave sin (alcoholism, adultery, homosexuality, cohabitation, etc.). It seems to me that the Lutheran traditions are not very consistent on the point of mortal sin. Luther, especially, seems to sometimes blatantly teach that faith covers all grave sins and implies it is possible to commit grave sins while having a genuine faith: "If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner [LW 48:281-282]. I fully realize Luther wasn't systematic about these things. I still don't see a way out of the assurance of faith problem under a sola fide conception of justification without admitting antinomianism. It seems to me that the living vs. dead faith distinction necessitates that there are those that can be mistaken about the nature of their faith. God bless!

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@Stormlight1234 The passage you quoted, which I believe was part of a letter that Luther had sent Melanchthon, is of course one of the main pieces of "evidence" which Catholics use to discredit Luther. Had Luther known it wouldn't have remained a private communication he no doubt would have been more careful about how he phrased things. It does of course give a misleading Impression, but anyone who is acquainted with Luther won't understand it that way. His catechisms stress the need to live one's life in accordance with the Ten Commandments, and so those like myself interpret Luther's comments in a favourable light. I don't accept that Luther was encouraging Melanchthon to sin, but rather to recognise that it is impossible to be totally sinless in this life, and to accept that one needs to be forgiven, rather than to be consumed with scrupulosity. His comments about committing fornication and murder weren't meant to be understood as meaning that sinful behaviour is consistent with being a Christian, but rather that if one repents after committing grave sins one will be saved etc. Luther explained his position on the incompatibility of mortal sin with faith and the Holy Spirit in comments he made in the Smalcald Articles: Some fanatics may appear (and perhaps they are already present, such as I saw with my own eyes at the time of the uprising) who hold that once they have received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or once they have become believers, they will persevere in faith even if they sin afterwards, and such sin will not harm them. They cry out, "Do what you will, it matters not as long as you believe, for faith blots out all sins," etc. They add that if anyone sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never really had the Spirit and faith. I have encountered many foolish people like this and I fear that such a devil still dwells in some of them. It is therefore necessary to know and to teach that when holy people, aside from the fact that they still possess and feel original sin and daily repent and strive against it, fall into open sin (as David fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy), faith and the Spirit have departed from them. This is so because the Holy Spirit does not permit sin to rule and gain the upper hand in such a way that sin is committed, but the Holy Spirit represses and restrains it so that it does not do what it wishes. If sin does what it wishes, the Holy Spirit and faith are not present, for St. John says, "No one born of God commits sin; he cannot sin." Yet it is also true, as the same St. John writes, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (Smalcald Articles, Part III, III Repentance) I don't understand why you're so concerned with assurance, since in Catholicism, which you seem to have adopted, there can be no real assurance of salvation, since it wrongly views justification as an ongoing process which involves being made holy and righteous through the doing of meritorious works. In Biblical Christianity, one is declared righteous and saved on the basis of one's faith in Christ, so that those with true faith have the assurance that they're saved, albeit that there will be some who are misled into thinking they have true faith when they haven't.

[@Stormlight1234]

​@@Edward-ng8oo Thank you for your further thoughts, Edward. "I don't understand why you're so concerned with assurance..." 1. I only want to believe true things. 2. I truly want all Christians to be unified as taught in the Bible (John 17:21, John 10:14-16, Epeshians 4:3-6, Romans 16:17). 3. I hear many Lutherans say they could never be Catholic because they deny the certainty/assurance of salvation. 4. When I investigated the Catholic Church, I found that most things Lutherans had taught me that Catholics believe that are heretical where either misunderstandings from Lutherans or Catholics actually had completely biblically warranted reasons for why they believed what they do. 5. The early Lutherans thought assurance of salvation was essential to the gospel and condemned the Catholic Church for denying it. Assurance of salvation is clearly a very important part of the Lutheran view of the gospel. However, upon further reflection, it seems to me that the assurance of salvation is another instance of something in Lutheran thought that sounds reasonable at first, but when you press into it is not tenable with sola fide (unless you admit antinomianism). I am, of course, open to being corrected but I still have yet to come across any teaching from Lutheran theologians that seem to clear it up. That all aside, I think all Christians should have what many Catholic theologians have called a moral certainty of salvation that is intimately tied in with the theological virtue of hope. This is not the same thing as an absolute certainty of being saved (often called certainty of faith). Here is an article that explains how this is the teaching of Aquinas and the Council of Trent. www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/st-thomas-aquinas-on-assurance-of-salvation/ God bless!

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@Stormlight1234 I'm personally convinced that the Scriptures teach justification through faith alone, and I came to this conviction that Luther had correctly understood Paul from the standpoint of being brought up as a Catholic (in that my parents were Catholics and I was obliged to attend a Catholic church in my youth). So I see Catholicism as a departure from true Christianity, and I'm convinced that the papacy is the Antichrist. I therefore understand Paul in Romans 16:17 to be referring to those like the popes, bishops and priests of the Catholic church. I don't accept that there will ever be one true visible church where all true Christians will be united together. It's a nice thought, but it's just never going to happen as there are so many false teachers - in protestantism as well. Assurance of salvation can only be a personal conviction held by the person who has faith. One may ask how does one know that one has true faith? The only answer is that one just knows if one has it. It's not feasible to think that if one has the Holy Spirit and true faith that one won't be definitely aware of this. However it's an internal matter of the heart which isn't open to outside scrutiny, except that those who think they have the Holy Spirit, but are actually inspired by an evil spirit mimicking the Holy Spirit, will at some point show that they aren't in possession of the Holy Spirit by their sinful behaviour. With regards to the translation of Luther's comment as "Be a sinner and sin boldly" this has been alternatively translated as "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong" which puts it into a totally different light. By saying "let your sins be strong" the meaning is to recognise the seriousness of sin, not to actively seek to sin. I obviously prefer this alternative translation.

[@evangelineclark223]

Hi Dr. Cooper, what is the best Lutheran commentary volume on the book of Romans? I’m wanting to do a deeper dive into the book as a whole. It would be great if there was a course on Romans in the Weidner Institute!

[@severalstories3420]

What is the state of the soul prior to confession and absolution after one has mortally sinned? All I ever find in my Lutheran texts is that the Holy Spirit doesn't coexist with such a person. So does that mean they're in the equivalent position as the Roman Catholic being outside the "state of grace"? What if such a person dies before repenting? Also, somewhat relatedly, is justification continually declared to those with faith because it's a declaration of the eternal God who is outside of time (and so we experience any declarations across time, though they're eternally declared?)

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

Thanks for answering my question! Super helpful

[@scottforesman7968]

Is salvation then being DECLARED or MADE righteous? (Philippians 3.8-9/Ezekiel 36.26-27)

[@fujikokun]

In regards to the debate with Akin, isn’t it the case that he’s representing the Church itself, and not the various interpretations of what the Church teaches?

[@kurthein]

Rosenius's "A Faithful Guide to Peace with God" is wonderful devotional material.

[@sovietkino1008]

Can you please record a full episode on Eastern Orthodoxy and why you consider their theology incorrect compared to Lutheranism?

[@wessbess]

Does your book it into the eastern orthodox view of Theosis vs Lutheran view?\

[@TheMorning_Son]

I did find a book called Deification through the Cross. Combines both eastern and western views of the cross.

[@collin501]

I've struggled quite a bit with the initial vs final justification idea. I come from the protestant tradition and I don't understand all the arguments, but I've just seen so much scripture about judgment according to works that it's hard to avoid the reality of that. If there was a clear explanation in the scripture about how salvation by grace and Judgment according to works join together, it would be easier to take the faith alone doctrine for initial and final justification. But without that I have to make sense of the reality of both. Having initial and final justification seems the clearest to me. It's not that I would trust in my own righteousness, it's just that I feel God has a greater role in bringing about those works in us so that we could say "it was not I but the grace of God" that labored in me. Taking the faith alone doctrine to the judgment seat just seems so complicated to me. It doesn't make sense. Now this leaves me in an interesting position. What do I think of my position with God during this life? It's essential that I be in right standing with Him in order to please Him. In fact, I have to be pleasing to Him in order to be pleasing to Him! That rests upon grace and mercy. That's how I think of my current standing. Now based on His mercy toward me I can be pleasing to Him. And in relation to my thinking about my own works I should not judge them at the present, "do not pronounce judgment before the time," but leave them in the hands of the Lord, "Then each one will receive his commendation from God." (1 cor. 4:3-5) It is by judging our works as worthy now we justify ourselves in relation to men and take our reward for ourselves rather than receiving reward from our Father, "who sees in secret."

[@Mygoalwogel]

1. If you have opportunity to do good to your neighbor, do you *believe* Christ himself is asking you to do it, and that you do it for him? 2. If you have an opportunity to sin against your neighbor, do you *believe* Christ himself is the victim? 3. Abraham experienced despair and so committed adultery. Yet Paul judges him as being righteous by faith AND James judges him as being righteous by works! The Sheep say, "Lord, when did I..." Both saints and sinners have much sin. Yet Christ knows how to distinguish sheep from goats in a mixed flock. He judges the works indeed! But it is the Spirit indwelling the person that determines the value of the work. I once confessed habitual stinginess to my Lutheran pastor. He said, "You know the kids' song "Seek ye first." Do you believe it?" That made me realize that I'm stingy because I fail to *believe* that the Father really knows my needs and has a plan to provide for me and my wife and kids. At the Judgement, if I go to hell, it will be because I did not really *believe* _as evidenced by_ my lack of generosity.

[@collin501]

@@Mygoalwogel Thank you for this. I really appreciate this comment. Especially the perspectives about who I do good works for and who I sin against. And as for salvation there is time to grow in this life just like Abraham. He didn't turn to a life of sin in the end, but returned to faith. That seems to be James' point, speaking of his eventual deed of faith in offering his son. Where sin abounds grace abounds more, but the end of the journey is in overcoming. I think of this verse, "But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: 'The Lord knows those who are his,' and, 'Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.'" 2 Timothy 2:19

[@Mygoalwogel]

The peace of the Lord be with you,@@collin501.

[@connorlongaphie]

Going to have to burn my just and sinner hoodie after what you said about Radical Lutheranism

[@luisdizon2486]

lmao

[@Michael_Walsh]

@Jordan Cooper this is one of my beloved brothers in Christ that you slandered while admittedly not engaging with them, have a dislike

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Sorry.

[@FKLinguista]

Oh, no. Whatever shall he do without your precious support? 🙄 You guys are behaving like neo-Calvinists. Stop it.

[@connorlongaphie]

@@FKLinguista recognize a joke before you mistakenly call Lutherans kuyperians. Have you people really not gotten it through your heads that maybe the majority of our problems aren't with your theology but your attitudes

[@1920s]

I believe Catholics give you a pass if you forgot about a mortal sin. But if you remember it you must confess it. It you purposely withhold a mortal sin from confession that in of itself is a mortal sin. So, how seriously do they treat sin if “it’s ok” that you forgot about a mortal sin?

[@kjhg323]

I think the issue of imputation vs. infusion is not actually the main point of disagreement. It is possible for both Catholics and Lutherans to affirm the following: man, by his natural powers, cannot come to faith or merit grace; through Word and sacrament, God grants the sinner faith and infuses Christ's righteousness into him; though the infusion is not perfect or complete, God ignores the sin still remaining in the man and (forensically) declares him justified for Christ's sake, by grace alone through faith alone. [The historical question of whether Catholics have traditionally taught this is another matter...] The debate then becomes the following: does man need to cooperate with this grace by his own free will (and do good works) to stay justified, earn more grace, and increase his infused righteousness? Lutherans say no and Catholics say yes. Council of Trent: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema." Augsburg Confession: "It is also taught that such faith should yield good fruit and good works and that a person must do such good works as God has commanded for God‘s sake but not place trust in them as if thereby to earn grace before God. For we receive forgiveness of sin and righteousness through faith in Christ." It is fundamentally, I think, a question of free will and predestination. Do we need to make the right free will decisions to be saved? Or is our justification entirely an act of God? If we accept that good works are a free will decision, as I think both sides do, the Biblical/Augustinian/Lutheran conclusion is that good works cannot play a role in our justification. If they did, salvation would require the right free will decisions.

[@Stormlight1234]

I think you may find that Augustine disagrees a bit with the above on merit and free will. I highly recommend reading his book "On Faith and Works". "When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law,114 he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but after justification." St. Augustine. On Faith and Works. see also: "He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own" (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13). Note too, that Catholic teaching is that even though our free will cooperates with God, everything is dependent totally on God's grace. Without His grace, we could do no good works (John 15:5). Even though it is a mystery as to how we can truly have a will that is free and cooperate with God, it is yet completely dependent on God and His grace every step of the way. This is why Augustine also said: "If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.” (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 6. 15.) God bless!

[@kjhg323]

I'm certainly not going to claim Augustine as a clear advocate of sola fide (not because he would disagree with Luther, but because it is anachronistic to pull him into a Reformation-era debate. And I can certainly pull quotes that make him sound like a Lutheran... but that's not a topic he was directly addressing). My point is that the following 3 points cannot all be true: 1) There is an unconditional election to salvation (this is Augustine's view, and a topic he directly addressed) 2) Salvation is based on good works 3) Good works are based on a free-will decision to cooperate with or reject God's grace (i.e., it is possible either to accept God's grace and do good works or reject God's grace and not do good works). The Council of Trent affirms 2) and 3), which means Catholics must reject 1). Augustine clearly affirms 1), which logically means he must reject 2) or 3). I don't think he ever specifically addressed this issue, which means we can debate endlessly about whether he would reject 2) or 3). My point, though, is that Lutheran doctrine is a fully-developed Augustinianism, and the Catholic Church indirectly rejects Augustine.

[@Stormlight1234]

​@@kjhg323 ​ @kjhg Thanks for clarifying more. I think most Catholics would take issue with your #2, Augustine included, but of course it entirely depends on what you mean by "based on good works". Christ is always our meritorious cause of salvation. The grace He gratuitously gives us is always the formal cause of our salvation. Our works are not the direct, efficient cause of our salvation but they do keep us in a state of grace which is required for our salvation. The Bible is also exceedingly clear that our works will be a part of our final judgement (Mt 25:31-46, Mt 7:21-23, Rm 2:6-11, Rev 20:11-15, Rev 2:23, Jm 2:24-26, Rm 2:13, 2 Cor 5:10, Mt. 16:27). This does not mean that they are either the meritorious or formal cause of our salvation, though. Christ and God's grace always are. As stated in my previous comment, Augustine had an extremely robust view of grace so that it is the root of everything we do (faith also being a grace). As such, all of the good works that we do, even while we make them through a free-will decision, are still done through God's grace. Without God's grace, it would be impossible to do them (John 15:5). Only with this in mind can we start to make sense of the Catholic view of merit in salvation, and again, I don't think I (or most Catholic theologians) can agree with your #2 statement. This is why I don't think Augustine is being inconsistent with the modern Catholic Church in the least when he states in on "Free will and Grace" that God crowns our merits as His gifts. "If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.” (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 6. 15.) If interested, I highly recommend reading up more Augustine and how he fits into the Catholic view of soteriology. Called to Communion has a few good articles on this. www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/st-augustine-on-law-and-grace/ I also found reading about how much more Aquinas was connected to the Augustinian tradition then a lot of people realize very helpful. Especially, in Luther's time, many Thomists were not reading Aquinas very well in terms of his Augustinian connections and they ended up teaching many abhorent things that Luther rightly took issue with and Aquinas himself would have too. "Luther and Late Medieval Thomism: A Study in Theological Anthropology" by Denis Janz was an excellent book going into depth more on this and shows that Luther and Aquinas actually were in agreement on a great many things that Luther likely had no idea about due to his exposure to distorted forms of Aquinas' thought. Finally, also keep in mind that there are multiple views of predestination in Catholic thought, so I would caution against trying to draw any conclusion that Catholics err on that topic as there isn't one view that is dogmatically defined. I have also heard many theologians say that Augustine isn't always consistent with himself on the topic, or at least isn't as clear as would be needed to draw certain conclusions about his positions. You would probably find it interesting to know that Thomists are generally very close to how Lutherans (typically) view predestination. Although, there are multiple views of predestination in Lutheransims too, such as intui tu fidei vs. Walther/Pieper. This book is a fantastic resource for a survey on Catholic thought on predestination: "Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin: A Thomistic Analysis" by Taylor Patrick O'Neill. See also Fr. William Most and this great short article on Augustine and predestination. www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=31 God bless

[@StayFaithful13]

Wait, you admitted to not reading Dr. Matthew Thomas' book either. Isn't that kind of hypocritical? Maybe we can have a discussion on Suan's channel after you guys have read each other's books.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Why would that be hypocritical? I didn't go on a show to respond to him.

[@heinrich3088]

@@anonimo-um2ng But the main argument of Torrance, if I'm not mistaken -- I didn't read the book also-- is that the apostolic fathers did not understood the concept of grace in the pauline corpus.

[@koonhanong2267]

Douglas Moo's James commentary, not Romans

[@cultofmodernism8477]

Why didn't you say any of this stuff in your debate with Jimmy Akin?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

The conversation with Jimmy Akin was based upon a set of prepared questions. It was not a debate.

[@solacanonicascriptura6139]

@C&M K Do you know that your religion is reaching out to other religions like Islam in a spirit of "unity"? :) Do you believe that the God you worship is the same as the one that the Muslims worship? i.e. Yahweh = Allah? Yes or No? Do you believe that a Muslim can be saved by being good and true to his conscience? Yes or No? But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. (Lumen Gentium Para 16)

[@solacanonicascriptura6139]

@C&M K //Muslims worship one God and so do we. Protestants worship one God, so do we.// Can you please give me a straight answer instead of dancing around on this like a bunch of TikTok nurses? So you are saying Yahweh = Allah? It's either a Yes or No. //A Muslim who keeps to his conscience can be saved, not through his works however but through God essentially allowing the sacrifice of Jesus to cover him. // The Council of Florence disagrees with you and Vatican 2. :) The Council of Florence (1441) the Bull Cantata Domino: It **firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire** which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. //Paul makes that clear in Romans.// //“14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”// Rom 2:14-16 doesn't say the gentiles could be saved by being "good" or doing the Law or being true to their conscience. The whole context is shaming the Jews who thought themselves superior to the Gentile because they possessed the Law and the blessings. So Paul says that even though the Gentiles don't possess the Law, they have a conscience to tell right from wrong. See Rom 2:17-29. What do Muslims believe? Quran 5:73 They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the third of three."1 And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. Here is some very uncomfortable scripture for you: 1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

[@solacanonicascriptura6139]

@C&M K // My friend, I was once a conservative Calvinist. // Your point being? I've come across many convert stories to Islam of former Pastors, Roman Priests, Nuns, serious Evangelicals/Romanists etc etc. You, like all those former Christians turned Muslims, are an apostate. //I debated and I argued and I carried those tactics forward into other things - something I do now as a discipline is to avoid that manner of carrying on.// This is a serious question I am asking. Are you not interested in the truth? If a religion that claims to be the one true church cannot even get this simple and fundamental question about God correct, how can anyone take the claims seriously? Since you don't want to answer, I'll do it for you. The official stance of your church today is that Yahweh = Allah. Now, the only thing I've seen Jimmy Akin and the other apologists from Catholic Answers do is dance around on this without giving a straight answer. Fortunately, your Popes are more honest. :) John Paul II: 2. We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: “We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection” (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497). John Paul II, address at the General Audience, May 5, 1999 Pope Francis: 252. Our relationship with the followers of Islam has taken on great importance, since they are now significantly present in many traditionally Christian countries, where they can freely worship and become fully a part of society. We must never forget that they “profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day”.[198] APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION, EVANGELII GAUDIUM OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY, CONSECRATED PERSONS AND THE LAY FAITHFUL ON THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL IN TODAY’S WORLD Those of us who have studied the Quran and Hadiths know better. :) This entity "Allah" sent down the Quran (Sura 3:3-3:4). He says that he is unitarian (Sura 5:72-5:75). We know that God is triune (John 10:30, John 5:18, John 4:24, 2 Cor 3:17, Acts 5:3-4). In 1 Cor 15:1-4, Paul said that the belief in the crucifixion and resurrection is of first importance. If Christ was not raised from the dead then your faith is in vain (1 Cor 15:13-15). If Christ was not crucified, then he obviously was not resurrected. "Allah" says that Christ was not crucified but another made to look like him. "Quran 4:157: And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; *but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain* You see, your magisterium is yoking itself to a false god. We have John Paul II bowing down to the Quran and kissing it. We have Ratzinger going into mosques, facing the direction of MEcca and praying together with Muslims. We have Francis doing all of this plus leading people to bow down to Pachamama (OCt 2019) //God will lead you one day to the Church- until that day when you are lead to repent and to fall to your knees and confess, I will pray for you. // The Church is the body of true believers, not some institution with a Papacy. ANd if you think your denomination that is headquarted in ROme, led by the Bishop of ROme, cannot fall into apostasy, I recommend that you read Rev 2 and 3, pray about it and meditate on it. It's a very serious thing to falsely teach people that Yahweh = Allah and lead people to bow down to other gods. Your magisterium is deserving of the death penalty (Deut 13:1-5). God doesn't view this lightly: Judges 2:17 Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the Lord , and they did not do so. Hosea 2:13 And I will punish her for the feast days of the Baals when she burned offerings to them and adorned herself with her ring and jewelry, and went after her lovers and forgot me, declares the Lord . 1 Corinthians 10:16-21 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. I will pray that you repent and turn away from your visibly apostate religion, and embrace the true Gospel of Christ alone through faith alone.

[@solacanonicascriptura6139]

@C&M K Sorry, I'm unsure if this was your intent, but your testimony doesn't prove the truth of your religion. If you go to the youtube page, Muslim Convert Stories, you'll see many similar testimonies and claims of how Islam changed their lives. This alone should cause any one who claims to be a Christian to stop and think if the Roman Church is apostate: i.stack.imgur.com/c2sYn.jpg

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

Anything we merit is by grace. Read Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. I know it's long but you will have a better understanding of Catholic theology when you have done so. You can find his discussion of grace and merit in the First Part of the Second, Questions 109-114.

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

Grace and merit are contradictory.

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

@@ThomasCranmer1959 That's what you think, because you misunderstand Catholic theology. Read Aquinas. It's all of grace. Everything.

[@Λουθηρανισμός]

Please, let's stay focused on the main difference, the source of the argument. Rome believes that after the Fall of Adam free will remained traumatized, not extinct. We, lutherans, believe that free will to salvation is completely deleted. Rome having this stance denies ''faith alone'' because for her faith is the mental acceptance of some truths about Christ with the human free will. So, logically, she teaches that this free will which believes has to also prove this belief with deeds, with sanctification. The same is the case with Eastern Orthodoxy and most of Protestantism. Fo us, the lack of free will means that even faith is not just a mental acceptance of some truth by us. We can not do it. We can not accept Christ. The Cross offenses us. Christ on the Cross means we are completely and continually sinners. Yes, indeed, we are. We are not sinners every time and if we sin (the roman position), but we sin because we are sinners. So, how we are saved, if we can do nothing about it? He saves us, freely, in the word that creates faith in us (i.e. trust to Jesus' merits, not ours), in Baptism (we are clothed Jesus), in the Eucharist (we really and effectually eat Him and His forgiveness of sins), in Absolution. Rome is in heresy, as Orthodoxy and Protestants also. The lutheran reformation is still here and continues.

[@HannahClapham]

Loutheranismós- Well, we Reformed also believe pretty much all of those things. Plus, we interpret Romans 8:28-39 as actually covering everything in creation. Why on earth would “nothing” be able to separate us from Christ except our fleshly selves, which, somehow, defeat our true selves (though they are vigorously protected by the Holy Spirit) and do so unbidden by temptation or fear or any other wiles of the devil? It is quite the trick.

[@benmizrahi2889]

@@anonimo-um2ng Nobody threw James out of the canon. The term "epistle of straw" simply means that James does not contain everything a young Christian should know but Luther regarded James very highly in terms of its content. Lutherans stay with James all the time, we just realize James does not speak about justification at all but rather on how to recognize real vs. fake faith.

[@revelation12sign85]

A man needn't not believe that the earth is flat to goto heaven But believe upon the shed blood of Jesus Christ for payment of sins That being said. The Bible teaches the earth is flat and motionless even Martin Luther speaks on this Dr. Please reprove me on this wise that I may repent of a vain thing or That Iron May sharpen Iron

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

Justification is an eternal decree. Revelation 13:8.

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

@@anonimo-um2ng The word Trinity is not in the Bible either. But the logical propositions are deduced from the text. God planned the redemption of the elect in His eternally immutable mind before creation. The Bible teaches both eternal justification and the Trinity. WCF 1:6.

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

@@anonimo-um2ng Since the book of Revelation does teach justification by the blood of Christ many times over, you are mistaken. And worse for you, it is God alone who unconditionally elects by predestination and it is God who effectually calls and who grants saving faith and repentance and the infused righteousness of sanctification. Philippians 2:12-13.

[@7Archie4]

I'm Catholic, I think you're wrong with what you said about how Catholic perspective understands merit and Justification, that's misinterpretation or are you telling a lie? anybody can just google it, may be "Catholic perspective merit and Justification" and if what you just said aligns.

[@billyhw5492]

You don't seem the slightest bit grieved by division in the church: *"Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to one, and half to the other.” Then the woman whose son was living spoke to the king, for she yearned with compassion for her son; and she said, “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” But the other said, “Let him be neither mine nor yours, but divide him.” So the king answered and said, “Give the first woman the living child, and by no means kill him; she is his mother.”*

[@j.g.4942]

Think of the mother 500 or 1000 years after the 'king' cut her baby in two. There's a time to mourn and a time to rejoice, and I know too many men that hold pain under a veneer.

[@benjaminsmith5024]

I always appreciate your insights but your comments about being closer to Rome than reformed baptists strike me as too abstract. Think on the blood that was spilt, persecution, war, torture, etc. I think the "battlefield" test ought to be considered. Rome would have destroyed both of you.

[@Michael_Walsh]

Unsubscribed because of slander against beloved brothers and sisters in Christ that identify as radical Lutherans that I disagree with on some things but are most certainly not un-Christian and lacking of sufficient trinitarianism, seems that you're using very different standards for patristics and modern theologians, do we as Protestants believe in evolution of dogma like liberal RCC now, and has salvation required more theological precision as time has progressed? I agree with you largely on metaphysics, but this is totally overboard.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I mean, these guys have published reviews of my books accusing me of heresy for years. I'm not sure why it's so horrible that I would criticize their theology in return.

[@Michael_Walsh]

@@DrJordanBCooper reviews of books is sufficient substance for criticizing an entire group of people and school of thought, got it...........

[@connorlongaphie]

@@DrJordanBCooper because you're applying condemnations to an entire school of thought just becuase a couple individuals wrongly accosted you for disagreeing with them

[@Michael_Walsh]

@@connorlongaphie I'm seeing a pattern!

[@TheologyVisualized]

The radical-Lutheran scholars open their *school of thought* to criticism when they begin imposing it on other Lutherans, even if through simple book reviews. So it isn't about the negative reviews on Jordan's books, it is about the radical-Lutherans claiming to be *properly* Lutheran while declaring the other side to be properly NOT Lutheran (that is, heretical. *Their* words, not mine). Who is actually being divisive here on a first move basis? Who is more historically consistent in theology regarding the Lutheran-tradition? Responding to the historically & intentionally myopic criticisms of the radical-Lutherans, Jordan is right to defend himself by demonstrating that they effectively abandoned Lutheranism entirely, inventing a bastardized version of it. And Jordan isn't using a different standard between patristics and modern theologians. Just like the Trinity was not *bindingly* defined until Nicaea I, the church did not bindingly define how justification worked until the reformation era (Council of Trent, Book of Concord, etc). This does not entail a more precise theology mandatorily assented to for salvation, but is rather a clarification of what the church had already believed and hadn't needed to rigorously define until a challenge arose (Arianism, indulgences etc). So the error of the radical-Lutherans is not that they haven't checked the right boxes in order to show they are Christian, but that their method of formulating their theology precludes almost the entire Lutheran tradition itself, while equally trying to claim it. It's like following some "semper reformata" principle, while secretly culling the parts of Lutheranism that actually substantiate it. Lutheranism is not a tradition that merely follows a meager selection of life example & actions of younger Luther that represent "true" Lutheranism, as they effectively claim. It is the tradition that follows the *doctrine* that he *and his fellow theologians* fought for and was eventually enshrined in the Book of Concord. From there, this doctrine was "developed", in that it was "fully explored", in reference to scripture first, and tradition second. By this doctrinal "exploration", Lutheranism is a tradition that is rooted in *every* father of the Church catholic. By negating this, the radical-Lutherans essentially cut the tree down to the stump and pretend like they have a forest. It isn't Lutheran, and by the time they begin applying their theology, it is doubtful if it's even Christian.

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

Two semi-pelagians arguing over justification?

[@benmizrahi2889]

Only if Augustine was also a semi-Pelagian (hint: he wasn't).

[@Edward-ng8oo]

The idea that Luther held that Roman Catholics are true Christians is mistaken. He held that there were a minority who were saved through faith alone, but that the great majority of Catholics were false believers who were heading for damnation. Here are a few quotes illustrating this: ….the miserable pope has contributed a great deal with his doctrines, ordinances, and laws, causing pious hearts to be greatly terrified by proclaiming that it is necessary to pray, fast, hear masses, make pilgrimages, and that it is a mortal sin if they fail to do this. Terrorized like this, nobody could know when enough is enough, because true comfort, forgiveness of sins through Christ, had disappeared completely. As a result people ran to St. James and tormented themselves with pilgrimages, fastings, and other works, to the point in my estimation that there could not have been a greater misery on earth. I myself have seen many who were unable to bear such deep anguish, on account of which they fell into despair through intense fear and terror, and were seized with horror before God's dreadful judgment. For by his preaching the pope had nearly succeeded in scaring us to death of Christ; we considered him to be a stern judge. I, too, had been one of those who expected Christ to be nothing more than a severe master, and as a result I called on the Virgin Mary to stand by me and be my advocate before this judge. Others did the same thing because that was all they knew. We all said, The judge is coming, the judge is coming; I have been a bad boy, help, dear Virgin Mary, otherwise there is neither comfort nor help nor counsel for my poor soul. That's how we babbled, and people did not know what else to do. For they had lost Christ, the true and only Saviour. (Pages 46,47, Vol V, Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Baker Book House, 2007) If the article of justification is lost, all Christian doctrine is lost at the same time. And all the people in the world who do not hold to this justification are either Jews or Turks or papists or heretics; for there is no middle ground between these two righteousnesses: the active one of the Law and the passive one which comes from Christ. Therefore the man who strays from Christian righteousness must relapse into the active one, that is, since he has lost Christ, he must put his confidence in his own works. (What Luther Says 2194) What is the whole papacy but a beautiful false front and a deceptively glittering holiness under which the wretched devil lies in hiding? The devil always desires to imitate God in this way. He cannot bear to observe God speaking. If he cannot prevent it or hinder God's Word by force, he opposes it with a semblance of piety, takes the very words God has spoken and so twists them as to peddle his lies and poison under their name. (WLS 3193) I for one will here clear myself and salve my conscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all papists: unless they abolish their laws and traditions, restore their liberty to the churches of Christ and have it taught among them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish in this miserable captivity, and the papacy is of a truth nothing but the kingdom of Babylon and of the very Antichrist. For who is "the man of sin and the son of perdition" (2 Thess. 2:3 f.) but he who with his doctrines and statutes increases sins and the perdition of souls in the church and yet sits in the church as though he were God? All this the papal tyranny has abundantly fulfilled these many centuries. It has extinguished faith, obscured the Sacraments, and oppressed the Gospel. But its own laws, which are not only impious and sacrilegious but even barbarous and most stupid, it has enjoined and multiplied without end. (WLS 3202)