A Response to Robert Koons on Justification

Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
Publishing: www.JSPublishin...
On this video, I discuss a book written by Dr. Robert Koons, in which he presents arguments against the Reformational approach to justification. I respond to some of his arguments in this beginning of a series.

[@TheCASSMAN777]

Actually Dr. Cooper is mistaking about what Trent is saying about justification. Trent DOES say that we are initially justified by faith alone. It says this in session 6 chapter 8

[@TheCASSMAN777]

Catholic here. Trent did not rule out the "material sufficiency" of scripture. It just ruled out the "formal sufficiency" of scripture. The difference is that the material sufficiency teaches that all doctrine is at least implicit in scripture somewhere, but you still need the Church to interpret scripture correctly. Formal sufficiency is basically what the protestants believe about the perspicuity of scripture. It teaches that scripture can interpret itself. Its used by protestants for sola scriptura. Trent rejected the formal sufficiency of scripture, but it did not reject the material sufficiency. Catholics are allowed to believe in the material sufficiency of scripture if they want, but don't have to. However Catholics can't believe in the formal sufficiency of scripture.

[@esayli-vainio6698]

Thank you, dr. Cooper! One thought I got, propably from dr. Kleinig: If sanctification is our made perfect in Christ, eschaton come forward, it is also then liturgical term. For the means of our justification AND sanctification are means of grace. By divine service we partake the glory of Christ even now, and are purified from all sins by his blood. (1 John 1: 7)

[@ConciseCabbage]

What if J&S publishing released an abridgement of the best stuff from Chemnitz’ examination of Trent in an accessible paperback? Is it possible to do that and retain the force of that work?

[@JP-rf8rr]

I'd buy that in a heartbeat. It could be like the abridged gulag archipelago.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Ernst Luthardt published this, but it's in German only. I'm going to be trying to get some of Luthardt's previously untranslated texts in English, and this is one of them.

[@aGoyforJesus]

@@DrJordanBCooper I was talking to some friends about this today. This is the primary Lutheran work as non-Lutherans we would like.

[@billyg898]

I don't think he was accusing Lutheran's of pelagianism, but saying that it's what their understanding of justification leads to. I think he was pointing out a contradiction or conflict. Again, doesn't mean he is right, but I don't think he was making accusations per se. For example, if you make 2 claims, and he argues that 1 logically leads to a conclusion of pelagianism, but that contradicts 2, responding with "that a major misunderstanding because its pretty basic that we espouse claim 2 so this accusation is silly" doesn't really defeat his point. The same thing seems to apply regarding the point about sanctification and glorification.

[@MrGassemann]

Thank you. I listened to the classical theism podcast #130. (Because a RC-friend asked me to) And I was glad to see that you already had an episode on Koonts’ book.

[@rogerplested9484]

Thank you. Merry Christmas to you and your family

[@TheCASSMAN777]

Dr. Cooper is mistaking that when he says Purgatory came from the medieval church. You actually see it explicitly in Augustine. “And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any of those of whom it is said, that they ‘shall not inherit the kingdom of God,’ unless after suitable repentance their sins be forgiven them... (Continued)

[@TheCASSMAN777]

When I say ‘suitable,’ I mean that they are not to be unfruitful in almsgiving; for Holy Scripture lays so much stress on this virtue, that our Lord tells us beforehand, that He will ascribe no merit to those on His right hand but that they abound in it, and no defect to those on His left hand but their want of it, when He shall say to the former, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom,” and to the latter, ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.'” Saint Augustine, Enchiridion, 69

[@ethanstrunk7698]

leaving a comment here for any future viewers to note Augustine's uncertainty "it is not impossible", and "it is a matter that may be inquired into and either ascertained or left doubtful"

[@eastsidefellowship2511]

Merry Christmas to Dr. Cooper and all of you out there.

[@lorenzomurrone2430]

Please an exposition of Rom. 7 would be awesome!

[@Stormlight1234]

I would love to hear you dialogue someday with the Catholic theologian Dr. Christopher Malloy. He wrote the book "Engrafted into Christ" which is a critique of the Joint Declaration on Justification (JDDJ) from 1999. In that book he argued that both the traditional Lutheran and Catholic positions on justification were not well represented in the JDDJ. He also walks through some of the debates that came up early in the reformation (e.g. Regensburg and double justice and the Council of Trent's development and ultimate response to Reformers) and then deals with different modern views of justification in Lutheranism. He even includes a whole chapter on Mannermaa and the Finnish Lutherans. Dr. Malloy breaks down the disagreement between the orthodox Lutheran and Catholic positions on justification into 4 main categories: 1. The formal cause of justification - Christ's imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. infused righteousness/sanctifying grace (Catholics). 2. Remnant sin after justification - sin remains: simul justus et peccator (Lutherans) vs. new creation and complete removal of original and mortal sins (Catholics). 3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutherans distinguish so sanctification does not mix with justification vs. Catholic wholistic approach including sanctification in justification. 4. The possibility of man earning merit towards salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes. That book was instrumental in my coming to better know and finally agreeing with the Catholic position on justification. I think you two would have a very fruitful conversation were you able to interact. Dr. Malloy knows the Lutheran traditions very well and presents them very fairly. www.amazon.com/Engrafted-into-Christ-Declaration-University/dp/0820474088 udallas.academia.edu/ChristopherMalloy/ God bless!

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Sounds like an interesting book. I'll check it out.

[@Stormlight1234]

​@@DrJordanBCooper That is great to hear! Like I mentioned, I would love hear you two dialogue sometime, but it would be great just to get your reactions to his book as well. I think you will like it and will find you agree with Dr. Malloy on many things, especially how he calls for better ecumenical efforts that engage the substance of the matter and not seek false unity. Dr. Koons cites that book in his book you are reviewing as being very influential on his thinking. I bet a discussion between you Dr. Koons would be good too. He seems very humble and would probably be open to any corrections you have of him or able to further clarify some of his positions against your critiques. God bless!

[@toddvoss52]

sounds worth checking out.

[@Stormlight1234]

@@toddvoss52 It is really quite an extraordinary book that I wish was more well known. I also highly recommend Paul, A New Covenant Jew which has 3 prominent Catholic scholars ( Brant Pitre, Michael P. Barber, John A. Kincaid) looking at the current state of modern Pauline scholarship and has a fantastic chapter on justification (chapter 5). www.amazon.com/Paul-New-Covenant-Jew-Rethinking/dp/0802873766 And this new book is getting a lot of attention right now that deals extensively with how the early Church Fathers used the term "works of the law" as a way to distinguish between the old Mosaic law and the New Law of Christ. Paul’s “Works of the Law” in the Perspective of Second Century Reception (IVP Academic, 2020), Matthew J. Thomas www.ivpress.com/paul-s-works-of-the-law-in-the-perspective-of-second-century-reception

[@toddvoss52]

@@Stormlight1234 Just ordered. Adding it to the pile. :-). Likely to get the second because I think so highly of Brant Pitre (have a couple of his books). On the third, we'll see but I take Dr. Cooper's point that some of the New Perspective has been "overcooked" - but perhaps this book plows new ground. Again, time is a limited resource.

[@toddvoss52]

To be fair, if one reads Chemnitz Examination of Trent, then one should read Bellarmine who responded to Chemnitz (and others). Of course, Gerhardt could then respond to Bellarmine. Time and money are a limited resource. And quite frankly Bellarmine calls out the "cherry picking" of the Fathers by the Reformers (including Chemnitz) and lack of context (as you often decry yourself). Of course, I note Bellarmine often cherry picks himself. Because these are all polemics - very detailed and high quality polemics on both sides - but polemics all the same - not "discussion". In the end, coherence - i.e. how does it all hold together : theology/history/ liturgy etc. will be the touchstone of decision. The "pelagian" point by Koons was very disappointing as you said. Strange.

[@pat1442]

Its seems the strongest argument made here is the Romans 7 argument that our hope for perfection lies in the resurrection, and is to be achieved in the eschaton. However I think it is clear that Paul's hope for perfection and righteousness is in the resurrection in this life/mortal body, and NOT the eschaton. This is for two reasons. 1. The consistent theme throughout Romans and the other pauline epistles is taking Christ's death and resurrection as a metaphor to death to sin, and a resurrected life in Christ, and not a death to our mortal inherently sinful bodies in the hope of a resurrected glorified perfected body in the eschaton. We see this in Romans 8:9 and 13 where we are instructed to live in the spirit currently, and God gives us the ability to do so. We see this in Romans 8:11 where Paul specifically says that God will give life to our mortal bodies, and we see it in Romans 8:14 where we are made children of God currently, and in other NT writings like 1 John we see to be a child of God is to cease sinning, and being made alive in the resurrected Christ. 2. Paul in Phillipians 3 explains the righteousness that comes ~through~ faith, and is granted to him on the ~basis~ of faith. This righteousness he explains is to share in the death and sufferings of Christ and a life in Christ, which explained elsewhere is a life of good works of love in obedience to Christ. Phillipians 3:10-11 explains how he desires to die to sin in Christ, and be alive with the resurrected Christ like he does in Romans. In phillipians 3:12-13 he explains he has not yet attained this resurrected life in Christ, just like he did in Romans, but then in phillipians 3:14 he explains how he will achieve this resurrected life in Christ. By straining, and pressing on for it, distinctly by working for it, and not by passively receiving it in the eschaton based on his faith. In summary, In Paul and other NT writers the resurrected life in Christ refers to a current achievable state in the mortal body that consists in ceasing to sin and good works of love and obedience, Paul has not yet achieved this state, but is striving to achieve it, by the grace of God communicated through and on the basis of faith which infuses the righteousness of Christ to share in his life on earth, which then makes us righteous before God and saves us.

[@toddvoss52]

Critique of the excesses of the New Perspective (while acknowledging some of its limited merit) is spot on.

[@kyler9323]

Dr. Cooper, Catholic here. I'm 8 mins in and you say that Dr. Koons just proffers Newman's notion of development of doctrine essay in response to changes in Church practice/belief. Have you engaged with Newman's essay at length anywhere?

[@rangerswampyclay]

Have you ever considered doing a podcast on exorcism as understood and practiced by the Lutheran church? I recently ran into a pastor who’d done some before including at his own parish and am now very curious

[@arthurodell3281]

The best case for your reading of Romans 7 is that it comes after Romans 6 and before Romans 8.

[@lc-mschristian5717]

Thank you and God's peace be with you.

[@reydemayo8906]

Godbless sir....you try to expose some philosophical detail of Justification ,Sanctification and last the final side of Salvation which is Glorification but There are lots of works to be done.....otherwise it is very challenges if you come up atleast the Idea into a full blown Doctrinal Stand....what i mean from the Sanctification into Glorification point of View ....that theologically sound....hope soon.... Shalom and Godbless.

[@carsonwall2400]

Rob Koons is amazing.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

I agree. If anyone wants to watch a brief outline of Koon's position, they can watch the following video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4TRYaeudrGcg8U

[@trustchristnotmyselfextran6298]

Greetings, Brother Cooper. Can you do a more thorough video/podcast on Word and Sacrament and Assurance of Salvation? Thank you, God bless.

[@johnstewart7025]

I know this is water off a duck's back, but why did Jesus have to die and be resurrected, if God gives us grace to believe in the life hereafter, as well as the death and resurrection? I know; it is a mystery.

[@peterbengtsson]

Thanks Cooper! I'm looking forward to your coming video on Romans 7. The one thing that makes me doubt that Paul is talking about his present state as a Christian is v. 14. "For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin." I don't see a born again believe refer to himself as someone sold into bondage of sin, and I can't find anything similar to that through out the NT. What we on the other hand see is us Christians being refered to as "dead to sin", "glorified", "saints", "holy" etc. Maybe I'm missing something here and I'm happy for you to show me that. Thanks again for your vids, a lot of interesting stuff! Christ love, Peter

[@toddvoss52]

Why can't that final "made righteous" be the instant of purgation/purification? i.e. a minimal agreement on that aspect of "Purgatory" (i.e. minus the punitive aspect to not only purge the temporal effects but punish it - which would seem more problematic from your point of view).

[@kurthein]

Discussion of Rom 7 would be good.

[@alexwarstler9000]

Apologetics Against Rome Channel! I’m dying!!! LOL. I chocked on my spaghetti when you said that, Pr. Cooper.

[@ConciseCabbage]

If a saving faith is a faith that works, then it stands that if you don’t work, you don’t have a saving faith. Therefore, in order to be saved you need faith plus works. Where is the flaw in this logic?

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

There cannot be a flaw in your paraphrasing James. The Lutherans hate your logic because it runs contrary to their favorite slogan: _sola fide._ They would quibble about various types of causation, but they really cannot make James go away.

[@ConciseCabbage]

@@Catholic-Perennialist - It’s why I’m often more sympathetic towards Once Saved Always Saved. Because at least they are saying something truly different from the Catholics. Meanwhile reformed and Lutherans seem to be playing “antics with semantics”

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@ConciseCabbage I find that they build doctrinal systems that are internally consistent, while being inconsistent with the totality of Scripture. And yes, Lutherans and Reformed are masters at equivocation and omission.

[@trustchristnotmyselfextran6298]

You have to be careful because people can misunderstand what you're saying. Are you saying I need faith plus my own works trust come from within myself? Or do I need faith plus works which can only possibly come from and through the Holy Spirit of God? It can be confusing to some people.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@trustchristnotmyselfextran6298 If one is Baptized then it goes without saying that the works are empowered by the Spirit. Paul gives a list of sins that a Christian cannot commit and still inherit the kingdom (1st Cor. 6). They are very much tied to the decalogue. Therefore, a certain amount of law-keeping is necessary for salvation. These cannot be kept in the flesh, but only in the Spirit through faith.

[@markhorton3994]

It appears that Dr. Koons left the LCMS and became a papist because he failed to understand basic Lutheran theology.

[@trustchristnotmyselfextran6298]

What is basic Lutheran theology?

[@harryedmon380]

@@trustchristnotmyselfextran6298 The Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession in brief, and the Book of Concord in more detail.

[@trustchristnotmyselfextran6298]

@@harryedmon380, thank you brother. Hey, What are your thoughts on the Lutheran view of Assurance? How can we have it?

[@harryedmon380]

@@trustchristnotmyselfextran6298 Our assurance is found in the fact that Christ died for all. If He died for all, then He died for me. Also see: www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/doctrine#assurance

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@harryedmon380 This is ridiculous. Christ also died for those in Hell, therefore, this is no foundation for assurance. Even Paul said to "judge nothing before the time." Even ourselves.

[@ThruTheUnknown]

And Koon just destroyed the Lutheran arguments.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

"By grace are you saved" -Paul "Man is justified by faith" -Also Paul "We are saved by hope." -Also Paul "Baptism now saves us." - Peter "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." -Also Peter "By your words you will be justified" -Jesus "If you will enter life, keep the commandments" -Also Jesus "Whosoever lives and believes in me shall never die, and I will raise him up at the last day." -Also Jesus "Those who have done good, to the resurrection of life." -Also Jesus "Man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" -James "The demons also believe" -James Dr. Cooper, it does no good to accuse others of inaccuracy and lack of nuance when the source materials look like the above. Catholics are at least honest enough to attempt to make sense of _all_ the verses, instead of hanging on to a hand-full of verses from a single author. It is very silly to watch you Lutherans pontificating about a Gordian knot that you are so confident you have untangled, when it is obvious to anyone who has read the scriptures that you cannot fully systematize soteriology. No one should be allowed to expound the scriptures without a near photographic memory. You cannot begin to expound on the contents of a single book unless you hold in your memory the contents of all the other books for comparison. Many a denomination of Protestantism has come from the interpretation of single books, and single authors.

[@Iffmeister]

James 2 is clearly NOT talking about saving faith when it says "a man is justified by works and not faith alone". The "faith" in that passage is literally contrasted with demons. James is saying if you assent to the gospel but don't actually live it you don't have real faith (faith without works is dead). NO group disagrees that faith and works are necessary for salvation, including Lutherans, so it would be a straw man to claim they don't deal with this idea.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@Iffmeister You are engaging in equivocation. The words _justification_ and _faith_ are to be taken in their usual meaning. The proof of this is his closing remarks concerning the faith of Abraham: "and thus was the Scripture fulfilled, 'Abraham believed God and it was counted as righteousness.' James links his vocabulary to the context of Romans 4. I will continue to deal with the Lutherans as they present themselves. You claim that no sect believes that faith saves apart from works, and yet, Lutherans retain _sola fide_ as their defining slogan. It should be changed to _sola fide laborante_ if Lutherans will be honest. But they never are.

[@Iffmeister]

@@Catholic-Perennialist it's not equivocation. If he equates faith with what the demons have, then he's not talking about trust/loyalty in Christ, he's talking about assent in that text. Assenting to Christianity without actually practicing it is dead faith, and not living faith.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@Iffmeister He is considering faith apart from works when he speaks of the faith of demons. If we are to be honest then, we would say that _sola fide_ describes the faith of demons. No matter how you dice it, Lutheran doctrine is dishonest. And lest you think this is some dismissible anomaly from James, take a look at the other quotations I listed and who else among the authors of scripture advocate for a salvation by works, by sacrament, or some combination of these with faith.

[@Iffmeister]

@@Catholic-Perennialist I'm not a Lutheran actually. I think you're misrepresenting their position tho, which is a shame.