Luther, the Reformation, and the Solas (w/ Dr. Jordan B. Cooper)

Was the Reformation justified or did Luther make a big mistake? In this episode with Dr. Jordan B. Cooper, a Lutheran pastor and scholar, we discuss the history of the Reformation, the differences between the reformers, as well as the famous "solas" and why they matter. What do we lose if we deny sola scriptura, sola gratia, or sola fide? Dr. Cooper gives a historical defense of Protestantism and the Protestant reformers as well as his reasons for why he's a Lutheran and despite all the ensuing schism, he believes the Reformation is a net positive. I had so much fun chatting with him and learning from his great insight.
Follow Dr. Cooper:
Website: www.justandsinn...
KZbin: / semperreformanda1517
Read Luther:
Concerning Christian Liberty: www.gutenberg....
Large Catechism: www.peacebeave...
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
Merch: www.teespring.c...
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
Twitter: / gsplsimplicity
About me:
Hey! My name is Austin, and I'm a 21 year old guy with a passion for people. I believe the good news is that God is better than we could've ever hoped, and I love sharing this message of grace and love with anyone that will listen. I'm the former Digital Marketing and Video Production Coordinator at a large, evangelical church in Frederick, MD, and I'm currently a student at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, IL. When I'm not writing papers or making KZbin videos, I do freelance work as a Wedding Photographer/Videographer and social media consultant. On any given day you can find me with my nose in a book or a guitar in my hands. Want to get to know me more? Follow me and say hi on Instagram at: @austin.suggs
Video Stuff:
Camera: Canon 80d
Lens: Sigma 17-50 F2.8
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel

[@GospelSimplicity]

For those just now seeing this, the previous thumbnail said “was the reformation justified?” That’s what many have commented on so far.

[@tony1685]

AMEN the Reformation was a success! it brought the Word of Truth to the hands of the people and exposed the evils of the papacy which can never be denied!

[@halleylujah247]

@@tony1685 I deny the premise.

[@tony1685]

@@halleylujah247 you don't believe in freedom to believe as one desires? if it weren't for us having the Bible for ourselves, we would never know that the papacy is the only system on earth which very accurately fits the description of _'Mother Babylon'_ - given in the Bible.

[@halleylujah247]

@@tony1685 Define freedom. Where did you hear that Catholic were not allowed to have the Bible until 16 century? Why do I have to believe your translation? Do you not believe in personal interpretation?

[@tony1685]

@@halleylujah247 no Ma'am you certainly have your right to your own belief. but when we take an honest look at the Word of God - there is no other system on earth which fits the description given for the antichrist / counterfeit 'church'. none. and believe me i did all i could to prove it wrong. but it's solid info. here is just a short bit of it: afacts.convio.net/site/DocServer/Insertfinal.pdf?docID=322 sorry for the link. i usually don't care for them. but this is a good one.

[@TheJason909]

Dr. Jordan Cooper is a great guy. :) I found his works extremely helpful on my path out of non-denomination Evangelicalism, especially his critiques of Reformed/Calvinist theology. I'm very grateful for having encountered him along my path to Catholicism, because he helped me to warm up to "Catholic" sacramental theology while still in the comfort of Protestantism. Staying consistent with the church fathers, though, led me through a stint in Confessional Lutheranism, and on to Catholicism.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing!

[@bethanyann1060]

My journey to Catholicism sounds a lot like yours! Except I started out as a Calvinist lol.

[@TheJason909]

@@bethanyann1060 Yikes !! That's an even more drastic transition, I'd say. Ever heard of Dr. John Bergsma ?

[@bethanyann1060]

@@TheJason909 The name sounds familiar but I don’t know of him off the top of my head. And yes, it was a huge transition overall, but I have Lutheranism to thank for easing me into the sacramental system of the church ;)

[@maxonmendel5757]

amen! now on to Eastern Orthodoxy, perhaps? or WR Orthodoxy? I've left AofG and im still working out next steps. its especially hard with a still-charismatic fiancee

[@lutheranchick3044]

Austin - God bless you! It's so reassuring to see young people studying God's Word and bringing it to a broader audience.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thank you so much!

[@barrelagedfaith]

Great interview and well done! I am an evangelical who became Catholic and highly respect Dr. Jordan Cooper.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks!

[@arminius504]

So you believe that the bodily assumption of Mary is dogma and needs to be believed otherwise we are outside of the faith? Things like that kept me from converting especially with the deep study of the fathers and church history.

[@barrelagedfaith]

@@arminius504 I definitely understand your concern. There is another way to look at it. All of the ancient churches (though separated at different points), have this feast in their liturgies (Coptic, Syriac, Assyrian Church of the East, Byzantine/Orthodox, and Latin) and have held to this belief since ancient times. When all of the ancient churches agree (though separated far and wide and at times enemies), I think it is strong evidence that the belief is apart of Apostolic Tradition. So at the very least, the ancient churches are asking us not to deny Apostolic Tradition and what has been handed down faithfully from Spain to India. It is okay to trust. Do we trust ourselves or do we trust all of the ancient churches speaking in harmony? The Ancient Churches go beyond Sola Scriptura though we believe everything we teach is implicitly in Scripture. We ultimately believe in Apostolic Tradition which is what all of the 7 Ecumenical Councils appeal to when you read all of the documents. I hope this is a good starting point for the conversation. Feel free to watch my talk on the Dormition of Mary here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn3YnX-LmMloptk

[@vngelicath1580]

@@barrelagedfaith We don't mind believing in these widespread opinions of antiquity, we simply struggle with the dogmatization of these pious ideas. Making it damnable to not believe something not clearly presented in Scripture is an unacceptable (and unreasonable) position to the Protestant mind.

[@barrelagedfaith]

@@vngelicath1580 I think your approach is intellectually tenable. I have a different approach. Where ever the Apostolic Churches are unanimous, it reveals what was actually transmitted by the Apostles (Apostolic Tradition) and therefore it is true or highly likely to be true. Personally, for me to deny something that is true that I believe to be true that the Church has *always generally believed and to leave those Apostolic Churches because of that of those truths, it would be a grave sin. It is a bit of a different angle. Ultimately, the problem would be historical schism from the Apostolic Churches and Apostolic Tradition. I think if the Lutheran Church left the Catholic Church and somehow had it been able to come into communion with Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy, it would have a better case for its claim of maintaining Apostolic identity.

[@ewene2656]

Only recently discovered your channel Gospel Simplicity, but I've been following Dr. Cooper for several months now and have really enjoyed learning more about Lutheranism from him. I'm in a process of retrieval for renewal in my own theology, and it looks like your channel is in the same vain. Great interview. I loved this discussion, and Austin you're a really good interviewer.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thank you so much! He does great work. I hope this channel can be of help to you in that endeavor. God bless!

[@delbertclement2115]

Differences are inevitable. But I left Protestantism because it was limiting, and Orthodoxy larger and more profound than I could have ever imagined. Sola is fundamentally limiting language in and of itself. And I agree that Christ alone saves. I just don’t think that that excludes the living out the faith via works either - even when you struggle to have faith.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing some of your story and this perspective. God bless

[@deebater5711]

I have studied both and I think what Dr Cooper was clearly outing was how deep (and universal) the three Solas are. The Orthodox do seem to have strayed too far into iconography, Marian worship and rigid repetitive prayers of all kinds - and it's over emphasis on asceticism does inevitably lead a Christian to doubt their security and justification in Christ alone. It does lead to faith plus something - and the something is human effort no matter how it is dressed up - and therefore is based on some form of works. (I realise that by grace a Christian will desire to love Christ - but he also may struggle and fall. Thank God that out of no human effort of his own - Christ can bring that person back to himself). I know it depressed me when studying Orthodoxy a little - and I also found that there was an 'everyone who is not Orthodox or Catholic is a Calvanist' mentality (no one seemed game enough to critique a Confessional Lutheran and brilliant theologian like Dr Cooper - who has written on Theosis) - and lots of arrogance from some podcasters (Jay Dyer being one, I cant remember the other. He did not seem to have the fruits of the Spirit and even cussed in one podcast). This may come from the belief that they are the only true church? And also how on earth can anyone understand the tradition of the patriarchs who are after all human and sinful creatures like us all? Luther was sinful and a Lutheran understands this. We also must remember Mary was not sinless. (Romans 3). The 'patriarchs' all differ a little and I found there was more quoting of patriarchs than there was of scriptures in their podcasters teachings. Also why dont they actually teach the bible expositionally in their meetings? Paul admonished Timothy to do this! Also, no one in the bible used titles (Father, Priest etc). Notice it is "Paul, an apostle" or Timothy or Titus or Peter. Also, if it is so profound why in the English speaking world are there only a handful of Eastern Orthodox churches in each city - and the vast majority are "Greek" or Russian or Serbian. You cant even go to any in my city as they dont speak English! What if you are just English or Australian and you want an Aussie Pastor/Elder/Bishop? (The 3 synonymous words used for the leader(s) of a church in plurality (Acts 20;1 Tim 3; Titus 1; 1 Peter 5). Finally, the dress codes of the "priests" (we are all priests according to 1 Peter and Rev 1) - is extravagant to a degree that is definitely not normal and it transgresses humility. I dont seen anyone in the church that met at Priscilla and Aquillas house dressed like this or behaving like this. The Russian leader one sits on a throne! Anyway - love to hear your thoughts on this? (Not being difficult - just struggling to understand it). I admire Jordan C as he is humble btw!

[@nuzzi6620]

@@deebater5711 While I’m sure they’re entirely sincere, these are really some of the most basic, common, most-addressed objections people have to Orthodoxy. So much literature has been written, tons of videos and podcasts out there that have covered all these and so much more in-depth. Do some research-inquirers/catechumens very often spend _years_ studying intensely before making any serious decisions. Read books, and most importantly, visit a parish and speak to a priest. Even if the liturgy isn’t in English, just being present and observing will be helpful in understanding what the Orthodox faith is really all about. Keep searching and questioning everything-including your own presuppositions. God bless!

[@dougmasters4561]

I dont think amy Lutheran thinks living out faith via works is excluded.... in fact they all think it necessary. Protestant isnt a denomination. I dont know what denomination you were but ive yet to meet anyone of a protestant denomination who would disagree with any Lutheran I ever met

[@boastonlyinthecross]

Great stuff!!!! This was incredibly informative and helpful. I am thoroughly enjoying your content and find your graciousness with all of your guests to be exceptionally refreshing. Wonderful job!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it.

[@micahmatthew7104]

You're interviewing everyone on Christian youtube!

[@GospelSimplicity]

I try!

[@colesmith3185]

Dr. Cooper’s material has been very informative! I’ve been listening to his podcast for years l.

[@garymatthews1280]

Austin, thank you for this series. It has been extremely interesting. If you could ever get Ryan Reeves on here to talk about the Reformation, you would find it very interesting.

[@GospelSimplicity]

That would be interesting!

[@TheCordialCatholic]

Dr. Cooper's claim that it's either "truth" or "unity" is the kind of false dichotomy that Joe Heschmeyer so eloquently rebuts in his book "Pope Peter." To say that Christ forced believers to choose between the two makes Christ into a kind of sociopath. If Christ promised to never abandon his Church (Matthew 16:18) but also prayed for us to be united (cf. John 17) how can he force us, in the 16th century, to have to decide between the two? It not only doesn't make logical sense, as I said, it makes God *not good*.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Annddddd the long awaited, promised strong opinions from everyone's favorite Canadian podcaster (whether they know it yet or not) make their appearance

[@KeithNester]

@@GospelSimplicity Awwww yeah

[@GospelSimplicity]

@@KeithNester both of the Internet’s favorite Catholic Keith’s in one comment thread!

[@saramolina8911]

We can not be united with error. And that is what Latin church believes too, that's why you excommunicated people who don't think as you do. So can you blame us for thinking the same? Christ didn't force us to choose between the church and unity. Those who are in the church have to agree at least in core doctrines, if some get lost then the church is not forced to be with them cause everyone then will become an heretic. And Jesus will always be with us. We are not to be united with Gnostics just because they are Christians, or with monophysists (heresy Latin church has resurrected) just because they are Christians. or with Latin church just because you are christians. If Gnostics are lost as to say Jesus didn't have a body, what can we do? Monophisist saying God died on the cross, and Latin catholics saying the same and other things that are not in scripture. And remember in 16th century you forced people to decide. You didn't want to have them in the church, they were too annoying talking about indulgences and messing with money.

[@stevenstuart4194]

Bingo. Thank you!

[@aw8643]

Great interview Austin. As a Catholic I was always curious how other groups think about church history and unity. This was very informative of another’s opinions. I appreciate that you don’t host debates, but informative talks. Only asking questions to clarify the guests beliefs, not convince them to an opposite opinion or challenge them. There is a place and time for each kind of video. Thanks!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks! I really appreciate your kind words. God bless!

[@lc-mschristian5717]

Doctor Cooper is one of my favorite Pastors on KZbin. Some others are Pastor Brian Wolfmueller, Reverend Johnathan Fisk. God's peace be with you.

[@GospelSimplicity]

He’s great! I’ve also had Pr. Wolfmueller on the channel!

[@lc-mschristian5717]

@@GospelSimplicity I watched it and enjoyed it very much. Maybe you could interview Rev. Johnathan Fisk or Will Weedon, both are awesome and not your common Pastor.

[@DeusEstPrimus]

Austin, I went to a Southern Baptist seminary 5 years ago, and I left a confessional Lutheran. I don't know if this is you, but I can understand how deep study of scripture/church history can change what you thought you knew. My advice is this ( no matter where it takes you). Challenge your traditions and presuppositions. Get comfortable with the profoundly uncomfortable and let God direct your path, where ever that might take you.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks!

[@KelleighDahl]

Austin!! You're making me crazy with the waiting! :) just teasing. Looking forward to this, as I do all of your videos. Hope you're doing well! xo

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you’re looking forward to it! PS - It’s out on Patreon now

[@joshuaneace6597]

I’m a Catholic if the Latin/Roman Rite in a Novus Ordo Parish. I respect a few Lutheran pastors. I will listen to this interview in the next few days, but right now, the bed is calling my name.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Fair enough!

[@huwfulcher]

Haven't had a chance to watch yet but I'm seeing a lot of complaints (particularly from Catholics) that there should have been a balanced approach to the video. But does there really need to be? Austin is looking at many perspectives and this is one of them. I think our Catholic brothers and sisters need to be content that they've had the lions share of the content so far and now it's a chance for some Protestant perspectives. I've loved all the interviews so far as they've helped me appreciate the good in the Catholic tradition and point out the inadequacies in my own Reformed tradition. Hopefully it helps our Catholic brothers and sisters move away from the Protestant stereotype of "Pastor Billy Bob's communion with Doritos and Mountain Dew". You can still be Protestant and have huge respect for the (admittedly only two in our tradition) sacraments, God's Word, proper conduct in church and piety. Keep doing what you're doing Austin!

[@GospelSimplicity]

I really appreciate you saying this. I understand that no one likes to feel straw-manned, but I appreciate that you notice that it’s not as though I’ve only allowed Protestants on the channel. God bless!

[@huwfulcher]

@@GospelSimplicity I'm loving what you're doing it's helped me dismantle the Catholic strawman perspective that I used to have. I'm looking forward to more interviews where we can breakdown even more strawman perspectives of differing denominations!

[@halleylujah247]

I have to agree here. I do not see the unbalance. Protestants are going to disagree with Catholics on stuff kind of the point of them being protestant. Austin is the most even interviewer I have ever viewed. I can think of a few debate moderators that should take notes.

[@saramolina8911]

Yes, they think this is a Catholic channel. Austin seems a little too catholic for them (sometimes for me too) that they get heartbroken when he acts like a protestant. They are expecting the conversion and the channel to be a Catholic channel with Catholic guests. I think Austin should not give them this kind of hope if he's not going to convert. And shouldn't have us in agony thinking he will. Austin Austin has everyone in agony haha.

[@TheDanzman1211]

@@saramolina8911 We can only hope for it is from the grace of the Holy Spirit that conversion happens.

[@lishmahlishmah]

Hi Austin, I'm a new subscriber, from Italy. I am not good in speaking and writing in English because ... in Italy we speak Italian all day 😁😄. But I can understand English very well. This is a comment to tell you a "fun fact". In Roman dialect (not in Italian language and not in my own regional dialect), only in Roman/city of Rome dialect, the term "sola" is very popular. It is so popular in Rome that all Italian people know what Roman citizens mean when they say "sola". It means fraud/swindle 😭😂 (also in a humorous way). So... Every time an Italian reads "sola" he/she remembers the Roman dialect. That's the first thought. Only if a person was grown perfectly speaking the Italian official language (with no dialects), the first thought is "alone", because in Italian the term "sola/solo" means "alone". Only the third thought is the ancient Latin language and the true meaning of Sola in the history of Christianity. (Well, it is the first and unique thought if the reader has studied ancient Latin at school, or if he/she has studied theology). ...in the past, someone told me that my writings are more complicated than a Saint Paul letter... I don't know if it was a compliment or a negative criticism... 😳😁 Anyway, hope my comment is understandable. Thank you very much for your videos. Great job for christianity 👏 P.s. I am a Catholic.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Huh, that's really interesting! I never would've known that. Thanks!

[@richardbenitez7803]

Austin .... you have an amazing group of followers who are thoughtful, scholarly, prayerful. I find it’s worthwhile to go over the comments section. Gee. Dr Cooper (i like the way he can discuss differences w/o added hostility) has not yet spoken in on your channel and already you have 118 nice comments to review!

[@GospelSimplicity]

It really is a wonderful community that has formed and is continuing to form around this channel. I feel so blessed to get to be a part of it

[@delbertclement2115]

That sounds very strange to me, that people in the past argued by faith alone and meant the same thing as Luther did in the history of the Church. This begs the question, why wasn’t there such a debate and disagreement in the past? Why didn’t the reformation take place earlier? When did the doctrine of justification by faith “alone” get shoved aside and works was added in the history of the Church? I don’t think the way Luther thought about justification by faith alone was ever advocated by the Church Fathers alone at any point for many Church Fathers also advocated that faith was not enough. It sounds like we are picking a position prematurely and going into the Church Fathers to prove the position one already holds.

[@j.g.4942]

I think it's like the doctrine of the two natures in Christ, we can see different ways of speaking of Jesus before the debates of Nicea but often they were unclear before the clarifying controversy. Point being, abuses produce controversy which brings clarity of language. It seems perhaps there were few abuses of reliance on human or divine work until the reformation? Perhaps Luther saw the father's as supporting his idea of the work of salvation being completed by God in Jesus, received by the Christian through the church in baptism/absolution and the Eucharist, then that new life tightly clung to by the faithful to their glorification.

[@jgil1966]

lmao i know, it was like "yeah i read the Church fathers and yeah turns out they were all obviously.. Lutherans" 🤨

[@j.g.4942]

@@jgil1966 or perhaps he's just saying the Church Fathers speak against some particular decrees of the council of Trent

[@delbertclement2115]

Simply put, the Church always had the language of justification by faith. Cooper points that out above. This is not in anyways similar to the Christological controversy’s of the first few centuries where the language necessary to talk about the person of Christ was not developed. The Church Fathers could have said more on faith but they didn’t. Why? Probably because they weren’t stuck in a dualistic paradigm of faith or works. When a heretic like Arius began to assert his claims, problems arose immediately, why? Because nobody had said anything about the nature of Christ like that before. The Father’s had said things like “Faith alone” before where is the controversy? They also said that your working out of your faith was evidence of your justification. Still there is no controversy. This is not a problem of not having the right language to articulate a well established and already believed doctrine. Luther’s assertion of one over another is a clear departure from Church tradition as it would appear to mean that the Holy Spirit somehow led one person over the rest of the entire Church body to the conclusion drawn over the rest of those who had come before Luther and even those who lived in Luther’s present time - East and West. Luther wasn’t saying anything new - he was asserting something new that had never been asserted before.

[@delbertclement2115]

Here’s something one can do - take the arguments just used and apply them to Arianism. Could such a doctrine be defended? People had said things similar to Arian before his time. Arian was quoting scripture and the like. But what did those earlier authors mean by what they said? If one could accurately defend Arianism using the same arguments here to justify faith alone and conclude that it is biblical, the argument itself must be faulty. Unless we are willing to assert Arianism is a valid doctrine too...

[@tylerrossjcl]

This was a really interesting discussion! Dr. Cooper usually has good takes on things, and Austin's ability to ask penetrating questions never ceases to inspire. I thought Dr. Cooper's take on the 5 solae was good as well. I would be very interested to hear him dialogue with a Catholic on these, because Catholics can affirm all 5 solae given a certain understanding of each one. And before any Catholic goes to reply to this, I'd like to unashamedly throw out there that I am a Catholic with degrees in theology, philosophy, and canon law, and I will happily defend that click-baity comment :) Additionally, I did a presentation for our Catholic group here in my city that outlines how sola fide is the first in the line of dominoes. If you grant the Protestant understanding of sola fide, the rest fall in line, and you get the Reformation. If you grant the Catholic understanding of sola fide, you get Trent. Hot take, I know. But if anyone would like to have a conversation about it, I'd love to talk! God bless!

[@GospelSimplicity]

That sounds like an interesting presentation that you did! Thanks for the kind words as well. I really appreciate that

[@huwfulcher]

Do you have a way to share that presentation? Would be very interested to learn more

[@tylerrossjcl]

@@GospelSimplicity anytime!

[@tylerrossjcl]

@@huwfulcher sure! I could email you the PowerPoint, I could post the video recording of the presentation on KZbin, or you could find the Facebook page Catholic Chatt (the Chattanooga, TN Catholic young adults group) and look for the videos on there!

[@vincenzorutigliano5435]

Luther: Can we reform the church? Calvin: We have Reformation at home Reformation at home=💥💥💥💥💥💥

[@CatholicWithaBiblePodcast]

With a massively Catholic audience (like me), I wonder how much less viewership non-Catholic chats get.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Judging by the analytics so far, a decent amount less, but I'm ok with that in order to bring on a diverse assortment of guests and perspectives.

[@abhinavalpheus3924]

extremely pumped for this! I really liked orthodox divine liturgy video shows how similar east and west liturgies are,are you considering visiting Lutheran divine service any time soon?

[@GospelSimplicity]

Hope you enjoy it! I'd love to visit a Lutheran church and maybe do a tour like I have for others. However, it won't be until the Spring semester as I'll be going back to MD in about 2 weeks

[@abhinavalpheus3924]

@@GospelSimplicitywow that's a long waiting time,still worth it,God bless you brother you been doing great work.

[@GospelSimplicity]

@@abhinavalpheus3924 hope you find it worth the wait! It is up for my Patrons now😁

[@stevenstuart4194]

Lutheran "divine" service is a bastardization of the real Mass. Luther gutted the Mass. You have neither valid ministers nor the true Eucharist.

[@abhinavalpheus3924]

@@stevenstuart4194 Haha ever heard of church of sweden,our bishop had valid apostolic succession and and acc to council of Carthage against donatist it concluded that It is word of god that make's a sacrament valid not the person performing it. It is true that lutheran mass is gutted but only sacrificial language from mass is removed remaining is same,and what about your post vatican 2 nuovo ordo mass,it's a joke I had seen priest dressed as clone in "clown mass" of your and your "guitar mass " .

[@Motomack1042]

While I will not condemn Luther for addressing the corruption of the day, it was not as blatant as it has been made out, yes the church did skirt the edges with how they handled indulgences, but Luther went way beyond addressing corruption, he took it upon himself to change the faith, and scripture with absolutely no authority to do so. He had issues with his own salvation, could not come to terms that there was no absolute assurance of salvation, because he could not come to terms with his own sinfulness he developed a whole new system. His language was caustic, vile and incendiary. Many believe he suffered from depression or was bipolar. I just can't wrap my head around the Solas. The adage "you can have the Church without the bible, but you can't have the bible without the Church" is an absolute true statement. This idea was foreign to the Church and is counter to what scripture actual says. The new Testament is attributed to five of the twelve Apostles, all twelve were given the authority to govern, teach and sanctify the faithful, that means that anything they taught weather written or oral is the authoritative word of God, what about the letters Paul wrote that are not in scripture, are they not authoritative, many scholars believe the First letter of Clement should be in scripture also. Scriptures themselves tell us Jesus taught much more than what could be contained in a book. Sola Fide is also not what had been taught, how one thinks they can separate faith from works is delusional. True faith produces good works, Augustine always placed faith, hope and charity together, he says to that effect "Wherefore, since it is our duty fully to enjoy the truth which lives unchangeably, and since the triune God takes counsel in this truth for the things which He has made, the soul must be purified that it may have power to perceive that light, and to rest in it when it is perceived. And let us look upon this purification as a kind of journey or voyage to our native land. For it is not by change of place that we can come nearer to Him who is in every place, but by the cultivation of pure desires and virtuous habits. And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces. So that in their case, I think, the saying is already fulfilled: Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 1 Corinthians 13:8 Yet by means of these instruments (as they may be called), so great an edifice of faith and love has been built up in them, that, holding to what is perfect, they do not seek for what is only in part perfect - of course, I mean, so far as is possible in this life; for, in comparison with the future life, the life of no just and holy man is perfect here. Therefore the apostle says: Now abides faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity: 1 Corinthians 13:13 because, when a man shall have reached the eternal world, while the other two graces will fail, love will remain greater and more assured." I find it quit odd to believe in sola fide and in the sacramental system, if you believe that a simple prayer of acknowledgement of your sins and acceptance of Jesus as Lord and savior is all that is necessary for salvation, then the administering of the grace through the sacraments seems unnecessary, This one and done idea is a novelty and never remotely mentioned by any Church father in the same vain as Luther presented it. Augustine, Ambrose and Aquinas believed that salvation is a process of growing in faith hope and charity, that faith through grace produce good works necessary for salvation. Through your experiences so far you can see one constant theme within the ancient churches, sacred tradition, you even noted that Ignatius of Antioch influenced you to see that the Eucharist was viewed as the Church teaches, it gave you pause when you read his letters. One last thing, how is it possible that this Church that brought us clarity on the Trinity, the nature of Christ, etc, that fought and preserved from the faithful Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Donatism, Monophysitism, Sabellianism, etc, etc... but some how failed to teach the truth, did Jesus some how mess up when he established His Church, I do not accept that, he gave us a Church and His assurance that the gate of hell would neve draw it in, that Church is built on the foundations of Peter and the Apostles. In addition doctrine in the Church did not come out of scripture, doctrine came about when accepted teaching was questioned and needed clarification, when Luther made his claims the Church called the Council o f Trent to clarify Luther's position and what the Church had always taught, and then proclaimed its doctrine. That is why it was never talked about all that much, never any reason too. Pax

[@garymatthews1280]

Except that’s not the timing of how this went down with Luther. The Council of Trent wasn’t called until the year before Luther died. Here’s a link to what I believe is an historical accounting for what occurred. It truly didn’t start with the intent of starting a different branch of Christianity. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nHushaaNeNqUZ68 kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZpzNZpydpKmYmtk

[@Motomack1042]

@@garymatthews1280 I am vary aware of when and why the Council of Trent was called. Initially the Church in Germany pushed for a council, the Pope was hesitant at first, but finally called for the council in 1545, Council of Trent was highly important for its sweeping decrees on self-reform and for its dogmatic definitions that clarified virtually every doctrine contested by the Protestants. The council also initiated what we call the counter reformation revitalizing the Church in Europe, St Cardinal Charles Borromeo was the leading figure of the counter reformation.

[@eastsidefellowship2511]

Austin, thank you for your videos. I recently discovered them and this is the second I've watched. Insightful and interesting interview with Dr. Cooper. Well done!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you like them!

[@maryvilim3971]

I think he is very knowledgeable, and I agree with a lot of his analysis, just not his conclusions (I am a Catholic). He notes that reunion was less possible post-Trent. But of course! The Church had not thought about justification much since Augustine. You yourself noted, "We get into trouble when we go to the Fathers to try to answer questions that people weren't asking at that time. We don't want to hold people to the level of clarity before it was defined." YES. Luther got everyone thinking about justification. And indeed there are echoes of "faith alone" in Tradition, but Luther seemed to mean something different. So then the Church, in an ecumenical council, guided by the Holy Spirit, spoke and defined justification. Most importantly she said that justification is not only imputed (something you didn't get into with Dr. Cooper), it's imparted. Interestingly, although it’s hard to imagine the Church saying anything further, ever, on the subject of justification, so important to Protestants, than she did at Trent, sola Scriptura got her pondering the relationship between Divine Revelation, Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s teaching authority. Some of the fruit of that reflection appeared hundreds of years later in Dei Verbum, Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, and given what Pope John Paul II said in paragraph 79 of the encyclical Ut Unum Sint, it may be that she’s pondering it still. Instead ask, "How would affirming the solas strike at Christ?"

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing these thoughts. The idea of imputation (of righteousness, not justification, just for clarity) is, I believe, what Dr. Cooper thought the Joint Declaration conveniently ignored. Anyway, thanks for watching and leaving a thorough comment!

[@maryvilim3971]

@@GospelSimplicity Oops, yes, I meant righteousness! And then, in the Catholic view, because Christ's righteousness is imparted, our participation in it can increase. My own take on the Joint Declaration: Rome said, "Ok, well if by faith you mean faith-working-through-love, then sure, justification by faith alone." But that wasn't really Luther's view. Interesting observation about JDDJ ignoring imputation, I hadn't thought about that.

[@pete3397]

@@maryvilim3971 What you are describing is what us Lutherans would identify as Sanctification. Here. we would say that Rome gets the cart and horse confused. Justification is given by grace through faith, then we live in that faith by working with love through the Holy Spirit. It is justification that enables us to cooperate with the Holy Spirit and thereby enact that faith-working-through-love which is sanctification.

[@Ejohnd1]

Very interesting discussion. Thanks to you both. My simple, non-scholarly take: Jesus said He wanted unity. Let’s the theological debates go on among scholars inside one Christian communion.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I think everyone would say that’s preferable, but inside which communion?

[@gareth3566]

@@GospelSimplicity non dominational mega church obviously 😅

[@killingtime9283]

Great interview, would love to see more interviews with Lutherans, I’ll go watch the one with Wolfmueller for now. 🙂

[@GospelSimplicity]

So many denominations to cover! Glad you enjoyed it though

[@maryvilim3971]

Looking forward to watching this episode. It's on my calendar. All five of the solas reflect a "competitive" perspective rather than the "participative" view of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. This "competitive" view (nominalism) has continued to play itself out in modern philosophy. For more on this idea you could read Bishop Robert Barron's 2017 Erasmus Lecture "Evangelizing the Nones" (search for "Reformers" to skip to the relevant part). Available in print at www.firstthings.com/article/2018/01/evangelizing-the-nones.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for the link! Hope you enjoy the video

[@sillybearss]

The best version of Protestantism is Lutheranism.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing!

[@stevenstuart4194]

No version of Protestantism is best. It's all heretical.

[@sillybearss]

@@stevenstuart4194 I agree that 'protestantism' is not the Truth. But I still hold the view that some form of protestantism are closer to the Truth than some others. High Lutheranism and Anglicanism are among some of the closer ones, Mormonism is among the "further away" ones.

[@tony1685]

@@stevenstuart4194 _'It's all heretical.'_ 1 - care to prove it, Sir? 2 - use the word properly please, do you need me to show you what it means?

[@tony1685]

@@sillybearss _'I agree that 'protestantism' is not the Truth.'_ - according to whose definition of Truth, Silly? because i can show you how the catholic system is totally against the Truth of our Creator, using His clear Word of Truth.

[@estoyenelflowstate4412]

I may suggest you to interview some day Jay Dyer and Jonathan Pageau, they are both Orthodox and KZbinrs.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Jonathan Pageua is on my list! I’m not sure Jay fits the tone of my channel well though.

[@jennifermorton9083]

The Catholic Church did reform as a result of the split. Maybe not enough. The Catholic Church tends to be slow. It is a shame that it didn't do this before and excommunicated Luther instead.

[@GospelSimplicity]

It certainly would've been great if Luther and the Catholic church could come to an agreement

[@nickmelville7220]

@@GospelSimplicity I believe if Luther would've consented to the doctrinal position of the _Primacy of Grace_ - rather then _grace alone_ - he would've been reconciled to Rome. And we would probably have a religious order named after him (Lutherans) as we have religious orders named after great reformers of the Church (i.e. Franciscans, Benedictines ect). We Catholics believe in the Primacy of Grace - but Luther went to far when he said _alone;_ he went even further when he added the word "alone" to the book Romans, in his german translation of the Bible, to justify his false doctrine of Sola Fidas.

[@nathanielfroese5679]

@@nickmelville7220 that's an interesting take. As a Protestant I have heard people object to the solas of faith and scripture, but I have never heard anyone object to grace alone. What do you mean by primary grace and how does that differ from your understanding of grace alone?

[@eries77]

The reformation was necessary in order for the Catholic Church to reflect on itself and be able to answer and explain the questions that reformers had but it was NOT necessary for members to split from the Church. That's my view on it. I think it's a sad thing and if people had issues with the Church why not work within the Church to make it better and reform it from within. They lost the sacraments when they split.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing this perspective

[@misererenobis8900]

I’ve always thought that.

[@brunot2481]

St Anthony of the desert, St Benedict, Pope St Gregory the Great, St Francis of Assisi, St Dominic of Gusman, St Catarina of Siena, St Teresa of Ávila and an enormous number of other Catholic saints were great reformers of the Church (each one implicated in a very specific mission). Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others were “ecclesiastical revolutionaries” who wanted to change the teachings of the Church. And they achieved it, I think, tearing up the Mystical Body of Christ.

[@saramolina8911]

You can't do that if they excommunicate you. What can you do? Luther didn't left, they excommunicated him. For what? For telling the truth about indulgences abuses. They didn't like it. It messed with their economy. They wanted him to retract of his opinion and as he was an honest man be didn't and they excommunicated him. God bless

[@alhilford2345]

@@saramolina8911 : Many people, including Catholics, do not understand the meaning of the word "excommunication". Luther, along with the other "reformers", excommunicated himself by denying the truth, the doctrines of the Church, and was thereby declared Excommunicated by the Church as a warning to other Catholics who might, in their ignorance, think that he was teaching Catholic doctrine. He was given many opportunities to repent beforehand.

[@mauriciorocha5360]

you should read Rob Koons, a lutheran case for roman catholicism, he is arguably the best defender of theism with alex pruss and his book on why he left lutheranism for Roman catholicism is great, you should try to reach to Dr koons, he tends to be very available and friendly...still I am amazed by your humility Austin, praying for God to enlighten you and keep humbling you!!!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for the recommendation! I'll try to look into him

[@peacengrease3901]

Jordan Cooper debated him and graciously yet arguably won. Its available on KZbin.

[@nazortube]

I would like to see debate between josiah trenham and Jordan B Cooper

[@GospelSimplicity]

On what?

[@nazortube]

@@GospelSimplicity on what? this two guys? u really asking me that? There are many topics, such as theology, differences between them, similarities ( both are against papacy ect.).

[@Joshua-ws8pf]

The Reformation is best seen as fulfilling what's important, but incomplete and wanting...Protestants need to now move to what they have in common, creating mutual understanding on distinctives, and forming a better union

[@thedudehi]

If you can get him on, Michael Horton would be such a great person to interview!

[@GospelSimplicity]

I’d be open to that!

[@stevenstuart4194]

I interviewed Michael Horton back in the mid 1990's. Nice guy, but he's horrible at Church history.

[@wilts43]

As a Catholic viewer may I say I enoyed this interview Austin. Dr Cooper is an excellent apologist for Lutheranism. But he states as a truism that we may have to choose between "Truth & unity" (& Obviously choose "Truth"). But we could only do this by measuring _our_ "truth" (Or _our_ reading-of-scripture) against the Teachings of the Catholic Church. *In the final analysis* ...... printing enabled access to affordable books which empowered the individual (& his/her ego) to sift Church Teachings according to their _personal_ lights. When it comes to Truth....we can easily digress into a myriad of arguments that are in-the-end opinion. This "Democratised Religion" has enormous appeal to modern Western Culture. But this _assumes_ that Jesus did _not_ establish His Church/ *Kingdom* as a _supernatural-organism,_ promising to divinely guide her in her Magisterial Teaching. Catholicism is not a Democracy. It is _"Judaism_ -fulfilled". As such, it is the eternal Davidic Kingdom, with a Priesthood-offering the sacrifice of Malachi (1:11) and with a High Priestly Steward (Eliakim-figure) with "the power of the keys". So, "Truth or Unity" then? When we don't have "unity" we give it a ghostly transmutation. "Invisible unity" is an after-the-fact fudge, to rationalise a shattered reality, instead of judging the fruit. His Church/Kingdom is not _"of_ this World" but it is (like His people Israel) a _real, visible, incarnate reality_ "A city on a hill" radiating a _visible_ unity, that the World can see & be convicted by.... _"that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me."_ (John 17:21) The Bible tells us to "Judge by the fruits" and here is Protestantism's greatest problem. God did not leave us to find the needle of truth in the protestant haystack. It is not fair to respond to the "30,000 denominations" jibe that there are "hundreds of Catholic denominations" St Ambrose said..... "Where Peter is, there is The Church" and that is the genius of Christ's provision of His Davidic-Steward-Office in His Kingdom.....ie. There is a single unitary, Apostolic, locus-of-unity. Those "Catholics" not in communion with Peter are not Catholics.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for sharing some of your thoughts as well

[@actsapologist1991]

@6:09 : I'm very grateful that the Catholic Church teaches that the whole Christ is found under either element of the Eucharist. My son has celiac disease and cannot eat bread. Is he in disobedience to Christ? I've always been persuaded by the argument based on 1Corinthians 11:27. If one looks at the conjunctions Paul uses, he says that if someone takes of the bread OR wine unworthily he becomes guilty of the whole Christ. This says to me that the whole Christ is found in both/either.

[@TheDanzman1211]

You are correct, both body and blood of Christ are present in both species. Also, you may request the priest for a gluten-free host (actually with a trace of gluten as canonically required).

[@BoondockBrony]

Jordan Cooper was the main reason I chose Lutheranism over the other high church Protestants. Funny since I used to be a Oneness Pentecostal XD. Also I see the Reformation as this. Catholics wish the protestants didn't leave and the Protestants wished Catholics followed.

[@lishmahlishmah]

If you can, if you like, also discuss the _Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification_ , by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church. (1999)

[@GospelSimplicity]

We did!

[@lishmahlishmah]

@@GospelSimplicity Thank you very much 🙌👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@zarnoffa]

Jordan Peterson probably doesn’t subscribe to that as he’s more of a conservative Lutheran.

[@lutheranchick3044]

Now for a complete trifecta... Pastor Chris Rosebrough should be next.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I’m not familiar! I’ll have to look him up

[@wakeupcall8188]

In whole honesty and humility im asking you if we can call that reformation Like if reformed, something would, should, keep the originality or put back to greatness, truth or the beat once has been But not to reject basically everything and start something new That sounds more like revolution

[@quayscenes]

I tuned in mid-chat... Will definitely go back and take in the whole interview. I appreciate greatly the contextualization of the solas as a response to what was going on in Medieval Theology. I think that when we drill down on what Catholics and Lutherans actually believe on these matters today we are not so far apart. Wonderful episode.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Well said. Glad you enjoyed it!

[@delbertclement2115]

His concept of unity is more Orthodox than Roman Catholic... Bishops are necessary for the unity of the Church in terms of dispute, cooperation and accountability. But we are United by Truth and Spirit. Not purely because of a Bishop “alone”. Again it’s this “alone” principals that are controversial for both sides, Catholic and Protestant. It’s not the Pope or nothing. And it’s not “Sola...” the moment we start reducing our evidences for truth we limit truth which may lead to the reductionist tendency that led to the enlightenment - western phenomena

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing!

[@josuepizarro5721]

I would like to hear Dr Cooper talk more about the differences between Roman Catholic and Protestant views on grace because Lutherans do not view grace as a substance as does Rome.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Catholics do not view grace as a substance

[@billyhw5492]

Have you noticed that whenever people talk about "reunion", one of the parties is always the Catholic Church? I wonder if that means something maybe.

[@robcrewse9943]

Also, I would love to see you interview Jimmy Akin.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I would love to!

[@toddvoss52]

I think this was fair. You have brought on Catholics (and I am one) who naturally simply put forth their faith and make the case for it - I don't see why Dr. Cooper can't do the same. I always appreciate his approach (no shying away from differences or papering them over, but charitably and forthrightly stating them). Of course it doesn't persuade me or I would still be a confessional Lutheran. I agree that it is often vain task to look for precise answers in the early Father's to a precise question they never asked- nor focused on as a robust topic in itself. This can lead to cherry picking on both sides. I will say that I was surprised that with respect to Augustine - he actually did devote a text to Faith and Works called in English Translation "On Faith and Works". Most are not familiar with it because it is not in the readily available online collections at CCEL etc. So here it is not a case of cribbing together his thoughts across many works and many years - it is a text devoted to this topic. Here is a link for those interested. www.amazon.com/Augustine-Faith-Ancient-Christian-Writers/dp/0809104067 If you have a verbum /logos subscription you can also purchase it electronically. And for those wondering, no he didn't critically "correct" it in his late work translated as the "Revisions".

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for this balanced perspective! I actually just got logos 9 yesterday! I'm obsessed. It's like Christmas morning for a Bible nerd. Thanks for the link!

[@diaryofarennaissance1574]

Thanks for doing what your doing id say that all denominations can learn from each other maybe thats why they exist

[@GospelSimplicity]

It's my pleasure!

[@tingowealeans5712]

thanks for anothr great interview man, and ty to Dr Cooper

[@zturners3838]

Thank you for saying Roman isn't only based on works righteousness. From the Roman point of view I would appreciate it if you as a Pastor and as a church worked ok stamping this out from your membership. It really makes any form of unity difficult. I'm sure the same is true on the Roman side which I am working on from my side too. I was raised RC, Lutheran for 12 years and returned to RC in 2011 after really studying the Augsburg Confession. I went to the Lutheran church because I felt it was closer to RCC. But after becoming Lutheran finding out there was LCMS really confused me.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Moving beyond caricatures is a big step on the path toward unity

[@tatogl2616]

well, i guess it was justified by faith alone right? (i know it's a bad pun but somebody needed to make it)

[@GospelSimplicity]

Ha! I thought that same thing when making the thumbnail😂

[@Stormlight1234]

Austin, another great video and another great interview. You have a very natural skill at interviewing and asking pertinent questions that lead to quality discussions. I think you ask an especially great question at 10:08 about "what would Luther think about the state of the Church today with all its denominations?" It seems to me that Luther was already a bit in denial that his ideas lead to the endless fracturing we see in the Church today. For instance, check out when Luther, himself, cautioned against letting individuals create their own theological authority and how it would lead to "as many churches as there were heads". Instead, Luther here (pre-reformation) called for the need for unity under the Pope and his unique authority to protect the Church from heresy and division: “If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many Churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills, in order that all may be assembled in one unity, that His Power be exercised by one man to whom also He commits it. He has, however, made this Power so strong that He looses all the powers of Hell (without injury) against it. He says: The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, as though He said: They will fight against it but never overcome it, so that in this way it is made manifest that this power is in reality from God and not from man. Wherefore whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the Power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, for much better is obedience than the victims of fools who know not what evil they do (Eccles. iv. 17).” - Martin Luther (Sermo in Vincula S. Petri, hence on August 1. ” Werke ” Weim. ed., 1 (1883), p. 69) Somehow, just a few years later and a few years into the reformation, when Luther saw all the chaos that was happening with fighting between Catholics and Protestants, he didn't see it was a result of his teachings that were doing the very things he just cautioned against in the above quote. "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit, and he himself a prophet." - Martin Luther (The Letter of doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp ,1525) Luther saw the division that was happening but didn't see how it was connected to his principle of sola scriptura, even though he was in a way cautioning against it just a few years before. It seems to me that this division is the logical conclusion of sola scriptura. There is no way there will ever be unity in interpreting scriptures if each person is their own authority to accept another person's interpretation or not. Don't get me wrong, I certainly get how sola scriptura sounds correct on a surface level, the idea that God's word is the sole ultimate authority (norma normans - the norm that norms). I would, of course, agree that the Bible is the highest authority we have and should norm all of our theological knowledge. To this point, the Catholic Church agrees too (see Dei Verbum #11). But it is impossible for people to agree what God's Word means if God didn't also give us an interpretive authority. Without that, there will always just be people starting new churches when they decide they disagree over interpretations of certain parts of the Bible. In the end, it seems to me that it was Luther's move to the individual as the ultimate interpretative authority of the Bible (sola scriptura) and his rejection of the authority of the Papacy and the Catholic Church in Matt. 16 that lead to the endless division we see today, stemming from so many different interpretations of the Bible. For anyone interested, check out my series of posts here for more (especially part 3 on sola scriptura): www.follyofthecross.com/category/catholicism/fullness-of-the-truth/

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for the kind words and thorough comment! I really appreciate both of those things. God bless!

[@thisissweeney5494]

solid interview! love Dr. Cooper

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks!

[@BrianJuntunen]

I've heard that well Paul told the Thessalonians to rely on what they had heard him teach and today nobody knows what he taught in person but we do know what he taught on paper.

[@hilarywhite2953]

Not really sure it's very useful to ask a Protestant if the Reformation was justified. Why not ask someone more neutral? You've made the acquaintance of some Orthodox, who are a little bit removed from the yes/no divide between Protestants and Catholics, so they might have more interesting responses. Or ask someone from the Catholic side as balance, someone well versed and with experience on both sides, like Peter Kreeft?

[@GospelSimplicity]

Well I think we all have some bias, but this is actually a question I asked Fr. Josiah Trenham as well. It just didn’t make sense to do that for the whole episode. I’d be open to talking to a Catholic about it as well. I think they’d be just as biased as a Protestant though

[@jeremiahong248]

@@GospelSimplicity Well i can be less biased 😉 As a Catholic convert, I would say the return of Catholics to refocus on bible study definitely came from the pressures of Protestism. Also the refocus on the effects of the HS. These I at least am appreciative of Protestant influence.

[@delbertclement2115]

We certainly all have a bias; how do we try to compensate for this? This is where I think the Buddhist idea of “mere observation” is key. We are not to put any value and any purpose into our research but that of mere observation. What do the primary source documents actually say? This includes Church Fathers, Jewish sources, pagans, and heretics. This can give us the best picture possible as to what Christians believed in the early years of the faith... and only then can we go back to our modern questions and review what positions best mach with those facts we discovered in that research. But we research first merely to understand and not to cast judgement. Secondary sources are important too - there was a Jewish Synogaguge found in Syria containing icons of biblical events. Of course we can’t say what sect they belonged to be we know it to be a Synagogue and a place of worship. All of this a good indicator that iconography was not a thing simply used by the “Catholic Church” but that this was an idea adapted by other religious groups as well. Needless to say such artifacts, and the location by which they were found, shed light on the culture and nature of the time in question... there is sooo much to discuss and research but I don’t think it begins by assuming that which we are already trying to prove. It begins at assuming that all conclusions are irrelevant or false and then we can try to match all the data up and build a narrative. Once this is done we can compare modern narrative to the one organically discovered. I believe this is the only way forward to coming together in Spirit and Truth as Christians...

[@hilarywhite2953]

@@GospelSimplicity I'd certainly recommend getting in touch with Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston College and the author of many books popularising philosophy and of Catholic apologetics who came into the Church from a Calvinist background, I think - and a very nice chap. I don't know how available he is; I think he's been ill lately. But worth a try, one of the most articulate defenders of Christianity in general alive today, often compared to C.S. Lewis as an apologist.

[@wesmorgan7729]

@@hilarywhite2953 I think the main point was to hear the Lutheran (and somewhat Protestant, more broadly) perspective. He's already interviewed Catholic and Orthodox priests.

[@jennifermorton9083]

I am catholic and I am in totally agreement that the blood of Christ should be given as well because that was Jesus's commandment. In England this has become more normal but in France where I live at the moment it is rare. I have discussions on the matter from time to time. I think Pope John Paul II said that there is always blood in the body so one is receiving both if one only recieved the body. However by the time Jesus died I don't think there was much blood left in him. Also Jesus said this is the blood of the covenant poured out for many. The blood which is still in the body is not the blood which has been poured out for many. Personally I feel that the body gives us Jesus's life whereas the blood gives us the grace of making sacrifices. If you look at the story of Fatima (which you don't have to believe in) you will find that Lucie who lived a long time was given the bread by the angel whereas the two younger children were given the chalice. The younger children both died young of spanish flue and offered their sufferings for the conversion of sinners. I don't like it when people find reasons not to obey Jesus's commandments. Maybe this is why we are not very good at making sacrifices.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing all this!

[@alhilford2345]

Jennifer: Although you say that you are Catholic, you are lacking in your Catholic education. The Sacred Host, under the appearance of bread, IS the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Himself. The priest offers the Sacrifice of the Mass, and so must receive both species in order that the Sacrifice may be completed. We, the congregation in attendance, need only the Host in order to receive His Body and Blood. When Our Lord said "Do this in memory of Me..." He was talking to His Apostles, not to the general public. With these words He was ordaining them as priests, and authorizing them to say His words of consecration, by which the bread and wine would be changed into His Body and Blood. I know that many priests offer the Sacred Blood to the congregation, but it is actually one of those abuses that have arisen out of the Novus Ordo Mass.

[@jennifermorton9083]

@@alhilford2345 I realize that Jesus's words at the last supper were for the apostles and not for everyone and that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood for the sacrifice to be complete. However nowhere in the last supper does it say that the bread was the body and blood of Christ. There is also nowhere in the last supper which instructs the apostles to give the bread or the wine or both of neither to the people. From this maybe we shouldn't receive either. However in John ch. 6, 53-56 Jesus says to the Jews in general that to have life in us we must eat His flesh and DRINK His blood. I fail to understand how one can DRINK His blood by eating His flesh. You may believe this change is an abuse of Vatican II but I see it as an improvement. I wasn't catholic until after Vatican II so I don't have any attachment to the Latin mass although I have been to a Latin mass and enjoyed it.

[@nsixvl]

Most but not all of Luther's objections with the Papacy was not present in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wonder what he would have done if he had contact with the Eastern church? I especially wonder how Luther would have viewed good works had he examined Orthodox soteriology? His view of grace wouldn't have been necessary had he separated himself from the substitutionary penal viewpoint he inherited from Rome.

[@j.g.4942]

He also inherited the 'Happy Exchange' or the 'Mystical Union' viewpoint too; sometimes the Eastern Orthodox sound Lutheran, especially in polemics against Calvinists.

[@silenciummortum2193]

Reforms within the Catholic Church? Yes. To start a Protestant branch that Christ did not? No.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for your nuanced approach

[@delbertclement2115]

From the context in which Luther was found - yes, it’s understandable why it happened. Was there a need for correction? Absolutely! Did it perform what it set out to do? Did it Reform the Church (not little “c”)? Or did it create more division than unity? I look forward to this conversation as well! Here’s an interesting thing to dialogue - Metropolitan Kalistos Ware mentions in the introduction of his book “The Orthodox Church” that the first Protestant was the Pope. I think the question that ultimately divides the Church comes down to epistemology- how do we know what the Church is, who Christ is, and everything that is fundamental to the faith? I would say the Bible is fundamental to the faith but it is not the corner stone. It is one of the fundamentals and not the fundamental for it did not fall out of the sky (as Muslims believe the Quran did). John Barton in his book The History of the Bible mentions that the only true religion that can say they are a religion of the book is Islam. We are a religion with a book just like Judaism before us... everything rises and falls on authority... thank you for these dialogues and interviews.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing these thoughts! We go through a lot of those questions you mentioned. I didn't know Ware said that. Trenham says the same thing in Rock and Sand. Hope you enjoy the video when it comes out!

[@delbertclement2115]

@@tatogl2616 There are different degradations of truth and that word “true” means different thinks depending on the context. For example I can call you true in heart which means something quite different from saying what you say is true. As to what I meant in the context above is the following; Islam is the only religion that can honestly claim to be a religion of a book. I did not mean “Islam is the one true religion...” the “of the book” section was intended to clarify that... But this goes to show how complicated language is! And this is why interpretation is a big deal! Just through mere emphasis on certain words over others in my comment above, we demonstrated that we can completely pervert the intent of the writer - albeit it was not done pejoratively or maliciously. It’s not anyone’s fault it’s simply how language and dialogue works. This is why the when we read the Bible we have to be incredibly cautious how we interpret it because it is so easy to read it from our own perspective, irrespective of the way Paul, Peter, John, Luke, or any of its other hosts of writers intended it. We can read the Scriptures alone in whatever manner we do desire. How do we know we are not performing some confirmation bias on our reading of the scriptures? We have to go back to the source of the Scriptures. Of course we believe that to be the Holy Spirit. But how can we know? We have to go back to the 1st century AD and see what the people at that time believed and how they understood the Scriptures as they were being written...

[@saramolina8911]

i don't think the pope was the first protestant, he is a copy of bad behaviour of 1 Corinthians ch1 and 3. People who gave importance to PETER (or paul) at Corinth were indeed the first schimatics. Christians who give importance to which apostle are they with are indeed schismatics. They divide the church.

[@delbertclement2115]

@@saramolina8911 Do you have any primary source doc’s to back up that claim historically? You see if it’s a free for all and it’s completely subjective and there is no way for us to determine who has the Holy Spirit and who is guiding the Church, if we rely on mere arbitrary statements like “I believe this is what the Bible says” or “Well I think we should read this verse in light of that one,” we make “I” the sole determiner of scriptural interpretation. If it’s okay to make one’s own claims about the scriptures irrespective of the apostle who were taught by Christ, literally everything is on the table. That’s mass confusion. And I have no reason to believe at that point the Christian faith was guided by God at all...

[@saramolina8911]

@@delbertclement2115 no disrespect, but you all are driving me insane with this nonsense of saying people are dumb and can't understand a single thing the bible says. You can read 1 Corinthians chp 1 and 3. It's in English, it's well written, it's not prophesy, so I can understand, you can understand. So stop this nonsense of saying 2 peter 1:22 says things it doesn't say. That's just another form of manipulation of bad teachers, Bad bishops who don't want people to read or contradict them. Read 1 Corinthians 1 and 3. It will be unbelievable if you understand a thing different than this. It will be you wanting to fight for no reason. Read it (both chp 1 and chp 3) 1. People at Corinth were arguing 2. Why did they argue? Because for some it was important the apostle they were with and for other it was not important. There former said I'm Peter's, I'm Paul's and the later said well I'm Christ's. 3. Paul rebuked the former and told them apostles and teachers were not important as to be fighting, and said they were dividing the church. Mention Christ and that's it. God bless and forgive me for speaking like this but really this nonsense it's driving me insane. Nobody can't understad nothing they say. It's ridiculous. And as you read chp 1 and 3 Read chp 2 There Paul says people who receives the holy spirit can UNDERSTAND. So if someone says I can't understand and they can. They are telling me, you and everybody, they received the holy spirit and we didn't. God bless

[@octaviosalcedo9239]

Austin thanks for this great video , great questions.

[@GospelSimplicity]

My pleasure!

[@maxonmendel5757]

with this conversation about doctrinal progressivism, what's the cutoff? what makes hyper-charismaticism out of correct doctrine, for example? or are they not out of doctrine, but rather their doctrine is just more "progressive"?

[@redtrainsbrownboots3108]

Great interview! wondering if you could review other theologically oriented guests; idk, someone like Norwegian Nous or maybe even Deacon Joseph Suaiden of the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia and see some deeper points in Theology

[@GospelSimplicity]

I’d be interested in that!

[@redtrainsbrownboots3108]

@@GospelSimplicity That'd be cool! (^^)

[@HoMegasTaxiarches]

Dr. Cooper says that the medieval church led people away from the Gospel. That’s silly. The medieval church did the opposite. It brought baptism and the sacraments, the Gospel and scripture, and liturgical worship to Europe during the medieval period. Many European languages today can trace the origin of their written form to medieval missionaries who created an alphabet to transmit the Bible and liturgy. This is true for Russian, German, and Polish.

[@Mygoalwogel]

The Pope disagrees: "I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct. But in that time, if we read the story of the pastor, a German Lutheran who then converted when he saw reality-he became Catholic-in that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power . . . and this he protested. . . . And today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err. He made a medicine for the Church." --Pope Francis

[@quinataanthony]

Sigh, the TRUTH is that there was an idea that if you received ONLY the Eucharist or the Consecrated wine, you were not receiving Christ in full communion. I have a friend that cannot consume gluten and is only able to partake of the wine, for example, without becoming sick. Can you imagine if she was told otherwise? Just saying.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I don't think he'd disagree that it's ok for exceptions, but I think what he was trying to say is that it had become the norm and shouldn't have.

[@quinataanthony]

@@GospelSimplicity I love you brother, and I truly enjoy your podcasts, but I think your Protestant sensibilities prevented you from challenging many of the statements he was making in this particular interview. Blessings! 😊

[@nicford1486]

Many sacramental Protestants allow for gluten free bread and non alcoholic wine (yes, not grape juice but wine. A lengthy process to replicate).

[@octaviosalcedo9239]

Thank you for this great video.

[@mikelopez8564]

Odd that Dr Cooper never mentions Luther’s denial of free will as cause of his defection from the Church. Luther himself admitted it as THE cause above all others.

[@PaulDo22]

Interesting. The common theme between the Lutherans and Orthodox is saying Rome got it wrong for one reason or another. Yet they can't even agree with each other on what Rome got wrong. That's like 2 physicians disagreeing with a third physician's diagnosis yet unable to agree with each other over their own diagnosis. Since 1054 with the Orthodox and since 1517 for Lutherans the refrain has been: I'm right and you're wrong!

[@GospelSimplicity]

True, but couldn’t one say that Rime has been saying the same thing since 1054?

[@PaulDo22]

@@GospelSimplicity That's the rub. Nobody disputed the Chair of Peter until it fit their theological prerogative to do so. Then they argued backward from what Christians always knew: "the chair of Peter and the principal Church [Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source... whose Faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy [errors or perversion of Faith] to have entrance. - Saint Cyprian - Epistle 59:14

[@saramolina8911]

@@PaulDo22 cyprian is not a good example for Latin catholics to use, cause he indeed thought that of the chair of peter, but he thought it belonged to all bishops, not just Rome. So orthodoxy is way closer to cyprian thinking than the Latin church is. God bless

[@saramolina8911]

@@GospelSimplicity that's right

[@evans3922]

Lutherans were Catholic offsprings that were raised as Catholic... They had been infused in the spirit of false Western theology I mean after the Franks.. So inevitably even though they rejected Pope they were trapped in the same false theology principles as the Catholics.. So it was difficult to unite with the Orthodox although some attempts were made

[@duals-growthofculture2085]

That guy is a bit misleading. Yes, Aquinas used the term faith alone, and you can point to Ambrose talking about that, but they weren't speaking in the same manner or to what Luther meant in the slightest by any honest interpretation of what they wrote.

[@GospelSimplicity]

In fairness, he said that Aquinas, though saying faith alone, didn’t necessarily mean the same thing

[@duals-growthofculture2085]

@@GospelSimplicity Yes, but he first qualified it by establishing that what Luther was saying wasn't unprecedented in Church history, but it was. To say oh it was said before in history when that wasn't what Aquinas was saying is a logical jump in reasoning however you slice it. To preface with "A" and add "not A" as a footnote is dishonest.

[@_DennisNjenga]

oh, you got the OG on? faaantastic

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@_DennisNjenga]

@@GospelSimplicity I really did. May God bless your work. I am an avid protestant follower 😄

[@justinhowell8873]

My dear friend..... I LOVE your podcast!!!! I think ultimately you’re either going to become Roman Catholic OR Eastern Orthodox! Protestant theology utterly fails given the CHURCH that CHRIST founded!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you're enjoying the channel!

[@r.lizarraga693]

Dear Jordan, Come back home. We miss you. Sincerely, Orthodoxy

[@GospelSimplicity]

Haha, I like the way you structured this

[@michellesuggs7921]

Too much division in the church as a whole. Christ is what matters. Follow him and you can't go wrong.

[@wishyouthebest9222]

All Christians claim they do but their actions are irritating, atleast in many cases. Thank God Christ saved us and that there is not anything we have to add for our salvation.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Michelle Suggs, as in, my Aunt Michelle? If so, thanks for watching! Good luck with the move as well! If not, well, still thanks for watching!

[@michellesuggs7921]

@@GospelSimplicity Yes, sir. It is Aunt Michelle. I love your channel. I love how you bring in all these perspectives. Also, I am Lutheran. This one and last week's were especially interesting to me. Keep spreading God's love!

[@englishlearningcenter1470]

Great video!!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks!

[@justinhowell8873]

Every Protestant denomination is its own man-made Church. Every single Reformer established His own church.

[@MortenBendiksen]

There is a lot more unity today than before the reformation. We have to stop seeing everything through normal human lenses. We are now able to talk, respect each other as Christians, etc. Before the reformation, talking would make one end up burned at a stake. The unity was a complete illusion.

[@ronfeledichuk531]

So if Mr. Cooper says that the solas are found in root form in the Father's...then how can Protestants criticize Roman Catholics for the development of the papacy?

[@felixcharles9773]

Because the Papacy, at least concerning the primacy of Rome and Papal Infallibility, developed well after all of the earliest Fathers had died. Catholics will argue that the guidance of the Holy Spirit present through Apostolic succession is enough of justify the development of the Papacy. Protestants disagree, and instead oppose what they see as un-Biblical developments due to political factors in the Western world at the time - the reformation did start as an opposition to Simony in the form of indulgences after all. So Protestants generally hold the view that, if the Fathers had been alive hundreds of years later when the Papacy developed its more extra-Biblical Authority, they would have opposed what it eventually became as well.

[@swenner64]

The big mistake of the protestants was not to go back to the Orthodoxy of the first 1000 years of Church History. They would have found all of their questions answered. The Problem of Authority, and Justification, which was the central issues of reformation. In rejecting the early tradition of the Chruch protestants lost the richness of faith instead we have devolved into rock and roll and a nice talk, certainly would not call it worship. Can you imagine if they had gone to the Russian orthodoxy for Answers, and rediscovered the Orthodox faith that was lost in the west? They could have escaped by just putting themselves under the Orthodox church instead they did more innovations that took them further from the historical church and created the mess that is the protestant church today where anything goes that can be somewhat justified by the bible and every man is his own pope. My worst experience was trying to go back to my Luthern roots since I am German and Swedish thought I would be welcomed a prodigal son coming home. Seeing people so uptight with legalism that they were unwelcoming of new people coming in the door of their churches. One Missouri Senod Church, the pastor when we walked in said sit there and don't do anything. He was so worried that we would violate some rule that he could not be welcoming and we never went back. Another Church where I really liked was was a Wisconsin Senod Church in my area and my wife where we really liked the church and the preaching was very good. So I started going through the process of membership. When I asked the pastor what specifically I had to agree to to be able to be a member of the Church. He flat out refused to give me an answer. He just said we had to agree on the scriptures. I said what scriptures are you concerned about and he still would not answer my question so I told him I can not join a church where I do not know what the boundaries are. I walked away and my Journey has led me to the Orthodox church where I have found welcome and willingness to dialogue and patience in dealing with inquirers. I know you could argue that I just ran into bad churches and pastors but my guesses are that that legalism is rampant in the Luthern Church. If I am going to have to jump through hoops to be able to take communion and participate in the Church why not do it where they have not drifted from what the church of the Fathers. I can read the fathers and look at the orthodox and it is almost identical will not say it's perfect but it's as close as you can get on this side of glory and their Divine liturgy is the closest thing to heaven on earth. My experience has actually made me a Luthern basher even though my Uncle who I immensely respect was a lifelong Missouri Synod pastor. I was unable to come home to the church of my Ancestory. I guess God providential wanted me to go back further and find that I was the 32 Great Grandson of Vladimir the Great of Russian who brought Orthodoxy to the Russian Nation. What do you think?

[@GospelSimplicity]

It is really interesting to think what would have happened if Luther would have aligned himself with the East. He actually did communicate with an Eastern Patriarch, and their letters are extant, but ultimately there was disagreement between them. Fr. Josiah Trenham covers this well in his book Rock and Sand, and we also went over it in our interview together. It's one of the less known parts of the Reformation

[@stevenstuart4194]

The Lutheran theologians reached out to the Eastern Orthodox in the 16th century, thinking they'd be good allies against the mean ol' Pope. The Lutherans wrote to them, described the Lutheran religion, and sought unity. The Eastern Orthodox theologians wrote back and told them, in essence, "Thanks for writing us; we've never heard of your religion; have a good day."

[@Kdriggs15]

You gonna bring any Presbyterians in?

[@GospelSimplicity]

Definitely open to it but none on the calendar. Recommendation?

[@capturedbyannamarie]

@@GospelSimplicityask Matthew Everhard

[@3joez3]

This guy made it so close to the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church has ability to bind and loose, then what are you really disagreeing with? Heaven?

[@brianbannon6746]

John 6:47; 1 John 5:13

[@Gericho49]

Sola Scriptura or Prima scriptura? Is God's Revelation only contained in the written word and ceased when the last book of Revelation was written? In psalm 19 God declares his glory in the heavens. Day after day His speech is poured forth as the earth also reveals "the work of His hands". Night after night it reveals his knowledge and his laws are perfect and trustworthy. His decrees are firm and righteous and radiant for us to behold. Paul adds, For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature have been CLEARLY seen, being understood from what has been made. Those who deny God's existence, his role in Creation as revealed in the beauty, power, precision predictability and laws of the natural world are justly condemned as "people without excuse." Rom 1:18 Einstein called our finite, rationally intelligible, abstract, law-abiding Universe a MIRACLE not a lawless chaos (which atheism would have predicted) Moreover, Galileo observed that abstract mathematics is the language God used to write the universe. Many non believers find inspiration, and God through personal, special and natural revelation. Perhaps even more so as they may struggle to understand Holy Scripture. Conclusion: If there is only one instance of God's special revelation found outside of the bible then scripture ALONE, I suggest, is a false doctrine.! Didn't Luther say the reformation stands and falls if sola Scriptura fails to pass scrutiny?

[@GospelSimplicity]

The idea of sola scriptura isn’t that “Gods revelation is only contained in the written word” but rather that the written word is the sole available infallible authority for faith. Luther even wrote that God writes the gospel in nature. He’s not against general revelation, but scripture is the arbiter of truth claims

[@2000YearsOfTradition]

No.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks

[@MrPeach1]

Everytime someone says ROME I substitute the phrase "the Chair of the blessed Apostle Peter"

[@GospelSimplicity]

That sounds like it would really lengthen your sentences

[@MrPeach1]

@@GospelSimplicity worth it!

[@Mygoalwogel]

Jesus, Paul, and Andrew founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. They say Peter's throne is Antioch, where he was Bishop. Jesus, Stephen, the eunuch, and Mark founded the Oriental Orthodox Church. They say Peter's throne is Alexandria, where his successor, Mark, was Bishop. Thaddeus, Bartholomew and Thomas founded the Church of the East. Each one claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. These claims are as legitimate as yours.

[@MrPeach1]

@@Mygoalwogel pretty sure there isn't much of a presence in modern Antioch. The office of Peter is tied to the office holder not a geographic location. St Andrew wasn't the leader of the Apostles and St Mark wasn't an Apostle.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@MrPeach1 If there isn't much of a presence in Antioch but the office is not tied to a geographic location, then the Patriarch of Antioch has a valid claim by your own admission. St. Mark was Peter's *successor* in Alexandria, and doesn't need to be an apostle any more than Pope Francis does. Finally, the Orthodox have a valid claim against Rome because they excommunicated the Roman bishop.

[@michaelharrington6698]

James 2:24 CSB You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

[@TheDanzman1211]

Dr. Cooper, Plesser define "Truth" Is it my truth or your " truth"?

[@GospelSimplicity]

I imagine he would say neither, rather that truth is objective

[@joekey8464]

@@GospelSimplicity There is only one truth or it is not true....a white is a white is true, it is not grey, blue or red. There is only one true of white. Truth is not relative and is not a matter of "opinion" of any person. There cannot be differentiation in the truthful interpretation of the Scriptures within the Bible because there is only one truth of God, not multiple variations of half-truths and falsehoods - the devil sow confusion

[@hymnsake]

Subbed

[@GospelSimplicity]

Grateful to have you as a part of the community!

[@actsapologist1991]

@21:11 : So... why did Why did the Catholic Church reject Luther's understanding of salvation? Well, it's because Luther's understanding of a "saving faith" was restricted to believing in Christ and trusting in Him for the forgiveness of sins. That sounds like it should be a sufficient description, but it isn't. Let's Imagine this scenario: A person (let’s call him Phil) can trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of his sins while still living a life of terrible, unrepentant iniquity. Phil can say, "I know I'm cheating on my wife, defrauding my employees, and neglecting my elderly parents, but I know Jesus is the savior and He will forgive it all in the end." While the Bible indeed teaches that salvation is a free gift received through faith, it does not teach that our ultimate fate is irrespective of our personal moral actions. The epistles of the New Testament are (as you know) filled with warnings to Christians that certain gravely immoral actions will result in the forfeiture of one's eternal inheritance. Luther's understanding of "saving faith", if adopted, makes those warnings inexplicable. The Church might have been able to tell Phil that he's disastrously wrong, but the adoption of Luther's philosophy deprives her of any ability to explain why. So what was Luther's understanding of "saving faith" missing? It has nothing to do with "works". Rather it is LOVE. The love of God is the final purpose of the Christian life. That’s why Paul says in one place, "If I have faith to move mountains, but not love, I am nothing." And in another place: "What matters is faith working through love." That’s why Luther’s view had to be rejected. Because while he rightly acknowledged that God saves us by enlightening our minds with the gift of faith, he did not adequately grasp that God also saves us by filling our hearts with the gift of love. Correspondingly, we can forfeit salvation through the intellectual misdeed of apostasy - and we can also forfeit it through unrepentant grave sin. And its not that Lutherans are unaware of this issue. Melanchthon brought it up in the apologia for the Ausberg confessions, specifically the Apologia on justification sections 64 and 109. But his response was basically to say the hypothetical scenario described above would never happen. That is, he said that a person who really believes Jesus died for his sins would never use it as an excuse to remain in grave sin. But with all respect to Melanchthon... that's not true. People do that, and the Church needs a systematic response to such people.

[@baybay202]

"Protestantism divorces Christ from His Church, the Church from Scriptures, and the Sacraments from the Faith. Protestants say "All we need is Jesus; we don't need His Church. All we need is the Bible; we don't need His Church. All we need is faith; we don't need the sacraments. But Jesus and His Bride are inseparable. (Ephesians 5:23-32) Without the Church, the scriptures are distorted (2 Peter 3:15-16)." Great quote from @our_sweetness on Instagram.

[@GospelSimplicity]

While that might be true of current Protestants, it’s certainly far from Luther and Calvin. Calvin echoed Cyprian and affirmed “if you don’t have the Church as Mother you can’t have God as Father” and even the famous Latin phrase, “extra ecclesium nula salus” meaning “outside the church there is no salvation”

[@saramolina8911]

When have we said we don't need the church? What are you talking about? We just don't believe the church is your church. But we do need the church, we do need our brothers. We are a community and we help each other. Off course we need the church. We don't need the sacraments? Who told you that? If we don't need them then we wouldn't do them right? Because no-one does useless things. So we baptize people cause it's needed, we have the holy supper cause it's needed. Yes Jesus and his bride are inseparable. That you got it right Without the church scriptures are distorted and you quote 2 peter 3 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen Read the letters of Paul What does Paul say? Paul says that married man can join the seminary but some unlearned men want to lead us to contradict paul, they think they can evolve Paul's doctrine. So what does peter say? Be careful of those unlearned wicked man, don't let those men lead you into error. He says to the common Christian beware of them and masters. Peter doesn't say, don't worry you have me and linus after me, agree with him and you'll be alright. He says the sheep, be alert of bad masters.

[@saramolina8911]

@@baybay202 1. They didnt left they were excommunicated. And persecuted for what? For complaining about indulgences abuses. They were thrown away for being honest. The thing is they were the church not the others. Christ doesnt leave his church. The church are not the bad bishops but the good bishops snd good christians. They didnt left they were excommunicated. How can good bishops help strayed bishops if the strayed excommunicate the good?

[@baybay202]

Austin, this doesnt make sense. They left the Catholic Church and the authority that Jesus gave us. If they truly believed that the Church cant be divorced from Christ then they never would have left. There are many reformers who worked for changed and stayed within the Catholic Church. Christ has One Bride. He wasnt meant to have thousands and thousands of Brides.

[@saramolina8911]

@UCSnXj5QsVtuhX3iBIxtAH4A those reformers you speak of were not excommunicated cause those didnt complained about things that affected economy. Money money. What.did luther do? He wrote 95 statements. About what? Sola fide? Sola scriptura? Against the papacy? Against purgatory? Against mary? No. They were not about that. They were 95 statements about what? About indulgences. they didnt like that. People would not give their money anymore for they relativws to pass from purgatory to heaven. That was a serious matter. So many people before reformers said things reformers said. As justification by faith and not works. Basil, for intance, and nobody talk badly of basil. Basil didnt mess with money, so basil didnt have any problems.

[@carolusaugustussanctorum]

As a Catholic: *_NO_*

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing

[@zarnoffa]

Let me guess: You’re a “Rome Alone” kinda guy?

[@carolusaugustussanctorum]

@@zarnoffa What does “Rome Alone” means ?

[@zarnoffa]

@@carolusaugustussanctorum The idea that Rome Alone is the church.

[@carolusaugustussanctorum]

@@zarnoffa Oh, well I believe that the Catholic Church, for being the only Church that Jesus founded, promised, and makes Himself present, is the only one that saves "Extra Ecclessiam Nulla Sallus". But It's not just the roman one, all the Catholic Churches.

[@mikelopez8564]

The belief that God could command unity unless there are disagreements is incoherent. Paul says as much against factions. So at less than ten minutes into the show Dr Cooper has denied historical and biblical truths. Jesus said He would build His Church on the Rock of Peter, NOT on Martin Luther, the scatologist.

[@DaFooling]

Ok, an EO perspective on the reformation. The heresy of the reformation is the denial of the Body of Christ as physical reality. Imagine calling the Body of Christ an “association”. The heresy of the solas is the changing of salvation from a divine mystery and a charisma from God to a formula for the fallen mind. Their correctness isn’t the question; their formulaic structure is.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I’m not sure what you’re referring to about the body of Christ. Luther and Calvin both affirmed Chalcedon and orthodox Christology. I think they would also say it’s not a formula but an attempt at summarizing (much like the creed is)

[@garyr.8116]

They didn't 'reform' the Church - they walked away from it! Who did Jesus authorize to 'reform' HIS Church? Obedience is a difficult cup to drink from - the only path to humility. Christ obeyed even mans (un)just law/rule - accepted even death judgement. Satan knew (believed in) exactly who Christ is - but will not obey. Follow him, or Christ; your choice.

[@saramolina8911]

That's it, no-one is authorized to reform the church That's why if Paul says married men can join the semminary , then that's the way it has to be from 1st century till Jesus return. And some bishops in 4th century or beyond are not authorize to evolve Paul's teachings and reform the church. So reform the reformed and you will have the original

[@doulos5815]

I mean just look at the fruits of American “ Christianity” lmao

[@BlessedThursday-1901]

No

[@GospelSimplicity]

But you haven't even heard his answer yet :)

[@jgil1966]

😱

[@BlessedThursday-1901]

@@GospelSimplicity lol good point...its all about the authority. Who did jesus give the authority to? It's all point of view untill that question is answered. We are brother's here. But it rest on authority.

[@zarnoffa]

@@BlessedThursday-1901 Not “Rome Alone” and Peter’s still Peter.

[@makikoba]

Yes, for division ...😢 nowadays more than 50 000 differents churches

[@WhiteBraveheart1]

"When you don't subject the tradition to Scripture, to me, it becomes difficult to judge between the tradition and see what is a valid development and what is not." I'd say that's answered in the Bible itself. The Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome decided the canonicity of the Bible -- throwing out books considered to be canonical such as the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas -- eventually including dubious books such as Jude, Revelation, and 2nd Peter. If one has a doubt about Tradition, just look at the Canonicity of the Bible, and how the Holy Spirit guided the Church.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Didn't technically speaking, the Council of Trent do that (if you're Catholic) because those earlier councils were local and not ecumenical?

[@WhiteBraveheart1]

@@GospelSimplicitySure. A lot was definitely ratified at Trent, but that doesn't imply local synods and larger councils before them were not considered official declarations. After all, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was not an ecumenical council but no one would deny it's binding authority upon the Christian faithful. And we know that the Synods of Hippo and Carthage were ratified by Rome. And, I think we'd both agree the Bible didn't put itself together ☺️ God bless you

[@cosmicwatermelon7707]

@@WhiteBraveheart1 For what it's worth, this is why the Lutherans never closed the canon. Lutherans care more about the *use* of the canon, as opposed to how many books it contains. One of the issues, imo, with having the Church be the final authority is that is opens the door to questions like "how many infallible statements have been made by the Catholic Church?" The Magisterium may remove ambiguity from scripture, but then there's a certain ambiguity that arises in Magisterial documents themselves -- a good example is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Food for thought :)

[@nicford1486]

I actually resonate with that quote a lot. For me, the problem of tradition is that it developed over the course of a thousand years plus. I understand sometimes things are not in question at a time, and then they get brought up and resolved and become tradition, but I'm not sure how far down the road a tradition developes somewhere that becomes widespread, and it is not like what was going on before. So I like so.e of the traditions, but there are some, to me, that seem to go against scripture. The tradition should be in line with it because they should act like a mirror to each other.

[@baybay202]

The reformation divided and therefore weakened the Body of Christ. It also lead to millions of Christians being denied the sacraments. "My prayer is that all of them may be One." --Jesus. Jesus wants us to be united as Christians and He gave us the Catholic Church in order for this to happen.