Reformed and Lutheran Views of Assurance Contrasted

[@jimmyking8074]

Keep doing what you're doing mate, I'm Reformed but have been taking a good look at Lutheranism. I really appreciate your thoughts!

[@Liminalplace1]

Reformed from what?? I went to a Reformed school and realised many of my friends didnot know Jesus.

[@SaintsEdified]

@@Liminalplace1 They didn't know Jesus...or they simply disagreed with you? There's a difference.

[@Liminalplace1]

@@SaintsEdified No.. they didnt have a personal relationship with Jesus. Thats eternal life.

[@Liminalplace1]

@@eduds6 "(heterdox non-biblical practises)" . I can see you are entrapped in the "heresy hunting" obsession that is a product of internet viewing.That "obession" is dealt with on this channel... keep viewing more videos. A relationship with God as Father and with Jesus is eternal life. Martin Luther discovered that relationship by faith alone. He didn't have it prior. Find life in Jesus.

[@Liminalplace1]

@@eduds6 heresy was defined clearly in the historical creeds and heterodoxy is following those beliefs. The gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15 and sermons in book of Acts, and a few parts of Paul's letters. It's the good news about Jesus. So whatever you think is the gospel is something else. I exhort you to keep watching many of Dr.Coopers excellent videos. I pray that the eyes of your heart are opened to the true loving God of grace and faith and blessed assurance.

[@flashhog01]

Pastor Cooper you are 100% spot on speaking about McArthur and Washer. When I was following them and struggled with assurance having a terrified conscience before a holy God they offered nothing but doubt and cast me back upon my works. I had no choice but to conclude I was not of the elect and was one of the people you mentioned that walked away from the faith. Praise God I heard the gospel proclaimed by a Lutheran minister and am no longer trapped in such a hopeless and gospel-less theology.

[@silversurfer2703]

Just curious I'm not sure if I am understanding correctly. When a baby is baptized at that point they are saved? And as they grow up if they continue to go to church and take part in the Lord's supper and hear the word of God preached that they stay saved?

[@Liminalplace1]

@@silversurfer2703 No.. repentence is daily and faith is continual. One is saved at the cross but being saved as they continue in faith. "Saved" isnt a past event..but a state we enter by grace. Its not just going to church and taking Eucarist. Salvation can be forfeited. Thats how i understand Luther's view (speaking as an charismatic Anglican )

[@allisvanity...9161]

@@Liminalplace1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6bWmGZ9pdtmoMU

[@Liminalplace1]

@@allisvanity...9161 yes ive seen that video. i agree on objective grounds for assurance.

[@cassdev6745]

That’s where I’m at now! Thank you for your comment

[@fakenews3282]

Jordan, about 5 years ago, I stumbled onto your critique of Paul Washer's preparationism and dear brother it has impacted my life for the greater. I'm so thankful for your testimony, which is similar to mine and can't thank you enough for your labor in this area of theology. God is good to us!

[@DrJordanBCooper]

That's really encouraging. Thanks!

[@JoshuaMNielsen]

Where can I find that? Was it a video? An article?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

@@JoshuaMNielsen justandsinner.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-critique-of-theology-of-paul-washer.html?m=1

[@1kings18apologetics6]

When I was a professing Reformed Christian I saw the same inconsistency in the preparationism mentality, going all the way back to the Puritans. When I brought it up to my pastor and influential men in my church I got some very discouraging squinted eyes and raised eyebrows. There was such a heavy emphasis in my church on repentance and life transformation as precursors to having any assurance that my cognitive dissonance eventually reached a point where I left the faith altogether. Just to clarify how much repentance was emphasized, the "repent" portion of "repent and believe" was stressed at least 10:1 versus "believe" in all preaching and teaching.

[@michaelstanley4698]

@@1kings18apologetics6 Repentance is divine grace and forgiveness its fruit. God owes no one 'space to repent', and yet He offers, commands, and encourages men to receive His grace, mercy extended to hell-deserving sinners! And yet 'repentance' is graciously granted, 'repentance unto life', 'repentance unto salvation' which is enjoined to faith by Christ!!!! Amazing grace, which many proud hearts despise...to their peril. All believers continue repenting and believing, else they grow 'lukewarm' and spued out of His kingdom! Grace generates thankfulness in a 'true heart'.

[@1920s]

I’ve been introspecting for the past 3 months and I’ve actually told people that I wanted to give up. I’ve been teetering on the edge of sanity some days. I’m thankful to have found your videos. Especially your breakdown of Paul Washer. Keep up the good work.

[@radarashwood5397]

I come from a Reformed background and the work of the Presbyterian theologian John Robbins from the Trinity Foundation really set me straight on this issue. When you start looking to your own works and your own affections to be saved then you inevitably start doing works in order to have assurance, then we're right back at works righteousness. The Westminster Confession of Faith states that good works are the FRUIT of assurance, not the root of assurance.

[@realbradautry]

But it is also the direction that the Westminster Divines point us towards.

[@matthewodonnell6495]

Thats a great clarification! I have gotten stuck in doing good works to feel better about my salvation, and I have also been a big Paul Washer listener. I still believe Washer means well and doesn't believe we are saved by works, but his preaching can cause that for sure.

[@jeremybamgbade]

@@realbradautry How so? An assertion is not an argument

[@realbradautry]

@@jeremybamgbade because I am not seeking to make an argument. I am asserting. The Westminster Standards makes assurance to be primarily & instrumentally internal.

[@jeremybamgbade]

@@realbradautry chapter 18 of the confession deals with assurance. Can you quote the sections of the chapter that teach that assurance is **primarily** and **instrumentally** (whatever that means) internal? Because nothing in the confession, so far as I understand it, inculcates what you allege it does

[@thecassase79]

Man I glad you did this video. Reformed theology really created a legalistic Christianity that actually sent me to the hospital due to extreme introspection. You hit the nail on the head. It took many years to heal from this and I’m still dealing with it once in a while. as a wels Luthern I love Luthern teachings and theology. It cools the conscience like a cold fresh drink of spring water.

[@dv4740]

Well I just got started reading the puritans and I must say that their theology did not hurt me. Since I understood the doctrines of grace my life starts changing, and I know I am save in his hands. Reformed theology is biblical theology but we must protect ourselves from a lot of heresy which entered Calvinism like hypercalvinism or the questioning of election. Joseph Alleine said if you came to the understanding that god did a miraculous thing in your life and you know that there are fruits of honest repentance : Never doubt your election. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God..." 1. John 5,1

[@dubbelkastrull]

​@@dv4740 So your assurance depends on your fruit... that's bad

[@dv4740]

@@dubbelkastrull That's right. I changed my mind reading Luther's Commentary on Galatians. Only in Christ and in his blood I can find peace not in "my holiness"

[@dubbelkastrull]

@@dv4740 kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHqZZXiIabWep6Mfeature=shared

[@oracleoftroy]

@@dubbelkastrull _"So your assurance depends on your fruit... that's bad"_ I agree, that is bad... It's also not Reformed. Our assurance is based on the fruit of God's work in us. It is the fruit of _the Spirit_ after all, not the fruit of man. We can see that in the promises given in baptism, so I don't disagree with the Lutheran stance, but it is a bit indirect and I'd rather point directly at what those promises are than add an indirection.

[@clockmaster8104]

Paul Washer and Macarthur’s sermons almost completely destroyed my faith. Thank you Pr Cooper.

[@mr.starfish4965]

Agreed to that.

[@wesleybasener9705]

I love Luther on this issue. His article on the sacrement of the alter in his large catachism was one of the most profound things I've ever read. Thanks for helping to introduce me to his theology Dr. Cooper!

[@EricBryant]

Yep. 19:00: I've not only seen Christians leave the faith due to the torment and uncertainty of "Is God going to save me?" Not only have I seen it, I've experienced it firsthand. In the Eastern Orthodox system, there really is no assurance of salvation. However, if any assurance is to be found in the Eastern system, they say it springs from the character of God as loving and humble. We can have assurance that God's judgments are always right and good, regardless of where we individually end up. Although the East is also less occupied with "where we end up" (i.e., "going to heaven") and more with Theosis or union and deification. Strange to me that EO aren't all universalists like David Bentley Hart. When I synthesize all the views and scriptures on assurance, my personal conclusion is in agreement with Lutheran position: my baptism mixed with faith is objective fact that I am in Christ and He is in me. The Baptismal rite is the certificate of justification and "washing of regeneration," (Titus 3:5). I personally think our God is so loving and merciful that one really would just have to reject all His grace in a blasphemous way, consistently and proudly, or fall into grave sin to the point where he loses his faith, to lose one's salvation. I don't see our God as a cruel dictator stomping around in heaven looking for someone to condemn. Rather, our God seems to me to be always looking for loopholes and ways to set aside His own rules and even His own logic and ontology to rescue us! My belief is one would have to really try to wind up in Hell. It's not a place anyone winds up by accident.

[@BibleLosophR]

As a Calvinist, I would like to know how 2 Cor. 13:5ff. and Heb. 12:14 can make sense given the Lutheran understanding of assurance. The verses say: //5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?---unless indeed you fail to meet the test! 6 I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test. 7 But we pray to God that you may not do wrong---not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed. // Heb. 12:14 says: Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. If Lutheranism were true, wouldn't Paul's original audience just have to look to their baptism? Wouldn't there be no point in the author of Hebrews to enjoin his readers to pursue/strive for holiness because without it no one would see the Lord?

[@romasliv]

I have same questions

[@JS_Guitar09]

I think we can say the holiness spoken of in Hebrews is the holiness that is Christ's, given to us in the sacraments by grace. All over the Bible, we see that when we have faith, God looks upon Jesus' righteousness as if it is our own. We strive to be conformed to the image of Christ, that the Father will look on us and see Christ's holiness; not our own failures. Jesus assures people that "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:16.)

[@chaddonal4331]

@@JS_Guitar09I have a related question/hangup: How does Lutheranism escape the same kind of necessary subjectivity as Baptists and Reformed people? To the Lutheran, baptism “regenerates”; but usually this means it is an act by the parents for the child. The baptized child still requires personal faith sometime during life to be justified. (And maintain it to not lose it). So, then you can have unjustified regenerated people! Not terribly different from Covenant Community participants who aren’t elect! So, one’s faith is still required for”salvation”. Lutherans seem to require 2 actions: baptism + faith; one alone isn’t sufficient. But faith remains subjective: how does one know they have true saving faith? And we are directly back with Calvin’s conundrum of needing to affirm subjectively when someone has the right kind of faith or enough of it! What’s the actual difference? What am I missing?

[@JS_Guitar09]

@@chaddonal4331 The difference is this: 1. Baptism is always effective. There is no wondering "did my baptism work? Am I elect?" like the Reformed will have you ask. 2. Infants can have faith. The baptism creates this faith, and the word and Communion continue to assist this faith. They are the means of grace God uses to grant perseverance. 3. We don't look for "eternal security" like the Reformed and Baptists do. If we are saved now, that is all that matters. We do not plan nor expect to depart from the faith, and we should not be troubled about this. Salvation can be lost by apostasy. 4. The difference about faith in Baptist vs Lutheran views of assurance is that Lutheranism gives you something to have faith in. Baptists will wonder if they truly have faith, and try to look to their own works to prove it. They will wonder if they have ever lost their faith. Lutherans don't have to wonder if they have faith. If you believe you are saved because of your baptism, you are. Sacraments give us an objective, unchanging promise that we can have unquestionable faith in.

[@realbradautry]

Update: I am definitely returning to my Lutheran home. Thank you Dr. Cooper for your ministry. It’s the matter of sacramental efficacy that unraveled the reformed faith for me. I feel free.

[@bphifer]

To Paul Washers credit I have heard him encourage a man who felt like he wouldn’t measure up. Paul Washer said his actions and efforts and discipline were greater than his own because he was putting to much pressure on himself.

[@Liminalplace1]

Thanks for that.. ive been a charismatic Anglican evangelist for years and never realised i held a Lutheran view on assurance. Ive preached against the extreme Calvinist view "fruit inspector" approach but your talk gave me a historical context.

[@ponscremator9536]

Catholic here: despite our theological differences, I really appreciate the clarity and depth of your analyses. Very interesting to explore soteriology from a Protestant standpoint!

[@shana8055]

I totally agree with you about Catholicism being more on-point than the John MacArthur types. When we were wrestling with leaving our Reformed upbringing, I found myself saying “Limited Atonement is 100 times worse and less scriptural than praying to saints”. I am so thankful to now be free from a tradition that told me that Jesus didn’t die for the whole world, that I couldn’t be sure of my salvation, and that people in Hell were there to satisfy God’s desire for wrath. We’re becoming members of an LCMS Lutheran church in just a few weeks, and I have so much PEACE now. ❤️

[@ihiohoh2708]

The Lutheran church is a great church, but just so you know John MacArthur doesn't represent Reformed theology at all. He's someone who endorses lordship salvation and is a dispensationalist. Baptists are not people to listen to for the Reformed view. Reformed theology is very much built around an assurance of salvation.

[@taylorbarrett384]

Also, I am not a Calvinist, but Calvin does provide a way for people to know they don't have false faith, and he doesn't base it on an analysis of one's own works. He says those with real faith have receive a sense of absolute assurance that those with false faith never receive. Therefore, in Calvin's view, true faith can be known when when one senses absolute assurance.

[@FatPankakes101]

So if you’re sure of your salvation, that’s a sign that you can be sure of your salvation.

[@billmartin3561]

Makes no sense. Faith is a choice, you choose to believe or choose not to believe. If you choose to believe, you have faith. If you change your mind, you lose your faith, and your salvation. Eternal Security is nonsense.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

I am actually reading what Calvin wrote in the Institutes. He presents as the central point not the observance of someone's fruits, but a change in the Heart (in the will). It is a person who actually wants, with simplicity and sincerity, to obey God. And for this, God gave us Christ himself as a model. He then speaks, yes, that the believer should expect progressiveness in the ability to obey God and bear good fruit, but he makes it very clear that perfection cannot be achieved nor really expected by the Church. What the Church should expect is sincerity and integrity (a change of Heart). This is simply what the Bible tells us.

[@taylorbarrett384]

@@pedroguimaraes6094 He might say something to that effect but I specifically remember him saying that assurance is possible because one has a divine infusion of grace which makes the person absolutely assured. If Calvin based assurance on our discernment of our own sincerity, then he would be Catholic in that regard. Which wouldnt be bad. I'm Catholic. But I just dont think you are reading everything Calvin has said on that topic.

[@taylorbarrett384]

@@jeremybamgbade I don't understand your response. Do you think you are disagreeing with something I said? If so, what?

[@LilacDaisy2]

13:00 - I have just read J Mac's book "Saved Without a Doubt," and the checklist is actually what the book is pretty much about. I have a few things that I can't check-off confidently, so I'm working on them (loving the church more by becoming involved, helping out where I'm talented (baking), and looking for opportunities to share my faith more). It is confusing, knowing I can do nothing to earn salvation, yet I also just read Matt chapter 25. I feel I am the servant who buried his master's silver, and I'm desperately digging it up, looking for how to invest it before he returns! The sheep and the goats are separated because of what they did for one another, and I know I don't do enough. But Jesus did it all -- I can not earn His favour. It is confusing.

[@michaelstanley4698]

John Calvin explains it thoroughly in his commentary on Acts 17:26-30...that God 'offers Himself in the gospel' to all men (meaning that T.Beza seems to have misrepresented J.Calvin, maybe to have a more logical systematic 'assurance' for faith).

[@dayperthedisciple]

Music to my ears 🙌

[@godtriunealonematters9207]

with respect, the "means of grace" doctrine taught in lutheranism will always keep me reformed because it sounds like i'm doing something to "receive" grace and that im not saved by grace alone WITHOUT having to 'DO' something, thereby contradicting romans 11:6.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Colossians 2:12 Christ was buried. You were buried with Christ *in water baptism.* God raised Christ from the dead. You believe God raised Christ from the dead. Therefore, God raised you with Christ *in baptism.* This is all *God’s powerful work.*

[@godtriunealonematters9207]

@@Mygoalwogel i hear what you're saying from that beautiful romans 6 passage but i still don't believe i "do" it to "receive grace" --romans 11:6

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@godtriunealonematters9207 Precisely. God does it to you. Baptism is God's work, not your work.

[@godtriunealonematters9207]

@@Mygoalwogel i KNOW that, of course it would be. so whats your take on romans 11 6

[@Mygoalwogel]

Rom 11:6 teaches that Grace doesn't depend on works of man. Grace is the work of God. Baptism is the work of God, not of man.

[@Alex27011969]

Thank you, Dr. Cooper!

[@bphifer]

How do you handle the scripture regarding being dead in our trespasses and sin? I’m genuinely asking. Reformed teachers will point out that dead men cannot make moves and we are incapable of making the choice outside of God intervening.

[@isaiahnieto7615]

Ive never heard this perspective before. Dr. Cooper, Thank you for doing this study. Super insightful AND HELPFUL. *Is there a book out there that focuses on the Lutheran view of assurance, as you've explained it here in this video?

[@daric_]

26:00 I came from a 1689 Baptist background (originally Mormon, but converted 7 years ago), and they see a "means of grace" more as something that confirms and increases your faith and assurance, and maybe even something that the Spirit uses in sanctification, not something that conveys grace the same way that a Lutheran or Catholic would see it. If you don't already have saving faith, the sacraments (though they more frequently call them "ordinances") do nothing. Though some 1689 Baptists don't really talk this way and sound more like typical Southern Baptists where baptism is only a profession of faith and the Lord's supper is only to remember Jesus, but doesn't do much (or anything) to you. These people are more ignorant of the historic London Baptists' views on the ordinances, many of them coming from standard Baptist or evangelical backgrounds, and are more like Baptists with TULIP slapped on. I mention this because they don't represent all 1689 Baptists, but they exist and are not as rare as you'd think.

[@pjwg]

That’s a very interesting point about Calvinist asking that question about “wanting to go to hell.” I actually just did a video on my channel based on a portion of Luther’s Romans commentary where he talks about that exact idea, and basically it appears that this is an application of the law: that to be perfect is in fact to desire to suffer hell of it was God’s will… that is the perfection demanded of the law. Meanwhile Christ did prefer to go to suffer for us, fulfilling all righteousness of the law. Thanks be to God.

[@Jondoe_04]

1 John was literally written so that you have assurance of salvation (1 John 5:10-13 I add the prior verses so you know where your assurance rest in). So Paul Washer when he walks anyone through this normally goes through 1 John and sometimes if they still doubt he strongly encourage them to commit a gross sin, why because when they naturally say no he ask why not after all eat drink cause tomorrow you die, they normally say I can't, he asks why, and almost universal if they are of God (because 1 John also talks about those who are His will remain in Him 1 John 2:19) because I fear Him. And when they say that they realize I am saved because God has put His fear into man in his fallen state cares nothing about God.

[@christiancurcio2576]

I just listened to the full podcast that this video was part of. Since you didn’t post the full podcast on KZbin I wasn’t sure where to ask this question. But I’ll post it here anyway. In part of your podcast you mentioned the place of self examination and basically stated that first John wasn’t written so that we might know that we truly believe. That it wasn’t giving tests to see if our lives match up with what John says a true Christian will. But this is exactly what John states in first John chapter 5 verse 13 “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” what things did John write in his first epistle that those who read it would be able to determine if they had truly believed?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Good question. I can delve into this further in another podcast.

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

Where can I find the full podcast?

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

Found it!

[@beowulf.reborn]

The thing that you are missing in Paul Washer and John MacArthur's theology, is that if you examine yourself, and see that your fruit is bad, then you flee to Christ in repentance and faith. And that is where your assurance is. It constantly points you back to Christ. As Paul Washer teaches, the more you progress in Sanctification the more you'll start to see how sinful you are, and the more it will drive you to the Cross. The Cross is your assurance, but it must be a real assurance. One that is reflected in Sanctification, and Ongoing Repentance. It's not like you reach a point where you look at your works and go, "Job done." and dust off your hands, with a satisfied grin on your face. No. You may examine yourself and see the fruit of the Spirit growing in your life, and praise God for that, but again, you'll still see the flaws, and that will drive you ever back to the Cross, ever back to the true font, that alone can wash away our sins. And the whole time, you must confess and believe, that He who began a good work in you, will complete it. That is assurance. EDIT: That being said, I hold to Unlimited Atonement, and to the Biblical position that a person can truly Apostatize, by hardening their heart and willfully returning to their sin, and refusing to repent. So I should add, that as Dr. Cooper said, the biggest source (and foundation of our Assurance) is understanding the extent of the Atonement, and knowing that the universal desire of the Father is that all will be saved, and that the intent of the Father in sending the Son and the Spirit is that all would be saved; and that the universal intent of the Son on the cross was to die for the sins of all people; and that it is the intent of the Holy Spirit that He apply this salvation to all people. Therefore, knowing that God is for us, who can be against us? Trust in Christ, and you will be saved.

[@mosesking2923]

Except, your statement about self examination is flawed since even repentance and faith can be false. Pharaoh’s repentance in Exodus was clearly faithless. At the end of the day, whether you find good fruits in your life or bad fruits in your life, it ultimately comes down to your own motivations. Are your works done for God’s glory or your own glory? The problem is that basing assurance on examination of ones own motives is subjective and prone to error and bias. That being said, I’m not entirely convinced by Jordan’s answer on Baptism and Communion as an objective basis for salvation either.

[@koriclaypool9548]

I have never heard washer say you must look inside for assurance

[@cjfoster4179]

Just a little confused. How can God have the intent of saving everybody with sending his Son knowing that everyone is not going to be saved? Ironically, though I don’t understand this area, I do understand the universal grace concept (may not agree though) but still presented well.

[@anthonybutler6123]

Respectfully, do you not think that you are being unfair to Calvin with regard to the Trinity? I think that you have misread Calvin's understanding of the autotheism of Christ, especially when he does explicitly say in the Institutes that: "The Scriptures teach that there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten; but inasmuch as the Father is first in order, and of himself begat his own Wisdom, he, as we lately observed, is justly regarded as the principle and fountain of all the Godhead" (Institutes 1.13.25). and "Although the essence does not contribute to the distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not without it, or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God, could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God. We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, REGARDED AS GOD [my emphasis], and without reference to person, is also of himself; THOUGH WE ALSO SAY THAT, REGARDED AS SON, he is of the Father. Thus his ESSENCE is without beginning, WHILE HIS PERSON HAS ITS BEGINNING IN GOD. And, indeed, the orthodox writers who in former times spoke of the Trinity, used this term ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE PERSONS." (same place). I think that your statement is a misrepresentation of Calvin's own position which he lays out quite extensively in the institutes. Calvin AFFIRMS the eternal generation of the Son, he states in many places in Book 1 Chapter 13 that the son has his person from the Father. He even quotes Athanasius in defense of this, and though I know that John Murray may have asserted otherwise, a fair reading of Calvin sets it as being congruent with church tradition before it. So, you don't have to totally agree with Calvin, but misrepresenting is not helpful.

[@jeremybamgbade]

@@anthonybutler6123 I love Jordan but he is terrible when engaging with Reformed thought. It's almost unbecoming for a man of his intellectual prowess. His disdain for reformed theology prevents him from dealing with it fairly. He doesn't do this with critiques of Roman Catholicism so it bewilders me that he is so unfair in representing reformed views

[@MortenBendiksen]

Well, as long as they baptise in the triune name and partake in the the Lord's Supper, aren't they saved by His sacrifice just like the rest of us? Or does it require something special in their hearts for the sacraments to work? If so, what does it take, and how do you know when you have it?

[@Mygoalwogel]

The scary thing is that it is objectively effective whether they believe it or not. "For just as when the richest and most mighty emperor would bid a poor beggar ask whatever he might desire, and were ready to give great imperial presents, and the fool would beg only for a dish of gruel, he would be rightly considered a rogue and a scoundrel, who treated the command of his imperial majesty as a jest and sport, and was not worthy of coming into his presence: so also it is a great reproach and dishonor to God if we, to whom He offers and pledges so many unspeakable treasures, despise the same, or have not the confidence to receive them, but scarcely venture to pray for a piece of bread." "Whoever now accepts these words, and believes that what they declare is true, has it. But whoever does not believe it has nothing, as he allows it to be offered to him in vain, and refuses to enjoy such a saving good. The treasure, indeed, is opened and placed at every one's door, yea, upon his table, but it is necessary that you also claim it, and confidently view it as the words suggest to you 36] This, now, is the entire Christian preparation for receiving this Sacrament worthily." "Some pretend that it is a matter of liberty and not necessary, and that it is sufficient to believe without it; and thus for the most part they go so far that they become quite brutish, and finally despise both the Sacrament and the Word of God." "To be sure, it is true that those who despise it and live in an unchristian manner receive it to their hurt and damnation; for nothing shall be good or wholesome to them, just as with a sick person who from caprice eats and drinks what is forbidden him by the physician. 70] But those who are sensible of their weakness, desire to be rid of it and long for help, should regard and use it only as a precious antidote against the poison which they have in them. For here in the Sacrament you are to receive from the lips of Christ forgiveness of sin, which contains and brings with it the grace of God and the Spirit with all His gifts, protection, shelter, and power against death and the devil and all misfortune." --Luther's Large Catechism bookofconcord.org/lc-7-sacrament.php

[@MortenBendiksen]

@@Mygoalwogel Thank you. That is certainly something to chew on. I am still wondering though, whether I am actually approaching the sacrament with the right heart and mind, and how I can know that my mindset is right. If I can do it wrong, that kind of takes away from my assurance. Is it even possible to do right? It seems one requires the grace bestowed upon us in the sacrament, before one can receive that grace correctly. I am probably misunderstanding something important and obvious here. Where is the line between correct and incorrect receiving?

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@MortenBendiksen I see. I should have read your first post with better care. Your questioning of yourself is already evidence of the Spirit abiding in you. If you genuinely can't determine it for yourself (and sometimes I mess up so badly during the week that I feel like that), arrange for private confession. It's surprisingly not awkward, and has a way of uncovering those subtle, secret, habitual sins that make me question my faith in the first place. _Who , then, receives such Sacrament worthily?_ Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: _Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins._ bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php "We must never regard the Sacrament as something injurious from which we had better flee, but as a pure, wholesome, comforting remedy imparting salvation and comfort, which will cure you and give you life both in soul and body. For where the soul has recovered, the body also is relieved. Why, then, is it that we act as if it were a poison, the eating of which would bring death?" "But those who are sensible of their weakness, desire to be rid of it and long for help, should regard and use it as a precious antidote against the poison which they have in them."

[@MarkGoddard1973]

Thanks for the answer. Makes the differences clear. Hope to cross paths again sometime.

[@scottgraybill8874]

I listened to this once again after some time. I do find a bit of ambivalence and a quickly glossed over issue which in the end lands the Lutheran not too far away from the dilemma than what is said for Reformed. By stating that the Lutheran God works through universal grace that can be resisted by human effort then I can never have assurance that i won't one day rise up and ultimately resist grace.

[@ruthdelin2324]

This doubtfulness that we often feel or have doesn’t change the fact that Christ died for all and has redeemed all. Because we were dead in trespasses and sin we cannot chose anything. Christ chooses us. We can only accept this gift of forgiveness life and salvation in the power of the Holy Spirit. Our baptism waters the seed of faith (we are also marked as Christ’s children in baptism) and the food feeds that faith in the Lord’s Supper and reassures us of our forgiveness, life and salvation. We also can only do good works through the power of the Holy Spirit. Bottom line I’m not doing the work of salvation The Godhead is doing the work of salvation. And because the Lord says this it is so I can trust it even when my emotions don’t match. That’s why I fervently pray “Lord, I believe, help Thou my unbelief”. That’s how I can be assured that I’m saved. My works just confirm that I trust in Christ as my Savior.

[@RansomedSoulPsalm49-15]

I’m still kind of confused with your argument. Okay, we have assurance through the outward things that God has done for us (the sacraments) rather than inwardly looking to ourselves. Understood, but how does that grant us more assurance if there are some people who were baptized and were partakers of The Supper who still do not end up being saved? Am I missing something? Thanks

[@James-v1o]

MacArthur book "The Gospel According to Jesus" sent me into a tail spin because I didn't feel I was fully submitted to Christ's Lordship and wondered if I was a Christian. It was CFW Walther's book "The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel" that pulled me out of it.

[@bkr_418]

Really like this video, thank you. Could you make or have you made a similar video On Arminianism?

[@ElhuSCIENCE]

Very interesting video Dr. Cooper. Unfortunately not very convincing for me at least, since I don't see the link in the scriptures of assurance and the sacraments. And Paul Washer, when he speaks so harshly about assurance and true faith, is usually in the context of people who have an extremely low view of the Christian walk and basically do whatever they want, and yes those people could probably point to the sacraments and say that they were baptized, they go to church and partake in the Lord's supper. For me it was extremely helpful when I was a baptized, church going nominal Christian.

[@AnonymousTheonomist]

Genuine question: what passages would you use to show that baptism & the lord's supper are intended to provide assurance of saving faith (i.e. salvation)? It seems that's precisely the question 1 John is intended to answer ("how do you 'know' that you have 'come to know' Him?"), and John does so by pointing to various things (do you love God, keep his commandments, love your brother, have the inward testimony of the Spirit, etc). I don't see John pointing to the sacraments for assurance, which, to me, significantly weakens the Lutheran's argument here. Thanks for the video!

[@mosesking2923]

I’m assuming Jordan B Peterson would make the argument that (according to 1 John) Reformed assurance would be based on a self examination of one’s own life and motives. The problem is A. Good works can be done outside of Christ and therefore one would be forced to examine ones own motivations B. Examine ones own motives to seek assurance is subjective and therefore subject to bias and error However, I’m not sure I find Dr. Peterson’s explanation of the objectivity of sacraments to be convincing either.

[@mosesking2923]

To answer your question specifically, I’d point to John 6:54 “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” to show that there is an objective reality to salvation in the Eucharist.

[@bigniftydude]

​@@mosesking2923that's jordan cooper not peterson

[@ninjason57]

If there's one thing Paul washer helped me with was getting serious about my relationship with God. I was a very apathetic nominal Christian. He really hammers in on true repentance because of what Christ did for us. I've listened to probably over 100 hours worth of his sermons and lectures and I honestly didn't know he was Calvinist until someone told me. I don't think I can recall one specific time that he spoke about predestined election for salvation. If someone can give me an example I'd like to see it.

[@EmanPwns]

Brother Cooper, i love this video. However, you were critiquing Calvinism Dispensationalism.... but not reformed theology. Reformed Theology does not teach what Washer or MacArthur teaches. In Reformed Theology, the object is Christ Alone. Faith is simply understanding, believing, and assent. Asking the question "how do I know I am saved" or "how do I know I am the elect?". We emphasize not our works but our faith in Christ. We believe in the 3 fold division of faith (understanding, assent, and believing). I dont point to their work but the gospel. In other words, do you believe the gospel its for you, do you understand the gospel, do you agree with gospel? I think your issue is that you are forgetting or avoiding the other doctrine of Reformed Theology which is that faith is a gift. The means of Grace are landmarks to assure us and to point us to the gospel.

[@Ethan_Click]

Amen brother, well said! One thing I wish to point out is that it is actually “notitia, assensus, fiducia” which is a knowledge of the object, an assent to believing the object as true, and a trust in that object as fully sufficient to carry out its purpose. In the Christians case, this object is the Lord Jesus Christ who is fully sufficient for our salvation. You probably already knew that, but I just wanted to clarify the language since we believe it is so important. Love you brother

[@dv4740]

And also the doctrine of grace made me get a true assurance of being saved. I finally understood that I am not dependent of my strength to "must" believe but god provides. And then I had peace and a thankful heart. Since then the passion for god increased greatly also by reading the puritans.

[@anthonypassalacqua3330]

Thanks for bringing us up to date on Martin Luther's understanding of assurance. I am neither a Lutheran or Presbyterian so the question I have is, has God called us to metaphysics or simple faith in the words of Christ. The greatest Objectivity we could have is the scriptures themselves it is the "More sure word of prophecy" according to Peter. Latching on to scripture and simply believing them is better than the lord's supper or water baptism. Paul expressed the fear that many might be "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." Truth is objectivity can be just as misleading as subjectivity. Scripture says, "Faith comes by hearing, (not by sacraments) and hearing by the word of God. The problem with most of us is knowledge itself. The more knowledge we accumulate the more our conscience is quick to remind us of our increased accountability. I suppose this is why James warns us not to be many teachers for he says,"We shall receive the greater condemnation." I guess you could say that increased knowledge should produce increased acts of duty. In other words the fruits of the Spirit worked out in action. When this is not the result all we can expect is inner turmoil, self contradiction and recriminations. If Christianity only existed in faith and knowledge it would be less troubling for our conscience, but alas it also requires obedience. Unfortunately for some of us there is no such thing as auto pilot in the christian faith.

[@mikeburgess1931]

27 minutes is not enough time to truly give a true critic of the reformed view of assurance. Much of what is brought up was the fringes of the reformed camp. Sorry not convinced, but I appreciate the video.

[@servusbellator8554]

I would point out that Calvin would be equally as harsh, and arguably did so in his dealings with the Radicals, as Luther towards MacArthur and Washer. Calvin also believed that one should look to their baptism for assurance. (Institutes Ch 15, p. 1304, 1306-1307, Calvins Commentary 1 Peter 3) From a Historical Theology and Confessional standpoint there is nothing truly Reformed about either, technically not even the Five Points. The Canons of Dort, the confessional defining of the Five Points, defines Unconditional Election as covenantal foundational and includes the presumptive election of covenant children. (First Head, Art. 17) Hence, no Baptist can truly be a Five Point Calvinist as defined by its confessional standard.

[@MrGassemann]

Wow! “Luther would be harder on MacArthur than he would be on Rome.” Bold! I like it. Does that mean that the Eucharist is better than a symbolic view on the last supper?

[@JS_Guitar09]

I think any idea that acknowledges the fact that Jesus said "this IS my body" is probably better than a symbolic view.

[@TheDroc1990]

There's something to grab onto Romes sacraments....I agree. A works Gospel.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Dr. Cooper rebutted that argument long ago. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJC2qaeLe5VskJI

[@TheDroc1990]

@@Mygoalwogel i disagree. Dont care if I disagree with Calvin either. Rome is an apostate entity. If you meet a Roman Catholic evangelize them like a Mormon or Jehovah Witness.

[@TheDroc1990]

The Protestant Reformation may have only been a Reforming of Luther's church (Rome) when he started but that's not where God left off. It continues to this day. Luther, that saint of old, was the radical spark used to ignite a fire for the grace alone Gospel that was further defended, defined, and articulated by Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Owen, Edwards, and Spurgeon. Tip my hat to Melancthon.. We will be forever grateful to what Luther STARTED. But the Roman heart is dear within the Lutheran church still and I proclaim come out of her my brethren! You're but a step away from the revolution of pure Gospel grace! Experience the Solas in breadth, height, depth, and beyond! Be ye Reformed. Ok goodnight. Semper Reformanda.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@TheDroc1990 Do you have any evidence that people in the Roman church cannot be saved, or are as wrong as antitrinitarians?

[@kushadasi]

What if someone is baptised and does not believe in Christ?

[@flashhog01]

They have thrown away/stomped on a wonderful gift - the forgiveness of sins. If the Lord is gracious enough to bring them back to the faith they do not need to be re-baptized; there is "one Lord, one faith and one baptism" as Paul reminds us in Ephesians.

[@kushadasi]

@@flashhog01 Thank you!

[@aaronmorrison4557]

Does Lutheranism give room to maybe sound like a MacArthur or Paul Washer for those who are false professors? I 100% agree that those who are genuine need to take hold of something objective & outside of themselves, but I live in a Bible belt area with majorly false professors who do not know the sin-killing life that the Christian life demands, and who place their assurance in a sinners prayer or altar call. Certainly we cannot continue to give them false assurance by telling them to look outside themselves, when the issue is inside. Jesus says you’ll know a tree by it’s fruits. I’d love to hear any Lutheran perspective on tackling nominal groups such as these

[@henrka]

I am not sure the limited / unlimited atonement plays a role in assurance. I have assurance because I know Christ died for me and took all of my sin , and perfectly satisfied for me. But did Christ do that for my neighbour ? How would I know, I do not judge others, I live it up to God. Assurance is given by the Holy Spirit that through the word reveals to us that Christ died for us, but the Holy Spirit does not reveal to us whether Christ died for others or not. The “for me” is what matters in salvation, regardless whether Christ died for other people or not. Also I am very concerned with anybody that tells me they came to faith when they received their infant baptism ? How do they know ? They could have been sanctified in the womb like Jeremiah and John the Baptist for all I know. I trust the conversion of a Wesley or a John Bunyan , or my conversion for that matter, where all of us can point to a moment in time in our adult lives when we suddenly trusted that Christ alone and his righteousness alone is what God looks at to declare us saved. I cannot tell if somebody that tells me they came to faith as infants when water was poured on their heads is born again, I certainly cannot, specially when they are making no confession whatsoever that Christ’s death and resurrection is the sole cause of their salvation.

[@villarrealmarta6103]

Very good content sir. Thanks!

[@silversurfer2703]

I'm probably not understanding correctly, are you saying once a baby is baptized they are saved and as they grow up, if they continue to attend church and receive the Lord's supper and hear the word of God they stay saved?

[@lorenzomurrone2430]

Yes and no. It's too long an issue to explain here: look up a paper called "Why Martin Luther is not quite Protestant", you can find it online for free (I think of Scribd), I dont remember the author, but his surname begins by C, if I ain't wrong.

[@silversurfer2703]

@@lorenzomurrone2430 thank you for taking the time to reply. Yes I will be looking it up.

[@taylorbarrett384]

Dr. Cooper, one flaw I see here, is you say Baptism provides an objective basis to know that, at one point in time, you did, as a matter of fact, receive the grace of God. But you would agree, when it comes to adult Baptism, that adults do not receive saving grace in Baptism unless they have subjective (personal) faith when they are Baptized. Therefore, objective Baptism would not seem to eliminate what you seem to think is a problem: knowing with certainty that you have subjective faith. Because you can't know with certainty that you had subjective faith when you were Baptized (if you were Baptized as an adult), then you can't know the objective act of Baptism actually gave you saving grace.

[@Mygoalwogel]

It is not God who withholds grace when a hypocrite receives baptism. If he later believes and repents he would not need to be rebaptized. God's name, word, promise, pledge would remain.

[@taylorbarrett384]

@@Mygoalwogel Yes but that doesn't solve the problem of knowing whether or not you were/are a hypocrite, whether you do or don't have real faith

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@taylorbarrett384 So by "receive" you mean the active way the receiver catches the ball from the QB. In baptism the ball is handed directly to you. "I baptize you in the name..." If you make no _effort_ to reject that, it's yours. If you _do the work_ of throwing the ball down, calling God a liar, you lose the grace you received in this promise. You'll disagree because you define grace and faith differently from Lutherans.

[@taylorbarrett384]

@@Mygoalwogel I don't disagree with you. What I am saying is that if you can know you have sufficient faith, then you can know you have sufficient faith. Do you see how that applies to this discussion? The idea was "Baptism eliminates the need to know whether you have sufficient faith." But you need to have sufficient faith in order to be saved through Baptism. However you define sufficient faith, it needs to be there, or else the grace of Baptism which is offered to you, is not actually received but is rejected. Now, if you can know you have that faith, then you can know you have faith. Baptism therefore provides no *epistemological* advantage in regards certainty of salvation (even if it may provide some ontological advantage). See my point?

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@taylorbarrett384 The Anglican Dr. Phillip Cary refutes that argument, I think, decisively. www.academia.edu/185285/Why_Luther_is_not_Quite_Protestant_The_Logic_of_Faith_in_a_Sacramental_Promise

[@michaelstanley4698]

Ps.149:4 promises assurance of 'salvation' to God's elect...those following the Shepherd 'of the sheep'.

[@christiancurcio2576]

Can you please link the podcast that you reference in regards to universal objective justification?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

justandsinner.libsyn.com/the-doctrine-of-objective-justification

[@christiancurcio2576]

Dr. Jordan B Cooper thanks for the link. I also think the Dutch tradition is closer to the Lutheran view. Are u familiar with the belgic confession heldleburg catechism? For them the atonement was sufficient for all men but it’s limited in the sense of who it’s applied to. So there’s is an objectivity in the atonement. I am also sure u r aware that many reformed hold to the view that God desires all men to be saved. They usually refer to themselves as “ low Calvinist “ For the Dutch baptism is a sign seal and pledge from God that just as he has washed us in the waters of baptism, He has also washed us from our sins. So for the Dutch they would say one of the ways I know I am saved is that God in my baptism promised me that he has done it. So for us the word creates faith and the sacraments conform and strengthen faith. Whereas in the Lutheran position the sacraments create faith as well.

[@ninjacell2999]

@@christiancurcio2576 is there a division between the British and Continental Reformed on this? I'm not so sure

[@christiancurcio2576]

NinjaCell yes, both hold to different confessions. Both have different nuances and emphasis

[@ninjacell2999]

@@christiancurcio2576 Emphases maybe. On the other hand, is there any disagreement on the sacraments? Westminster also agrees that baptism strengthens faith. And the "sufficient for all efficient for some " is not exactly unique to Dordt. Where exactly do they differ substantially?

[@eliasg.2427]

Thanks for the great video. God bless!

[@dabeaudoin78]

i have a question could it be in the reformed camp they have alot of gnostic infulences withbin there theology the way they sound sounds like some of the gnostic ideas of searching with in. just a question?

[@collin501]

How do you get completely away from your own works in this discussion? If faith is alone but never remains alone, that means that anyone with a true saving faith will produce good works without fail. And thus, John 5:29, those who have done good will be raised to resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. This always drives one back to look at their own works. How can it not? And the matter of fact is, doesn't scripture itself lead us to that? I like the focus on objective reality, such as receiving grace through the sacraments. It's appealing to me. But I can't get past the fruit as a part of assurance. John 15 says any branch that does not produce fruit is cast into the fire. And the most specific instance of this is in 1 John 4, dealing with "confidence for the day of judgment." (vs 17) This passage says that perfect love casts out fear of judgment. In the passage, perfect love is defined as, "if we love one another, God abides in us and His love has been perfected in us." (vs 12) So the passage seems to be saying that the love of God, which is received through faith (vs 15-16), gives us confidence when we abide in it. We abide in it when we believe it and when we love one another. We love one another because He first loved us. But all of this is wrapped up in our assurance. That is what John is communicating here. Isn't this what Jesus also communicates? If you do not forgive others their trespasses against you, neither will your Father in heaven forgive you. These are the things that make the completely objective view hard for me, even though I would prefer the objective view. Of course, there is the Objective fact that God has loved us through Christ, and receiving that love may have the effect of filing us with a love for others. Perhaps, by believing and enjoying the objective love of God to us, we can be motivated to love others, not just as an example or common influence, where we of ourselves emulate God. But rather, we may love because in loving others, the love of God dwells in us. So faith, receiving the love of God, and loving others are closely linked. Because in some sense I receive(or abide in) God's love when I love others, so this command is not burdensome. But I suppose believing God's love for us is also an objective reality because of the incarnation and crucifixion, but do we enjoy the fruits of that reality without living it out? Maybe our problem is looking at ourselves to test whether we're in or out, rather than reckoning it to be true that since He died for me I can abide in His love and likewise love others. That way we can feel that assurance while looking outward, at others, rather than inward at ourselves.

[@LilacDaisy2]

I'm up to 3 minutes, and this is way over my head, lol. Interested to see how Lutheranism differs from my reformed swaying, after agreeing with and learning from videos by Lutherans (Steven Kosar, Fighting for the Faith, Longing for Truth1).

[@augsburguac8350]

The checklist from MacArthur is in the back of the study bible

[@seanmoore9713]

I'm 1689. I've been looking into Lutheran thought, because I'm a big fan of Luther's writings. I like what you had to say about the objectivity of the sacraments. I just don't know how I could ever get away from the 5 points of Calvinism. The idea that Christ died for me and left it up to me to accept Him is the least assuring thing I can conceive of.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Lutherans do not believe Jesus "left it up to me to accept Him." Our children memorize Luther's words: "I believe that I cannot believe, by my own reason or strength, in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, sanctified, and kept me in the true faith."

[@garrettmindrup4986]

Great video and I appreciate the insights. There's a lot to the Lutheran faith I admire and have benefited from over the past year, so I enjoy learning more. I'm curious what you think the Lutheran rejection of perseverance of the saints does to assurance. As a non Lutheran, that to me seems like it'd make it impossible to have true assurance, knowing I could have real faith, lose it, and be condemned. Especially if holding onto that faith depends on me(even if it's through means of grace, I still have to choose to receive them). I'm curious what a Lutheran response is to that?

[@Mygoalwogel]

www.scribd.com/document/2269563/Sola-Fide-Luther-and-Calvin-by-Phillip-Cary I particularly appreciate this author's comparison of Luther's "anfechtung" anxiety against Calvinist anxiety about God's eternal verdict. If I will be attacked by anxiety from time to time, (Who isn't?) I'd rather be anxious about present sins and weaknesses. At least I can share this kind of anxiety/warfare with the psalmists. And this anxiety is easily drowned again in my baptism, in absolution, and the Lord's Supper. "In this Christian Church, He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers." (Luther's Small Catechism, bookofconcord.org)

[@mosesking2923]

​@@Mygoalwogel The problem is that neither Lutherans nor calvinists have true assurance. Lutherans don't have assurance because they can lose their salvation through apostasy. And calvanists don't have assurance because even though they believe in perseverance of the saints, they have no mechanism to determine whether they truly possess saving faith. So both are moot.

[@Ethan_Click]

Very good questions, thanks for asking them brother. Our assurance must be objective, and it must be Christ alone as our object of assurance, meaning His active and passive obedience on our behalf :)

[@ThetaMinistries]

I’m an independent Baptist, but ironically I agree far far more with the Lutheran view on assurance than I do with the reformed view on 1st John and looking to works for assurance, when works condemn you to begin with. It’s always the best to look to John 19:30 for assurance. I’ve really seen and empathize with Lutheranism on this issue

[@truth7416]

When parents brought their children to Jesus, the disciples told Jesus to send those snot nosed children away. Jesus looked into the crowd, saw the 3 elect children and told them to send the 297 other children away. Right!?! Not at all. He told them to forbid them not and blessed them ALL. Why would He do that if Calvinism were even 1% true? TRUTH IN LOVE

[@1994ZBO]

Paul Washer has always appeared to me to be a sombre character, perhaps more melancholic in disposition. Macarthur appears to be on the other end though, just in terms of his natural temperament. The introspective teaching which you have explored here regarding those trends within the popular reformed culture is particularly dangerous to those intuitive melancholic types who are already predisposed towards introversion, rather than extroversion. I am of this disposition and I have observed that we are accustomed to bifurcating between the inner and outer worlds. Quite regularly our inner world appears to be more "real," than the outer world, which is made up of appearances. Incidentally, this is also why these types of people are drawn towards dualistic philosophies and theologies that are quite "mystical." I was drawn to Platonism for this exact reason, though it only reinforces this kind of mental solipsism, which goes hand in hand with certain idealist views of reality that hold the mind as the chief architect of how we experience reality. It, of course, goes without saying that this manner of teaching throws objectivity out the window and if the right life circumstances are presented in the form of personal misfortune, can quickly result in nihilism and just plan despair. The antidote for those of us who are Christians and care about theological positions is to lay the emphasis upon Christ as the objective revelation of God and one we can experience tangibly as in the Lord's Supper. This is precisely what has attracted me to Lutheranism. A worship style that isn't solipsistic, as most contemporary worship tends to be, where you are never quite certain as to whether you are experiencing God or yourself-ergo something liturgical with a rich connection to our shared Christian history. In addition, it must also be sacramental with the accentuation of God as given for us in Christ through participation in the Eucharist. These two themes, liturgy, and sacrament are life-changing for one who already has an understanding of the gospel and has grown tired of mere words (as tends to be the case even in Christian academic circles- where life-giving truth is buried under a pile of hairsplitting footnotes) and the reality of the gospel must be experienced afresh. Lutheranism, then, has been for me a liturgical, evangelical, and sacramental revitalization of my faith.

[@ifronnin]

I must point out that Paul Washer has toned down his Calvinism in recent years. He is far calmer and more loving than he was ten years ago.

[@SibleySteve]

John Barclays Paul and the Gift massively compared Luther and Calvin and Barth to differentiate the superiority of Lutheranism for the psychological benefits of Protestantism. It is odd that Calvin felt the need to completely tear apart and Rebuild the Catholic faith in an unhelpful taxonomy of works righteousness. I think Barclay’s work was helpful for my assurance because as an Anglican he echoes Cranmer’s devotion to a Lutheran commitment to the finished work of Christ as the ground of our affections, one can even see this language in Psalms with David’s certainty as a child of God without the self-hatred and self-loathing that rides on Calvinism. I love the Law / Gospel distinction of Luther, that is totally profoundly missing in Calvin. Calvin would mis locate the meaning of law, having us return to the prison that Christ freed us from. Barclay uses different voices to defend the systems but I get a sense that the Lutheran voice is victorious, grateful, joyful, whereas Calvin’s voice is morose, calculating, somber. Having grown up Baptist in their schools and reading Baptist theology, I remember a shift that took place in the 80’s, a fault line where Baptists began to read and admire Calvin as a new shiny pseudo-Gnostic prideful source of knowledge where hitherto only Luther was the reformation hero. I think that was down to the recovery of Spurgeon’s sermons that got Baptists taking another look at limited atonement in the Particular Baptists of England tradition. The logic was that if Spurgeon could build a mega church in dreary old Victorian London based on the paradox of Calvinism with evangelism, then maybe we should reconsider it, I think Spurgeon was a Trojan horse for Calvinism getting into baptist churches. Arminian general Baptists are so illiterate that it could not be refuted so it fed the flames that smart well read baptists read Calvin and dummies believe in universal atonement. It surely did not help that a recovery of Puritan sermons also occurred so that after Spurgeon, everybody started reading the Puritans again. I myself went through these phases until it all came to a head in seminary where I got into trouble for being too Lutheran and dropped out. I married a Lutheran chick and never looked back. Going on 29 years of marriage, Luther was definitely the right choice over Calvinism.

[@dhat1607]

Thanks Jordan for your videos. On the assurance of salvation I'm not convinced being baptized provides this assurance any better than some alternatives you discussed. Some of the baptized also fall away from the faith. The problem with systematic theology (I say this as someone who does appreciate systematic theology a lot) is that is is trying to account for mysterious things which are not always clearly explained in the scriptures e.g. why some people hear the Word and others not. We do our best but no system can account for everything - nevertheless there are systems which are clearly more faithful to the scriptures and orthodox than others. I appreciate many aspects of reformed theology, but some aspects struggle to remain convincing in light of scripture e.g. limited atonement, nevertheless what it is trying to do in the system (or any point in any system) is crucial to understand. The system helps to get our head around the teaching of scripture, understand areas where we know much and where little, what teachings are more in line with scripture, which less and which are out of line, what tensions exist, what passages talk to which pastoral questions and why, etc. Is it your view that we have to absolutely choose one system over the other assuming you agree with what I have written? What aspects of Lutheranism are you less comfortable with? Would you have been happy to remain in the Reformed movement if Lutheran church membership was not available for you? Sorry a lot of questions here. Peace!

[@jeffryan5302]

Jesus Objective Statement of assurance: John 6:37-40 (ESV) [37] All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. [38] For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. [39] And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. [40] For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

[@usselpasoable]

infant baptism is something that is done to you not an act of obedience after hearing and believing. I used to be WELS Lutheran and left for that reason.Let's not confuse foreknowledge with predestination.

[@kontainedkhaos7293]

I disagree, a lot. I would say the Reformed tradition is to rest in Christ's perfect work and not in our own works. We obey God's law gladly, fueled by our love for Christ and a desire to keep his commandments. I don't think that your examples of Washer & MacArthur are very good representations of the Reformed view of assurance.

[@michaelstanley4698]

Paul Washer merely brings out, from Matt.7:21-23, that 'many' are doing their own will, not the will of the Father, and God 'looketh on the heart' at our motives and what we love most. You totally miss the point, that assurance comes from the Spirit (Rom.8:16). Maybe you have no heart knowledge...God's elect cries 'day and night' unto Him. Prov.10:19,29

[@dubbelkastrull]

26:16 bookmark

[@ericgraham4360]

I like how you are exposing the negative effects of this kind of Lordship Salvation reading of Calvinism, but I just want to emphasize from personal experience that it’s not just that the anxiety can cause people to leave the faith, but that it can cause an extreme dark night of the soul for those who do manage to stay in Christ while battling this toxic way of thinking. I know that’s not the point of the video so I don’t mean to fault you in any way but it seems like something I don’t see anyone talking about. It can often seem like “this makes people leave the faith” is the only consequence of Lordship Salvation, but there is more to it than that

[@bjornlange635]

The elect are the chosen people, the children of Israel, i.e. the Jews. Wait a minute: Psalm 117 suggests, even people of a heathen/pagan background could be part of the elect? Is the talk about „ the elect“ referring to individuals or is it about the question, if God might welcome outsiders into the faith too? In that case, we are not Talking about exclusivity of individuals, but rather, about the inclusion of all mankind, right? Correct me, if I am wrong.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Through the concept of Total Depravity, we believe that the wicked have their will enslaved by sin. In this way, they do not have a sincere desire to please God. If you have this will, it is because your will has been freed from the slavery of sin by Christ. You may think that this self-analysis is very subjective, which is why there is progressiveness in obedience to God, which is nothing more or less than your testimony. But basically, If you are baptized and professed Jesus as lord, if you want to obey God despite the presence of sin and do not live your life in deliberate, conscious sin then you are saved. You can argue that through the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, only at the end will the person know that they are in fact one of the elects, as faith must last until the end, but how does the doctrine of resistibility change this? Can't a person reject it in the end? What if you die at a time when you were far from the Faith? This is what I don't understand, you pose "problems" in Calvin's account that I don't see how, in practice, your theology solves the "problem".

[@cheapseats7366]

Interesting conversation. My understanding is that Luther didnt give Zwingly and his followers much assurance when he condemned him at the marburg colloquy. If I have missed something here please let me know.

[@EK-iz2jk]

I think you're missing the context. This is a topic about assurance- comforting Christians having doubts about their salvation. There is more to Lutheranism than just assurance and there is a vital role for calling out false doctrine. Luther was rebuking a false teacher whose doctrines were in error and would rob Christians of assurance. It's back to the division of Law and Gospel. A sinner comfortable with their sin (including the sin of teaching and believing false doctrine) needs the Law to help drive them to repentance. A sinner who recognizes their sin and needs to hear about forgiveness will get the Gospel- comfort and assurance that Christ died for them. Zwingli needed the Law.

[@cheapseats7366]

@@EK-iz2jk good morning, what did Zwingly do that was so egregious? What part of God's law did he break to warrant such condemnation from Luther at the MC?

[@cheapseats7366]

@@EK-iz2jk I agree with you by the way about the law and gospel.

[@jeffryan5302]

Lastly, Lutherans believe you can loose your salvations…enough said !

[@davidcarmichael123]

Why do all of y’all complicate it, salvation, Romans 10 nine and 10. Yes I believe in the sacraments particularly the Lord supper I certainly dipper from the Baptist on that one but isn’t it dangerous to tell someone because your parents had you christened when you were a baby where do you find that in the Bible as your source source of being secure in the faith, people confuse water baptism, and I don’t see how you’re baptized unless you get good and wet somehow, not necessarily immersion as opposed to baptism of the Spirit when you believe reference the first chapter of the patients

[@j.sethfrazer]

Inward introspection for assurance is guilty of the very kind of Gnosticism the ancient church went to huge lengths to refute. Quite frankly, every variation of Eastern mysticism teaches us to look at salvation fully in an inward way. I’m sorry, it’s just NOT the Gospel at all.

[@Ethan_Click]

AMEN brother! We must look OUTSIDE of ourselves to Christ, who is fully sufficient for our salvation!

[@MariusVanWoerden]

This is From Martin Luther. Don’t misuse his name for your heresy. Babies do not have FAITH. It is a sign of the covenant, the same as, and, replacing circumcision in the old Testament, because Blood-sign is no longer required. Therefore let us open our eyes and learn to pay heed more to the word than to the sign, more to faith than to the work or use of the sign. We know that wherever there is a divine promise, there faith is required, and that these two are so necessary to each other that neither can be effective apart from the other. For it is not possible to believe unless there is a promise, and the promise is not established unless it is believed. But where these two meet, they give a real and most certain efficacy to the sacraments. HENCE, TO SEEK THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENT APART FROM THE PROMISE AND APART FROM THE FAITH IS TO LABOR IN VAIN AND TO FIND CONDEMNATION (LW 36:67).

[@joncollins7129]

Without a limited atonement, you have a ton of people who go to hell that Jesus died for. Instead of "universal" atonement, perhaps you should use the term "insufficient" atonement, because it is subordinate to your will.

[@Ethan_Click]

Amen brother. This seems to directly destroy assurance in my opinion.

[@bloodboughtbigphilr8266]

Calvin's view of assurance was a Biblical one of not looking to inward impressions or self-evaluation of performance but of looking outward resting on the Finished redemptive work of Jesus. To this, the Holy Spirit bears witness to our spirits. Subsequent generations of Calvinists muddied and mutated this finding expression in some of their confessions and brought works into the equation. This was pronounced in the preparationists among 17th century Puritans and precursors to the likes of John McArthur, Paul Washer and Stephen Lawson today. Their extreme Lordship Calvinism was not what Calvin taught and more to the point, is not according to the Scriptures.

[@leviwilliams9601]

As a side note, Paul Washer and John McAuthor are not reformed. There view of tulip isn't even right. Please do not take anything they say as a take on the reformed tradition.

[@truth7416]

I have tried to bring the Good news gospel for all men to many but most refuse. I will continue to witness to the lost Calvinists of the World as the Lord says" He who wins souls is wise." 10But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” Luke 2 @ This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 Sorry you WILL NOT accept as a child the simple truth of Gods Love for mankind. TRUTH IN LOVE

[@accountsreceivable6948]

so if someone is reformed you believe they are lost?

[@truth7416]

@@accountsreceivable6948 If you believe these verses are not true. (and Calvinists don't!)............ 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. Acts 2 :21And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off-.... John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Then you are not saved!

[@MarioKushner]

I don't think it's fair to laugh at MacArthur's list of ways to know you are saved and reduce that to reliance on your own works, when you did the same thing maybe 5 minutes earlier - by saying that this is how you know you are saved: being baptised, participating in the Lord's supper, and listening to the Word preached. That also is a list, and that also are things you did/do.

[@funkla65]

But those are things done to us, not by us.

[@MarioKushner]

No. YOU participate in the Lord's Supper and YOU listen to the preaching. And, in some reformed denominations, YOU get yourself baptised.

[@ericmatthaei9711]

We do participate in the means of grace, but they are still the Lord’s means. When He promises to remain with the church to the end of the age, He is promising to accompany His Word. That puts those “works” into a distinct category from the works that the Sacramentarians (MacArthur, et al.) appeal to for assurance. It’s not the same thing, no matter how much we might personally be involved and active in the receiving of those gifts.

[@TheDroc1990]

No Calvinist dilemma. It's a minor pastoral issue. Once people learn the doctrine of the Bible and their tradition then the what ifs leave. Calvinists are not running around crying. We believe in rock hard undeniable assurance. Notice how RC Sproul, the most prolific Reformed mind of our day, is never mentioned here.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

I'm unsure about what is actually being affirmed as the Lutheran position on assurance. If it is that baptism always creates faith and a Lutheran can be assured he has faith because he's been baptized, then I can't agree. Even if it was true that all who are baptized are given faith (which I don't agree is the case) then one can lose faith without even realising it by succumbing to temptations of various sorts. One can become worldly and still think that one has true faith when that isn't the case. So it's necessary to inwardly examine oneself to see if one still retains faith which is what Paul taught when he said: "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? - unless indeed you fail to meet the test!" (2 Corinthians 13:5 ESV). So whilst I agree that Christ's atonement is universal, and that one doesn't need to worry about whether one's sins are objectively forgiven, one can't simply refer to one's baptism as guaranteeing that one is actually forgiven without examining oneself to make sure that one has true faith. One's faith might not be genuine. One might be trusting in other things rather than Christ. One could be living in unrepentant sin kidding oneself that all was ok. So there's no escape from introspection. One needs to look inwards to ensure that one has true faith.

[@Zorlig]

Yeah false doctrine throughout this video is pretty crass. It doesn't match at all with Lutheran theology pre Pieper.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@Zorlig What was the Lutheran position pre-Pieper?

[@Zorlig]

@@Edward-ng8oo Sure, here is what the formula of concord says on the subject: 30] For this reason the elect are described thus, John 10:27f : My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me, and I give unto them eternal life. And Eph. 1:11. 13: Those who according to the purpose are predestinated to an inheritance hear the Gospel, believe in Christ, pray and give thanks, are sanctified in love, have hope, patience, and comfort under the cross, Rom. 8:25; and although all this is very weak in them, yet they hunger and thirst after righteousness, Matt. 5:6. 31] Thus the Spirit of God gives to the elect the testimony that they are children of God, and when they do not know for what they should pray as they ought, He intercedes for them with groanings that cannot be uttered, Rom. 8:16. 26.

[@Zorlig]

The way I read it, God only sanctifies those with the true faith, so those who experience that know that they are saved.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@Zorlig I'm interested in what Luther had say on the subject of assurance and I've found the following from his Table Talk: "Heaven is given unto me freely, for nothing. I have assurance hereof confirmed unto me by sealed covenants, that is, I am baptized, and frequent the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore I keep the bond safe and sure, lest the devil tear it in pieces; that is, I live and remain in God’s fear and pray daily unto him. God could not have given me better security of my salvation, and of the gospel, than by the death and passion of his only Son: when I believe that he overcame death, and died for me, and therewith behold the promise of the Father, then I have the bond complete. And when I have the seal of baptism and the Lord’s Supper prefixed thereto, then I am well provided for. (CCCXLI, Hazlitt) Also he had this to say on knowing whether we are in grace and have the Holy Spirit in his Commentary on Galatians, 4:6: St. Augustine observed that “every man is certain of his faith, if he has faith.” This the Romanists deny. “God forbid,” they exclaim piously, “that I should ever be so arrogant as to think that I stand in grace, that I am holy, or that I have the Holy Ghost.” We ought to feel sure that we stand in the grace of God, not in view of our own worthiness, but through the good services of Christ. As certain as we are that Christ pleases God, so sure ought we to be that we also please God, because Christ is in us. And although we daily offend God by our sins, yet as often as we sin, God’s mercy bends over us. Therefore sin cannot get us to doubt the grace of God. Our certainty is of Christ, that mighty Hero who overcame the Law, sin, death, and all evils. So long as He sits at the right hand of God to intercede for us, we have nothing to fear from the anger of God. This inner assurance of the grace of God is accompanied by outward indications such as gladly to hear, preach, praise, and to confess Christ, to do one’s duty in the station in which God has placed us, to aid the needy, and to comfort the sorrowing. These are the affidavits of the Holy Spirit testifying to our favourable standing with God. So Luther's position is that we need to feel inwardly that we have true faith and also exhibit outward signs of such. So we can conclude that he believed if we don't possess these inward and outward signs we don't have true faith.

[@yellowblackbird9000]

The things Calvin himself wrote about "evanescent grace" are absolutely horrific.

[@KingWilliamI]

Much of what you say about Reformed theology getting backed into works-based salvation, I think you can also reduce Lutheran theology to as well, based on very similar grounds. If I can reject God's salvation, how do I know that I haven't rejected it? I've been baptized, sure, but I'm still sinning up a storm. You know how you can look at the way a supposed Christian is living their life and realize that they're the furthest thing from a Christian that could exist? ("You will know them by their fruits.") They've clearly rejected the Holy Spirit. But how do I know my life doesn't look like that to people living holier lives than me? So Lutherans must either claim that ANYONE who is baptized is saved, even if they've explicitly rejected it, or they must be unsure of whether they've REALLY accepted God's salvation.

[@mosesking2923]

I agree, I don’t see how the Lutheran position is any better than the Reformed position. There are plenty of unsaved Baptised Lutherans who receive communion on Sundays. Ultimately, an examination of conscience and one’s own life is essential (and commanded by St. Paul).

[@DrMJS]

God be praised! I left Presbyterian Reformedism like a year and a half ago and became Lutheran. Was made Lutheran, I guess. One of the things thst came to frustrate over time was the mealy-mouthed explanations of the Sacraments. Baptism was a "sign and seal" of a Covenant but you may still be unsaved, but even though it was God's election to damnation it will be your fault. I NEVER heard "Remember your baptism." Why would I have? And Holy Communion was "non-judicial discipline," (?!?) not LIFE, Jesus' Body and Blood, Forgiveness, Grace. Law was preached and called Gospel. Things thst are Gospel were considered law and stern. I did almost leave for nothing. Thanks be to God for a LIFE "raft" of true doctrine, which I was so happy to find.

[@jeffryan5302]

Just watched: better examples Calvinist RC Sproul, Dr. Greg Bahnsen/Van Til, Reformed Baptist James White, etc.

[@michaelstanley4698]

15:18... For 'we which have believed...is entered into His rest, he also having ceased from his own works' (Heb.4:3,10). Thus, has drawn near 'with a true heart in full assurance of faith...' 'Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus' (Heb.10:22,19). From then on, it seems that you wax absurd...throwing so much into the mix. Maybe you 'must needs be born again' and 'receive with meekness the engrafted Word...' Why are your eyes fixed on men?

[@TheTheologizingSubject]

We need your books as audiobooks.

[@realbradautry]

Considering returning home to the LCMS from the OPC.

[@mosesking2923]

I’m not entirely sure how the Lutheran view (which is identical with the Catholic view) is better than the Reformed. Certainly there are clear promises associated with baptism and the Eucharist. If someone asks me “are you saved” then I could respond “Yes, I received communion this morning and am assured of eternal life John 6:54.” However, it is still possible to receive communion unworthily and damn myself (1 Cor 11). Therefore, even a Lutheran/Catholic would still need to examine one’s own conscience to even approach the sacrament. That puts them in the same exact place as the Reformed Christian.

[@lornaz1975]

WAAYY TOO MANY ADDS!!

[@danielhixon8209]

So the Calvinist believes in limited grace that is irresistible, whereas the Lutheran believes in an unlimited grace that is resistible. The Wesleyan/Methodist is in full agreement with the Lutheran at this point (and most older traditions too, I think). Of course, Wesley also wanted to emphasize the subjective “inner witness of the Spirit with your spirit” in addition to the outward and public promises in word and sacrament.

[@inthespirit1298]

Macarthur and Washer's interpretation of Matt 7 is not about faith. They said its about works and a change life. They elevate works and law keeping over faith.

[@MattyD315apologetics]

Reformed belief is and has always been, faith alone in Christ alone. Ephesians 2:8 and 9, of course. Silly guy, no works are added sin scripture to salvation. Ans johnny mac wouldn't agree with tou, that he has some list. No, he would say Sola fide

[@justintillett]

Jordan, I like to listen to you, but you seem to always present a straw man to represent the Reformed view when you compare and contrast Lutheran and Reformed positions. Fringe Calvinist soteriologically leaning people like Washer, MacArthur, untrained restless reformed types shouldn’t be used to make asymmetrical comparisons. Calvinists wholeheartedly teach the efficacious, salvific nature of the sacraments. And, they don’t make personal salvation experience a primarily earth- time phenomenon. Zwingli’s view of the Supper is not Calvin’s view. The high water mark in Christology is to be found largely in English Puritanism. Church-State relations and Ecclesiology find their finest point in Scottish influenced Presbyterianism as excellence in cultural theology is a major contribution from Dutch Calvinism, etc. Contemporary Reformed thought is a delicate blend of various streams of theological precision. But, as I have commented before, the real disconnect between Reformed theology and Lutheran is hermeneutics and on this the Reformed always win.

[@dacandyman112]

I agree for the most part with your comment about the best views of the Reformed tradition (puritanism, covenanters, Calvin, etc.). I am not sure that Dr. Cooper misrepresents Reformed rather than not having a good argument against definite atonement (not point of his video). Dr. Cooper did critique the MacArthur/Washer view and the confessional reformed view so I do not think he built a strawman. He simply did not have time to answer how a confessional reformed person would respond back to his critique. I say this as a confessional reformed presbyterian.