The Doctrine of Justification Part 2 (Study of the Augsburg Confession Article IV)

[@toddvoss52]

Loved your final quote: "Hey I"m a Lutheran You've got have a passion for justification. If you only have a passion for Liturgy you're just going to become a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox anyway." LOL!

[@Mygoalwogel]

🤣

[@eliasg.2427]

😂👌🏻

[@Mygoalwogel]

Sunday morning here in Taiwan. Just in time for "church" at home! Thanks Dr. Cooper!

[@eliasg.2427]

Is there a Lutheran Church over in Taiwan?

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@eliasg.2427 There are Lutheran Churches in every country in the Pacific, except perhaps North Korea. Though I do have a S. Korean Lutheran acquaintance who is strictly not allowed to tell me anything about his work in N. Korea.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@eliasg.2427 This map by Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller is pretty neat, but so far incomplete. I'll have to notify some other former and current Asia volunteers. wolfmueller.co/world-wide-lutherans/

[@TheDroc1990]

@@Mygoalwogel Just thought I should randomly tell you that I've become Lutheran now. It's me (Road to Reformed). I know we've had some "quibbles" online before. Take it easy!

[@eternaljunker8300]

That passion for liturgy (which in itself is not wrong) and nice images, is the main reason for many Eastern Orthodox converts. They don't care about justification, as I have noticed in conversations online. They throw Scripture under the bus whenever necessary.

[@lc-mschristian5717]

More please. Thank you. God's peace be with you.

[@anthonyhilton4168]

Yes more Justification, your thoughts on it are excellent!!!

[@wilwelch258]

Could you do a video on James 2 and how that relates to justification?

[@BillWalkerWarren]

Great video Dr Cooper . Loved the rant and your passion. Yes your correct that the Reformed view is very similar. I really like your detail and the length of the video is cool . It’s a important topic. Thanks for posting it . Blessings From your Reformed fan

[@rogerplested9484]

I think that I am going to reread Luthers Commentary on Galatians again in light of your last two videos on justification

[@jonathanvickers3881]

Teaching starts at 7:30

[@presbyterianmonergist2250]

Is it bad that I began whistling the first several bars of _A Mighty Fortress_ when I saw a new video?

[@toddvoss52]

Would love to have you read and then do a podcast review of Fleming Rutledge's "The Crucifixion" where among many other things she addresses justification. I found it to have some powerful insights and also some significant flaws.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I've heard quite a bit about the work but have not yet read it.

[@user-zero0945]

The enemies of Christ & His Church keep trying to destroy the faith & comfort of the His sheep Keep exposing them, pastor

[@nathanielyigzaw5505]

would you please make a video on the oriental orthodox churches? i really wanna know your views on it.

[@Mygoalwogel]

And the Church of the East! The Oriental and CoE (who honor St. Nestorius, but say they're not Nestorian) can't stand each other.

[@carlgobelman]

Excellent!

[@MariusVanWoerden]

Perhaps most surprising is that, when one studies Luther on the doctrine of predestination, it quickly becomes apparent that he believed in what has been called "double predestination." In this teaching, it is recognized that the same God who sovereignly predestined the elect to salvation also sovereignly passed over others; that is to say, some are predestined to eternal life and some predestined to judgment. Luther held this view. Take his understanding of God as the potter and the Christian as the clay, as an example. In The Bondage of the Will, Luther writes:

[@eliasg.2427]

Could you please explain what the verses mean which speak about Christ judging and ruling over the nations as an earthly king (Micah 4:3 for example) when you do the video about Article XVII?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Will do!

[@eliasg.2427]

Dr. Jordan B Cooper Thanks!

[@IAmisMaster]

Hey Dr. Cooper, have you read Matthew Bates’ articles/books in which he argues justification by faith, though a Christian doctrine, is not “part of the gospel”? I would like to hear a conservative Lutheran’s perspective.

[@Mygoalwogel]

May I butt in, or would you prefer to wait for Dr. Cooper? This question was very important to me when I became frustrated with Lutheranism a few years ago. The answer I was taught made me stop wanting to join other churches

[@IAmisMaster]

@@Mygoalwogel Be my guest. I've been debating a friend of mine who is hook line and sinker on the NT Wright/New Perspective side that the gospel is only about Jesus' kingship and all that.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@IAmisMaster "But the Gospel is properly such a doctrine as teaches what man who has not observed the Law, and therefore is condemned by it, is to believe, namely, that Christ has expiated and made satisfaction for all sins, and has obtained and acquired for him, without any merit of his [no merit of the sinner intervening], forgiveness of sins, righteousness that avails before God, and eternal life." bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#part5. In Lutheranism, you can believe that God grants you grace, forgiveness, life and salvation while still having confusion about works and other doctrines. You are not saved by purity of works or by purity of doctrine. I have papist friends who say we're saved by faith and works. But at the end of the day, they know their good works are impure, and that God must forgive AND *credit* their works. So while they mentally and verbally oppose the Sola Fide doctrine, their faith actually is in Christ as Savior, and not in themselves.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Of course, a pastor endangers his flock badly by teaching false doctrine to any extent. But a confused or somewhat wrong layperson is not necessarily unsaved.

[@IAmisMaster]

Mygoalwogel I agree with you: I believe there is room for some confusion even for Catholics and those who think their works partially save them. However, I am talking about a different, less important issue. Matthew Bates is a theology professor who teaches that justification is by faith alone (though he defines faith as allegiance), but for definitional purposes says we shouldn’t consider the justification/salvation of the believer by faith as part of the gospel, only a response TO the gospel. It’s a silly dispute but it’s ravaging theological discussions.

[@Saints0611]

Excellent.

[@Mygoalwogel]

36:50 Please do rant on!

[@marilynmelzian7370]

Yes, that pernicious hellenization thesis.

[@dubbelkastrull]

21:39 bookmark

[@Edward-ng8oo]

I know this is a bit off topic but has anyone read the entirety of Robert Kolb's "Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method From Martin Luther to the Formula of Concord" published by Fortress Press 2017? I’ve only read the first chapter and it’s going to take me a while to finish the book as it’s rather long, but on page 36 Kolb says with respect to The Bondage of the Will: "The message of De servo arbitrio in its larger context in Luther’s thought may be paraphrased and summarized as follows…. (5) Human beings are creatures and thus totally dependent on God their Creator. (6) This dependence of the human creature on God can be explained and defended by a doctrine of absolute necessity, that is, that all things happen necessarily as God designs and decides." I find it difficult to understand how Kolb can correctly summarise Luther's position that God designs and decides everything that happens, and then come to the conclusion that Luther didn't believe that God predestines people to hell. It follows that if God designs and decides everything, as Kolb rightly says is Luther's belief, that Luther therefore believed that God decides and predestines who will be damned. How can Kolb not see that by affirming that Luther believed in absolute necessity that Luther therefore believed in double predestination? Luther's position in The Bondage of the Will is that "If God foreknows anything it necessarily occurs" (Luther's Works, Vol 33, page 188). Luther understood by necessity that everything is unavoidable and predestined to happen according to how God has willed from eternity, so it's undeniable that Luther held to double predestination. Martin Chemnitz in the Formula of Concord made a distinction between God’s foreknowledge and His predestination which Luther never made. Chemnitz denied that everything which God foreknows is predestined to happen, whereas Luther insisted that everything that God foreknows is predestined to happen. It's easy to that it was Luther who was correct and not Chemnitz. It’s obviously true that what God foreknows has to happen otherwise God would be mistaken in His foreknowledge and wouldn’t be omniscient or all-knowing. However since God is all-knowing and what He foreknows must come to pass it follows that what God foreknows is predestined to happen. It’s simple to understand that what God foreknows must necessarily happen and is therefore predestined to happen. This can be described as absolute necessity or absolute predestination. Either term means the same thing. So when Kolb says that Luther believed in absolute necessity but didn’t believe in predestination to hell Kolb is contradicting himself. Absolute necessity means that everything is predestined and that people are predestined to both heaven and hell. So to affirm that Luther believed in absolute necessity is to affirm that Luther believed in double predestination. Also Luther’s denial of free will in his response to Erasmus was based on his affirmation that everything is predestined to happen including the ultimate destination of all human beings in either heaven or hell. If Luther had only believed in single predestination to heaven then he couldn’t have rejected all free will because he would have had to allow for its existence in those who are damned since they alone would be responsible for their damnation. Luther in TBOTW held that if a person is damned that person has been predestined by God from eternity to be damned, and he showed that this was true and biblical from Romans 9, so Chemnitz was in error in denying predestination to hell in the Formula. Lutheranism since the 1580’s has been on the wrong path in denying predestination to hell, and if it is to be true to the teaching of Scripture it must return to its original teaching. Also it wasn’t just Luther who held to double predestination but also others of his associates like Nikolaus von Amsdorf and Johannes Brenz.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@VDMA Unfortunately you completely misunderstand both Luther's position and the teaching of the Formula of Concord. Luther when speaking of predestination in The Bondage of the Will was talking of God's predestination of everything that happens which includes predestination of people to both heaven and hell. And secondly predestination to heaven is understood by confessional Lutherans to be an eternal predestination before the creation of the world which is also what Scripture teaches: Ephesians 1:3-6 NIV 3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. [4] For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love [5] he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--- [6] to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. The FoC epitome in XI Election paragraph 4 refers to the “predestination or eternal election of God”.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@VDMA Here's some quotes from The Bondage of the Will which prove that Luther believed in the eternal predestination of all things which includes the predestination and election of people to both heaven and hell. The quotes also show that Luther excluded all free will in both the saved and the damned. Here, then, is something fundamentally necessary and salutary for a Christian, to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees and purposes and does all things by his immutable, eternal and infallible will. (p.37 Vol 33 Luther's Works) For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature. (p.293 ibid) But if God is robbed of the power and wisdom to elect, what will he be but the false idol, chance, at whose nod everything happens at random? And in the end it will come to this, that men are saved and damned without God’s knowledge, since he has not determined by his certain election who are to be saved and who damned, (p.171 ibid) This is highest degree of faith, to believe him merciful when he saves so few and damns so many, and to believe him righteous when by his own will he makes us necessarily damnable, so that he seems, according to Erasmus to delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of hatred rather than of love. (p.62,63 ibid) Please take a minute to concentrate on the quotes and follow the argument. In the first quote Luther says that God doesn't foreknow anything by chance but that He foresees everything that will take place because He purposes or designs and does everything that takes place by his unchangeable eternal will. In the second quote Luther says God foreknows, predestines and wills everything that happens and consequently there's no free will in man. In the third quote Luther, with reference to Erasmus's belief in free will it should be understood, says that God in that case would be the idol chance who doesn't elect people to be saved and damned, which shows that Luther held that God does elect people to be both saved and damned. And in the last quote Luther says that those with the highest degree of faith believe that God makes people damnable by His (i.e. eternal) will, which results in people like Erasmus thinking God in that case would enjoy tormenting people and should be hated rather than loved. So I hope you can see that I've just proved that Luther believed in double predestination. If you still can't see this then read the quotes again until they sink in and you understand what it is that Luther is stating.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@VDMA You ask why do I have this fixation with Luther and predestination? The answer is because I'm concerned with the truth. Lutherans have for centuries taught that Luther rejected double predestination when in actual fact that isn't true. I'm not saying they knew this was untrue and persisted in maintaining this untruth but only that they were mistaken in thinking that he didn't believe in double predestination. So this has some repercussions. It means that the authors of the Formula of Concord were in error in maintaining that they were being true to Luther's teachings on predestination. It means their interpretation of the Augsburg Confession as implicitly denying predestination to hell isn't correct because Luther understood everything in the Augsburg Confession and the rest of the documents contained in Book of Concord that were in existence during his lifetime as being compatible with double predestination. This means for instance that Luther didn't believe in universal grace as understood by confessional Lutherans. Confessional Lutherans believe that the Holy Spirit tries to convert everyone through the Word and that those who are damned are alone responsible for their damnation by resisting the Holy Spirit. Luther however believed that those who are damned aren't responsible for their damnation (other than being sinful through inheriting original sin) because God predestines them to be damned and withholds the Holy Spirit from them. So the question that needs addressing is: is Luther's position the teaching of Scripture or is the Formula of Concord's position the teaching of Scripture? The great majority of Lutherans since the 1580's have of course agreed with the Formula's position, but they've done so under the misapprehension that by doing so they were being true to Luther's teaching. Perhaps if some of them had been aware that Luther wasn't in agreement with the Formula of Concord on predestination they might have had second thoughts about endorsing it. I don't know. Anyway I for one have been convinced by Luther's arguments in The Bondage of the Will that the Scriptures teach double predestination. I've become aware recently that there's a growing understanding among some Lutherans that Luther did hold to double predestination, but it isn't something which tends to be openly acknowledged. The vast majority of rank and file Lutherans are still unfortunately under the misapprehension that Luther rejected predestination to hell. However this state of affairs shouldn't be allowed to continue. It needs to be openly addressed that Luther believed in double predestination.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@VDMA One of the reasons that Lutherans choose not to believe that God predestines people to be damned seems to me to be because they judge the doctrine on the basis of human reason and conclude wrongly that God would be acting in an iniquitous fashion if he did so. However they should allow for the fact that God isn't to be judged by human ideas of justice and accept that God has perfectly righteous reasons for predestining some to be damned. It's just that we don't presently understand how God can be just when He predestines people to be damned. However as Luther says we will understand in the next life that God is perfectly righteous in choosing only to save some and not to save others. The belief which Lutherans hold that God is totally responsible for why people are saved but mankind is totally responsible for why people are damned is logically contradictory and completely impossible. The Scriptures teach that God doesn't choose to save everyone and that He chooses to damn some by leaving them in their sins. The idea that God tries to convert everyone through the Holy Spirit directly contradicts the truth that God only elects to save a certain number of people who He predestines to be saved. It would be impossible for God to ensure that only those He elects to save will be saved if He at the same time tries to regenerate everyone through the Word as Lutherans believe. Why do Lutherans think that God does contradictory things? They believe that God elects to save only a limited number of people, but then He tries to regenerate everyone through the Word and Holy Spirit. This doesn't make any sense. The Scriptures don't teach this. They teach that God irresistibly regenerates through the Holy Spirit those He elects to save, and He withholds the Holy Spirit from those He chooses not to save but to damn.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@VDMA The final point I haven't addressed in your reply is that "Calvinists can really only preach salvation as a possibility not a certainty.” I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to the Calvinist belief in limited atonement? If you are, you're forgetting one thing, I've made it plain in a previous exchange of views with you that I'm not a Calvinist and that I accept everything in the Book of Concord except the teaching of single predestination in the Formula of Concord. So if you are referring to limited atonement I don't believe in that. I believe Christ's atonement was a universal one, and that if one has true faith, then one can be assured that Christ died for one without having to worry about whether one is a member of the elect who Christ only died for. Also it seems to me that Lutheranism, because it teaches contradictory doctrines of salvation and damnation, destroys any coherent view of God's will and predestination. I mean since it believes that God alone decides who will be saved but man alone decides who will be damned it presents a confused and incoherent view of God. In the Lutheran world view God chooses or elects to save not everyone but only those He predestines to be saved, which means He doesn't choose and predestine the others to be saved, but one isn't allowed to say that God chooses, elects and predestines them to be not saved i.e. damned, even though that is the logical corollary. The Lutheran world view is like a world in which one sided coins exist. Heads (predestination to heaven) exists but tails (predestination to hell) doesn't. It's a world view which can't possibly exist in reality, but somehow Lutherans have been persuaded that it not only can exist but does exist. I think Lutherans have so hated the idea of God predestining people to be damned that they've misinterpreted the Bible to teach the doctrine of single predestination, and have convinced themselves it's true even though it can't possibly be true.

[@user-zero0945]

In Christian theology, what is new is heresy

[@bobpolo2964]

Kinda seems like you just advocated universalism without any clarification 22:20-40

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I'll have to check exactly what I said, but I'm not a universalist.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@DrJordanBCooper I believe you. Check the time stamp i posted

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@bobpolo2964 He's explained what that means in other videos. Christ did die to justify the whole human race and has nothing but good will toward the whole race. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iISkl6Csh7B8jLc _But that would mean everyone is going to heaven!_ No. Watch his other videos.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@Mygoalwogel Agreed

[@dubbelkastrull]

​@@DrJordanBCooper Would you say it's possible to be at least a hopeful universalist and a lutheran?

[@Johnpaul-bv4tg]

The LAW John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of "" water"" and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. What if water is represented by true repentance with great sorrow great remorse creating ... tears of living water The scripture says they were cut to the heart and the heart was circumcised without human hands could that mean "CRYING "

[@Mygoalwogel]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6qxY6Oid5J1mJo kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3q4mJekYs6EmLM kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoTYnnWForZ3ms0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/fKWWiHujf9Z0hcU kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKPXf4CuaZVpg5o kzbin.info/www/bejne/aonQqKyojaiAotU Might have missed a couple.

[@Johnpaul-bv4tg]

@@Mygoalwogel We have had discussions before, Thank you for your response to my post. Acts 1:5-8 Jesus said for John baptized with water but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Question? Can one be saved without the baptism of the Holy Spirit??

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@Johnpaul-bv4tg How do you distinguish baptism of the Spirit from baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? bookofconcord.org/lc-4-creed.php#para34

[@Johnpaul-bv4tg]

@@Mygoalwogel Matthews 3:11 John the Baptist said. "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. What you have to be able to understand, is why did John the Baptist use water to baptize. The only answer in scripture.. JOHN 1:31-34 John was given instructions by God how to dentify the Son of God by looking for a" dove" When John baptized Jesus the heavens opened up the dove appeared and water baptism ended. As what John the Baptist preached the one who comes after me will baptized in the Holy Spirit.. it's the baptism of the Holy Spirit we have to be concerned about to day. Acts 1:5 JESUS said this after the great communion For John baptized with water but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Specifying it's only John the Baptist who did water baptism .it has nothing to do with believers baptism today. Question.. Where in scripture in your opinion is the 1st time believers baptism was understood. And a ceremony performed?

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@Johnpaul-bv4tg We don't use the term "believers' baptism." Do you mean Christian baptism?

[@electromata]

26 adds in the video !!! Sorry bro , bye bye.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I set it so that KZbin places ads automatically.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

But yeah, that's way too many. Will fix that.

[@electromata]

@@DrJordanBCooper hope so , because as interesting is what you say , can imagine not your fault but something is to see some publi to compensate your work , but how KZbin can put that amount on there .

[@DrJordanBCooper]

@@electromata I changed it to three mid roll ads. I think KZbin is trying to overcompensate with companies not really willing to pay much for ad space at the moment.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@DrJordanBCooper NOOOOO! Take your add revenue, please! Change it back! Change it back!

[@oldglory6922]

How on earth did the body of Christ (not the same as the self proclaimed one true church of Christ) ever last for 2000 years without all of these PhDs. The early church of “unlearned men that turned the world upside down”, did not rely on intellectual grasping of overly confusing theology and complicated doctrines derived from the rigid mind of man. They relied on the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation, the grace of God, and Spirit of God. The original Apostles would be saying “What are you talking about?” The Apostle Paul said “we preach not ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord” and said “I desired to know nothing amongst you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified”. But today preachers don’t even know what that means. When Paul said “I am not ashamed of the gospel”, he was talking about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and in no way was water baptism in his mind when he said that. He even said that God did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel. But I am sure that the CoC has some lame explanation for that also. But what the CoC is lacking in their preaching is the power of God, because they think that the power in the Christian life comes from us when it really comes from the resurrected Christ who dwells in us through the Holy Spirit.

[@yellowblackbird9000]

What an uneducated and useless critique.

[@dubbelkastrull]

4:40 bookmark