And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England (Different from the Church of England) Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations :)
I am not a Lutheran but I completely agree with the Lutheran position on this. It seems to align with Scripture way better than the "Calvinist/Armenian" heads of the coin.
You are basically saying Scripture is in contradiction with itself. To say monergism is true and yet why some are not saved is simply because they rejected it is impossible. Monergistic Grace can’t be rejected, thats why it is called monergism. It’s really like saying “I am fat and I am not fat”, both can’t be true. The difficulty is not solved by saying both are true. Its not virtuous to affirm contradiction Look: Calvinists are wrong because they don’t think you can lose your salvation, Catholics and Arminians are wrong because they don’t believe in monergism and Lutherans are wrong because they affirm a contradiction. Augustine provided a solution: The Christian life is not fully monergistic but largely so. So the gift of faith and getting into the relifion is solely by God, its monergistic. This Grace is therefore ofc not given to all otherwise all would believe. Yet after this monergistic gift there are some synergistic capabilities for the Christian. So all who stay in this synergism will fall away, because how much more will we fall away if Adam couldn’t even manage a simple commandment with an uncorrupted nature. So God will give his elect a gift of perseverance, which is effectual. Augustine said all who get this gift will persevere and no one without the gift will persevere, i.e. effectual. So people who fall away fall away because of their own will, but those who make it to heaven will do so by Gods effectual gift. There are no contradictions in this scheme and it makes sense of the biblical data
@@nonpossenonpeccare9104 It sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself here. If I understand what you are saying, you claim that grace cannot be rejected, yet after we receive it we can reject it.
@@sarco64 Monergistic grace can’t be rejected. The Christian life consists of multiple parts. The first part is conversion which is monergistic. After that human have some synergistic capability. If you stay in this ability you will fall away. So for his elect God will give additional monergistic perseverance so that the elect do not fall away, while the non-elect believers fall away. There is no contradiction here
@@wetfart420 No it isn’t. Lutherans affirm the contradiction. I am saying the Christian life has multiple stages. The first part is conversion which is monergistic gift. After that conversion the Christian will have synergistic capabilities. Those who stay in synergism will fall away, but for the elect God will give an additional monergistic gift of perseverance. There js no contradiction coz that which is monergistic can’t be rejected, unlike the Lutherans who do claim it can be rejected
Agreed. It seems to me that Lutherans value not being Reformed a bit too much that they sometimes invent differences where none exist or where our real differences would have been notable anyway. And I find it rather distasteful that everyone presents equal ultimacy, a view rejected in the Reformed confessions, as if it was _the_ Reformed view.
@@oracleoftroy If Spurgeon taught that, then that is still lutheran, not calvinist. Luther wrote this in direct response to Calvinism and Arminianism, claiming both are wrong, and Calvin has rejected Luthers' view as well. Calvinism very explicitly does not say what Luther is saying. So if Spurgeon taught that, then he taught a lutheran position, not a calvinist one. I mean, how does "irresistable grace" fit into "one can resist his grace"? It doesn't. It's two different concepts. Which is okay, one doesn't have to agree 100% with everything your denomination says. There are reformed churches, particularly in Europe, who do hold a similar view. Namely those who affirm the Leuenberg Agreement and are part of the Communion of Protestant Churches in Europe, a group aimed to mending the schism between reformed and lutheran churches.
@@Dsingis I don't know about spurgen, I am speaking of the Reformed Confessions. Many have argued that Luther put forward a "double" predestination view in Bondage of the Will, the same view Calvin held and the Reformed still hold. It is distinct from equal ultimacy and the "single" predestination of modern Lutherans. I've heard it claimed that Lutherans started moving away from Luther after his death. You can see that confessions like the Westminster Confession distinguish between what God ordains unto death and what God predestines unto live in chapter 3. What God ordains includes esteblishing the free will of man and the liberty and contingency of second causes, showing the understanding that it is our willful sin that condemns us unto hell, but God's will that predestines us unto life. As for irresistible grace, it is unclear if you are going by the Canon of Dort's claims. "Grace" is specifically regeneration, which scripture tells us is as the Spirit moves, and we can resist that as much as a baby can resist being generated in the first place (it is as their parents move). Nowadays, grace is used in a broader way that was not in view when Dort was worked out.
@@SolaScriptura21 Yep, but they won't even call Catholics Christians. They don't hate Lutherans normally but they always feel superior in a way. I do know a few myself and we get along, but those are usually not the youtube commenters 😆
@@Dilley_G45 to be fair, most who comment on TH-cam tend to be or will be harsh with their words, seems to be the nature of the internet from my observations.
@Ddd1-cx4ed you make the mistake of thinking we can make God oblige. That's your calvinist interpretation. We don't say that. It's a core tenant of Lutheranism that we are saved by grace alone. Not by works of any kind. That doesn't mean we cannot reject the grace freely offered. We don't make God offer grace. But he surely doesn't condemn most of us to be forever unable to receive it. Dr. Cooper was a Presbyterian and I'm sure he understands both sides of the argument very well.
Most calvinists tend to call non calvinists arminians, I think it’s just laziness, since they don’t like to explore other beliefs, so they’ll just put people in 2 categories.
I find it interesting how the Lutheran understanding of the Crux Theologorum is objected as "Not making sense", despite other incomprehensible realities of God being fully accepted without question; the Triune Godhead, the natures of Christ, the eternal aspect of God, etc.
I think you make a good point. I might use “comprehend” instead of “understand” though. Because we can understand all those things. But we can never truly comprehend or grasp them.
This isn't just a Lutheran thing. For example, nearly all Christians accept the doctrine of the trinity, even though the concept of one God yet three persons doesn't "make sense" in human terms. I do think that Lutherans, more than many others, are OK with saying that various Christian doctrines which don't "make sense" in human terms are divine mysteries, and leave it at that, rather than trying to come up with rational explanations.
There is a difference between that which cannot be understood fully by reason and that which is wholly contrary to reason. For instance, God can unite His essence to a human nature. This is beyond reason. God cannot create a married bachelor. That is contrary to reason. Lutheranism in its distinctives - as is affirmed time and again by these short clips and demonstrated to be the case through careful study of their dogmatics - is the latter.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England (Different from the Church of England) Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations :)
Both the Reformed and Lutherans are monergistic in their teaching about initial salvation, but only the Reformed teach that God will complete what He started in the sinner until the finner's final salvation in heaven.
In teaching that the monergistically saved sinner can still be lost after initial salvation, Lutheran teaching obviously corresponds with the Remonstrant teaching of those who followed the theology of Jacob Arminius on this issue.
Would it be fair to say that in the Lutheran understanding, if we can be said to make a positive choice for God, we make that choice after already receiving the gift of salvation, not before receiving it as in the Arminian understanding?
Definitely after receiving not before, this is different because Calvinism teaches one can't make a positive choice for God after election. For example many have an issue with "treasures in heaven" as they believe people can't store them up.
Yes. If we are saved, if we revieve the Holy Spirit, then that is 100% grace and a free gift of god. But Lutheranism also acknowledges that a christian can fall away from the faith, which calvinism denied. (They claim they never were saved to begin with). Luther's view is that one can make a conscious decision to reject salvation even after having recieved it. That's not something passive, nobody can tear you away fom god's hand, but it's an active decision to reject everything. Apostasy for example. But even a non-believer rejecting the truth does so because of his own will. Lutherans disagree with "irresistable grace".
Arminius himself certainly wouldn’t say that “free will” is the answer to that issue. In fact, he provided an answer that is very close to the pure passivity view of many intuitu fidei Lutherans, among other Lutherans. For example: “It is this grace which operates on the mind, the affections, and the will; which infuses good thoughts into the mind, inspires good desires into the actions, and bends the will to carry into execution good desires. This grace goes before, accompanies, and follows.” -Jacob Arminius
The prevenient grace includes at least four aspects or elements: calling, convicting, illuminating, and enabling. No person can repent, believe and be saved without the Holy Spirit’s supernatural support from beginning to end. All the person does is cooperate by not resisting. Do you agree with the above statement?
As a classical Arminian, I would agree with this. I’ve never claimed that Lutherans are just Arminians, but I do thank Arminianism can be understood as starting at the Calvinist position and taking a step back towards Lutheranism.
So...if I'm not mistaken, it sounds like Lutherans believe that God gives grace to all but everyone responds to that grace differently. Of course we cannot say it is our work because without the free gift of grace, we wouldn't respond to anything. So it is all God's doing. Am I on the right track?
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England (Different from the Church of England) Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations :)
They won't really distinguish 😆 explain the difference between a patriarch and a pope. They won't really care. Or that orthodox have differing views, different rules for marriage and priesthood, immaculate conception, etc. I like the orthodox version of the niceene creed which lines up with scripture. I always prefer when the apostolic creed is read. No confusion there
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
So we need saving Grace, we can only be saved if God works in us, God works in some and not others, they’re responsible for rejecting something they need God to give (was everyone who isn’t saved given the gift and they reject it?), and somehow those who received Gods gift willingly can lose it by rejecting it? Do you guys believe in conversion? (I’m not sure how to make sense of losing salvation while holding to conversion).
The problem with the Lutheran position is that this doesn't make logical sense. As Calvinists correctly point out, if one believes the scriptures about going to Heaven being entirely God's doing, then by not electing certain people God is essentially condemning them to Hell. Conversely, as Arminians correctly point out, if one believes the scriptures about God willing for all to be saved, and that condemnation comes only because of human free will to reject the gospel, then by not making this choice to reject the gospel we Christians are choosing to accept God's grace. As a Lutheran, I admit that the Lutheran position doesn't stand up to scrutiny by human logic, and I ask why it would have to. God's triune nature is beyond our ability to understand logically, as is Jesus' dual nature as fully human and fully divine. God is not obligated to work in a manner that is fully comprehensible by human logic.
As an Arminian I don’t think it’s that way. If God leaves someone alone (because that person wants to be left alone), then He’s letting them figure it out. If they could save themselves (which they believe they’re good enough on their own a lot of times), then God would let them do it. I don’t even think God has to send them to hell or torment or whatever, because Satan would snatch them himself, as that person isn’t under God’s protection (and isn’t going to heaven) when they die. Please don’t affirm double predestination. That being said, Lutherans are Arminian in every way that really counts. I’m happy about that. Limited atonement and double predestination are ghastly doctrines.
I always thought they had a really interesting kinship with Presbyterians--in the sense that they are both more people of the mind over emotion. Deep theological thinkers
Lutherans are older. So if anything calvinists are a spin off of Lutherans. We are not moderate, we are different. Unlike Calvinists we don't ditch the sacraments, and we find no biblical command to ditch hymns or vestments, we do communion weekly, it's a sacrament, as is Baptism. We don't believe in double predestination and we certainly don't invent doctrines.
@@Dilley_G45 The Reformed also believe in the sacraments, and while they don't believe in baptismal regeneration (at least most modern ones don't) all the Reformed confessions make it clear they do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is coming from a former Calvinist who is considering converting to Lutheranism.
@@Dilley_G45 The Reformed have a pretty weird view of baptism I'll admit. The point is that they do believe in the sacraments. In fact, I think it's the Westminster Shorter Catechism which calls the sacraments a means of grace effectual for salvation.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 just be Lutheran and avoid all confusion and at the same time enjoy a beautiful church building with stained glass windows, crosses, vestments and even beautiful hymns and you're still not under the pope 😆
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
This is just willfully ignorant. The real presence view of communion goes back to the beginning yes. But transubstantiation specifically came later having come from Greek Philosophy vs. apostolic tradition. Or in other words, many of the early church fathers believed in the real presence but didn’t define how it worked. Luther’s formulation to me makes more sense and is not derivative of Greek philosophy. So yeah.
@@dakotasmith1344 Transubstantiation, applied in 1215, is just a term that means to change one form or substance into another. That's it! At Catholic and Orthodox Holy Mass the bread and wine become the carnal/corporeal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ with His Soul and Divinity, despite appearing to the senses as still being bread and wine. The Council of Trent 1551 did not dogmatise Greek aristotelism, nor the aristotelan theory of form and matter etc to try and state how God performs the miracle of the Eucharist - which is impossible to define. The Catholic Church only dogmatized the fact that the bread and wine during the Mass become really, truly and substantially the living Body and Blood of Christ, the outward appearances alone remaining unchanged. This was done in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council in Canon 1. And Catholic Church dogma did not deviate then, nor does it now, from the teachings of Jesus Christ, His Apostles and the early Church Fathers on the Eucharist. The Catholic Church teaches what happens not how it happens. You are misusing WI because if you bother to read the teachings of the Catholic Church then you would not be regurgitating typical protestant hearsay about the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist - unless you are going to be WI that is. Please find links below to The Council of Trent and the Catholic Catechism where you can see for yourself that aristotelan theory is not to be found and what the Catholic Church does officially teach on the Eucharist. www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/thirteenth-session-of-the-council-of-trent-1479 THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, October, 1551, Session XIII: Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist & Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church: Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 3 THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST As I said in my post the idea is utterly preposterous that Luther got it right with Jesus Christ being “in, with and under” the bread and wine and the Catholic and Orthodox Church had got it wrong for 1500 years that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
If one thinks Jesus Christ was being anything other than literal and definite when He said “This is my body” and “This is my blood” then, as the 1500’s reformation proved with five different theories between them, the Lord’s Supper can mean anything one wants it to. A man becomes a Priest in the Catholic and Orthodox Church when he is ordained by the Sacrament of Holy Orders by a Bishop of Apostolic Succession. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is a miraculous event, with its linage going back to the Apostles, where a sacred power/a special gift of the Holy Spirit/sacerdotal powers is conferred on the Priest. Holy Orders enables the ordained to exercise a sacred power in the name and with the authority of Christ for the service of the People of God. The principal use of a Catholic and Orthodox Priest’s sacerdotal powers is, acting in the person of Christ, the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body, blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
The Lutheran church does not have Bishops of Apostolic Succession and therefore the Sacrament of Holy Orders and therefore the bread and wine remain bread and wine at a Lutheran church service. So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” (John 6:53-56) The way to partake in the Lord’s Supper as our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ intended is to be a member of the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church.
Think of it like this, when you make a "yes" or "no" choice, whichever option you pick, you reject the other. When you pick "no" you reject "yes" , and - as you have intuited - when you pick "yes" you reject "no". In either case it *is* a choice. The point that is being made about only being saved through grace (as far as I understand it) is that without the grace of God you would have no opportunity to choose *either way*. The wages of sin is death, if not for the grace of God calling you to repentance you die in bondage as a slave to sin. When God calls you by grace and you respond with "yes" you have been saved *because* of His grace, but if you reject Him it's not that He didn't try to save you, it's not that He didn't offer grace, it's that you chose to reject Him. Essentially, you can do nothing to save yourself but everything to condemn yourself. Does that help? May the LORD bless you and keep you
@@Glory_to_YAHWEH That makes sense, but largely because that is the Arminian position. We are saved by grace alone. Dr. Cooper sounded like he was saying the "yes" is more in line with Calvinism.
We don't choose the salvation. Jesus did thebwork for us on the cross. We can't earn it. So the offer of Grace is there. But you can walk away. Your will cannot earn salvation but you can choose to otnaccept by rejecting it
@@scottmcdermand8697 Dort doesn’t change anything in my previous comment. I can rightly state Calvinists in general are shallow and unthinking on this issue because if a person doesn’t prescribe to their particular version of monergism (which they think is the only form of monergism), they’re labeled a synergist.
@@flashhog01 Yes, you can rightly engage ad hominem generalizations. However, broad generalizations about "Calvinists" without considering what "Calvinist" church bodies actually believe actually sounds a bit shallow and unthinking. Would love to know which kind of "Calvinists" you've come across. They've probably never read their own confessional documents. For what it's worth, the term "Calvinists" is actually a misnomer since there is no actual group of people under the banner of Calvin. Calvin was one guy, and no Reformed ecclesiastical bodies are called by his name. Which shallow and unthinking people are you referring to? There are the Reformed, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Congregationalists, and there a few Baptists who subscribe to the London Baptist Confession. I've found most to be rather well-read and well-spoken. They will even read and listen to what others believe and they are especially fond of Luther and his writings because they see themselves as having come from his thought.
@@flashhog01 More ad hominem? My suggestion is to read the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Standards and engage with those rather than with the behavior of the alleged "Calvinists" that you've allegedly come across. That way you can respond to the substance rather than generalizing and disparaging others that you have allegedly come across, allegedly. It may also help to read some of the history on the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly. The authors of these documents were well aware of Luther and Lutheranism and were not writing in a vacuum.
If you are drowning and a lifeguard swims out to rescue you, you can kick and splash and fight him off... and die. If you remain passive, the lifeguard grabs you, and you live. You get zero credit for playing a role in being saved, because the lifeguard did _all_ of the work.
You could say this, but I think it's kind of meaningless. Yes, I did not interfere with the lifeguard, but would it make any sense to say that I "chose" to be saved? At any rate, this is just one small mind's/ small man's attempt to understand a deep issue... it's useful for me, but I don't want it to stand in the way of anyone "coming to Jesus" (or, as a Lutheran might say, "receiving Jesus" ;-). Thanks for engaging my comment 🙂 @@richardwashington421
That still suggests that we are saved because we are better than others. Phrase it however you want. We are "less evil" than the non-elect. God's election is unconditional, not based on who wants to be saved or who cooperates.
Calvinists do not deny the responsibility of man. People go to hell because they reject God. People go to heaven because of God's mercy. Calvinism upholds both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Chapter 3 - God’s Decree 1. From all eternity God decreed everything that occurs, without reference to anything outside himself. He did this by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably. Yet God did this in such a way that he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin. This decree does not violate the will of the creature or take away the free working or contingency of second causes. On the contrary, these are established by God’s decree. In this decree God’s wisdom is displayed in directing all things, and his power and faithfulness are demonstrated in accomplishing his decree.
Correct. This framing of the Will as understood confessionally by the Reformed tradition is woefully inadequate and imprecise, which is understandable to a degree given the informal nature of the conversation here, but one should expect more considering how many will take this presentation as accurate and precise.
@@reimannsum9077 it is meant to be a summary. That is the purpose. If one wants to go deeper Paul deals with this in great detail in Romans 8-11 especially 8 and 9. The confessions serve more as guide rails to help keep from error and summarize doctrines. I guess my purpose in writing the original comment was to try help others nee what calvinism actually says. Because the answer Dr Cooper gave on what Calvinism teaches was not really correct and we would actually heartily amen what he said as far as the Lutheran position that he gave in this clip. Though of course underneath there would be some slightly different emphasis or meaning behind certain terms. But we fully affirm man's responsibility. Man cannot come to Christ apart from God's regenerative work because man does not want to come. He loves his sin and hates God until God does a work of grace in the person's heart. Nobody goes to heaven because they deserve it, and nobody goes to hell who doesn't deserve it.
I don't accept that the Lutheran position on their being predestination to heaven but no predestination to hell is Biblical. Scripture teaches the reality of double predestination. For instance in John 6 only those can come to Christ who are drawn by the Father through the Holy Spirit and those who are unbelievers aren't drawn and granted the ability to believe in Christ by the Father. (John 6:44,64,65). The Lutheran position that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word isn't Scriptural, and Luther agreed that the Holy Spirit doesn't will to save everyone who hears the Gospel. This is Luther's position in The Bondage of the Will where he teaches that there's no free will and that God's hidden will and foreknowledge determines everything that happens, and that people are predestined to both heaven and hell.
"This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time." 1 Timothy 2:3-6 If you would believe this passage you would deny double predestination. "The Lutheran position that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word isn't Scriptural" This statement is incorrect. "so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." Isaiah 55:11
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 I take it you haven't studied The Bandage of the Will because Luther distinguished between God's hidden omnipotent will which determines everything that happens and His revealed will through Christ which desires everyone's salvation. It doesn't follow that because Christ atoned for the sins of the world that God by His hidden will has willed to save everyone. Luther argued correctly that God's eternal will and foreknowledge determines what happens and that everything is predestined to happen. God's Word accomplishes what He intends to accomplish which is that only some of those who hear the Gospel are to be irresistibly regenerated by the Holy Spirit so that they're saved. The idea that one can resist being regenerated as confessional Lutherans maintain is the case is false. If that was true then no one could be predestined by God to be saved because those God intended to save could offer resistance and thwart God’s predestination which is impossible. I agree with Luther on predestination which means I don't accept that Martin Chemnitz’s denial of predestination to hell in the Formula of Concord is either Scriptural or Lutheran. The early Lutherans such as Nicholas Amsdorf held with Luther that Scripture teaches double predestination.
I take it you haven't studied The Bondage of the Will because Luther distinguished between God's hidden omnipotent will which determines everything that happens and His revealed will through Christ which desires everyone's salvation. It doesn't follow that because Christ atoned for the sins of the world that God by His hidden will has willed to save everyone. Luther argued correctly that God's eternal will and foreknowledge determines what happens and that everything is predestined to happen. God's Word accomplishes what He purposes which is that only some of those who hear the Gospel are to be irresistibly regenerated by the Holy Spirit so that they're saved. The idea that one can resist being regenerated as confessional Lutherans hold is false. If that was true then no one could be predestined by God to be saved because those God intended to save could offer resistance and thwart God’s predestination which is impossible. I’m a Lutheran and I agree with Luther on predestination which means I don't accept that Martin Chemnitz’s denial of predestination to hell in the Formula of Concord is either Scriptural or truly Lutheran. The early Lutherans such as Nicholas Amsdorf held with Luther that Scripture teaches double predestination.
Jesus died for all, knowing that some would still reject him. Foreknowledge isn’t the same as overcoming the human will to force an event which is what calvinism teaches. God can have foreknowledge, sovereignty and will the good, while also allowing humans to be secondary causes with free will to reject or accept the offer of salvation. God wills that all men be saved but allows us to reject it, this is the predestination, he doesn’t revoke any sovereignty by setting up humans as a secondary cause to make their own real decisions
@@Flame1500 Where did Calvin or the Canons of Dort teach that God 'overcomes the human will' to force them to reject him? Calvinism and Lutheranism both teach that our default state is rejecting God. He doesn't need to do anything to make us turn away from him. In fact, it takes the miracle of regeneration to bring us back to him.
Not even close, traditionalism is basically semi pelagianism or crude synergism, at least Arminianism teaches prevenient grace which allows man to make the decision of faith unlike Traditionalism.
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7which allows man to make the decision of faith. It exactly what traditionalist/ proviniste agree on. Strong belief of free well but Also Gods election. God provided the means to which we are saved ( Christ sacrifice) we recognize/ trust( faith) in what has provided. There for we are saved. And those who are saved are called the elect. Because In Gods sovereignty he planed for salvation In Christ before it came to be.
No. Provisionism is the opposite in-between view. If you consider the questions "Is election unconditional" and "Can salvation be lost": Yes No -> Calvinism Yes Yes -> Lutheranism No No -> Provisionism/Traditionalist No Yes -> Arminianism
@@maxxiong Err, you currently have your second column flipped, or you changed your question and didn't update the column. You ask "Can salvation be lost", to which Calvinists say "no" and Lutherans say "yes". I'd also personally put a question mark there for Provisionsim. The SBC roots of it would certainly answer "no" to whether salvation can be lost, but as it mostly comes across as an anticalvinist movement with no clear positive theology, people from just about every tradition seem to call themselves "provisionist" these days if they have a beef with Calvinism, whether their own tradition would agree with them or not. Maybe it is just whatever Leighton believes, in which case it should be a clear "no", but plenty of people who call themselves provisionists would say "yes", and I'm not sure there is a clear enough independent standard to exclude them. I'm not sure about Arminians. I've seen several self professed Arminians who would answer "no" and others who would answer "yes". I haven't read the articles of the Remonstrates or Arminius directly to know where he stood on that.
Pop arminianism may at times say it is “free will” by which one is saved, but that’s too simplistic. Everyone w/out exception is granted faith and repentance. It is up to the sinner, posteriori, to receive God’s grace after the spirit convicts the sinner by which he is given the ability to overcome the deleterious effects of sin. God sovereignly ordained that man must believe in order to be saved.
- First you must prove your assertion from Scripture alone - Secondly you ought to cite Luther in "The Bondage of the Will" with chapter and page references. - Thirdly, you may make your assertions from Luther's citations and defend them both Scripurally and consistently with Luther's sense, , if you can..
For those who really want to understand the Reformed position, I'm sure Dr. Cooper would recommend reading the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Standards. That would be a good place to start for anyone who is curious about what the Reformed actually believe and confess. The confessions and catechisms are what matter, not what you heard a "Calvinist" say one time. Although it is much easier to watch a short video and then comment on how lazy and stupid "Calvinists" are than it is to read historical documents. I wonder if Dr. Cooper sees these comments and is disappointed in some of his Lutheran followers? Hopefully those who post negative comments about other Christians are not his parishioners. I obviously don't agree with my Lutheran friends on every theological point, but nor do I call them lazy, stupid, or unthinking because we have different views. It's much more fun to share a bottle of Scotch and talk theology in a respectful and inquisitive manner.
It's called "False Dichotomy", or "Bifurcation" , which is known as one of the classic logical fallacies. Indeed it reflects ignorance of the true doctrine and history of the various streams of false doctrine. The Remedy? Read Luther's book: "THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL" All will be revealed ......
As a calvinist I see Lutherans as 4 points calvinists or something like that, to be honest. They aren't semi-pelagians as arminians or catholics/orthodox, but not die hard on predestination as calvinists.
@@Flame1500 Lutherans believe God's election to salvation is conditioned on man in some way? That's news to me. I would have named God's Perseverance of the Saints as the other point they reject, not Unconditional Election.
If one accepts the Lutheran position, then one is accepting that you have two tenets that are in contradiction to each other. Lutherans are okay with that I am not. Gods word is harmonious. There are paradoxes but no real Contradiction. To say this is a contraction only in our minds but not Gods seems a big stretch. Mysteries are trans rational but not anti rational. This approach opens up hermeneutical can of worms where one can hold contradictory positions and hide behind this. It makes void any use of reason
Everyone has to jump on the Arminians. They all love to throw around the terms "pelagian" and "semi pelagian". The problem is if they hold to their standards across the board, they have to throw out most of the early Church Fathers as "semi pelagian". Generally, the reformed just ignore the early Church outside of Augustine. When you read other Fathers, especially the Greek Fathers, you know why. Calvin, himself, noted how "bad" the Greek Fathers were with free will and synergism.
I don't know any arminian who would say that anybody was save by their "free will, maybe assisted by God's grace". Arminians seem to be very consistent on saying that the grace of God is absolutely necessary for anybody to be saved.
You're not wrong, however the problem arises from what is implicitly suggested. Jesus may have done all the work - living a perfect life, dying, and rising from the dead; and faith itself may still be a gift from God. But if humans must choose to accept the faith, then there is still an ounce of responsibility on the individual. Jesus may have done all the work yet *you* need to accept it yourself. If this is the case, you need to do something to be saved - that is, believe. God did the 99.999%, but it's up to you to contribute the 1% via belief.
@@restedassurance I would certainly agree that there is responsibility in the human part. I am not sure how many ounces of it, but enough to make him the cause of his own damnation in case he rejects the grace offered. But whatever this responsibility is, it is not meritorious, and that I think is the matter of the question. I may be responsible to accept or reject the grace offered, and yet not deserve any merit for salvation. ANd I would say that even this capacity to receive grace is from grace. And that is absolutely glorious and beautiful. In any case, all the glory is God's.
reformed nonsense. I can't believe that someone would dare say that the sinner is "passive" in his belief in Christ. READ John 1:12 "receive" is literally a full on embracing of Christ and "believe" is also fully conscious and active. Reformed theory is man-made garbage.
Indeed the verb. "received" (ἔλαβον) And the participle "believe" (πιστεύουσιν) are both in the active voice. This is because the faith which God works in our hearts really is our faith. Nevertheless it is worked within us by the power of the Gospel (Romans 1:16) and is by His doing (John 6:45) and a result solely of His mighty working (1 Thessalonians 1:5 and 2:13)
There's no dispute over the fact that there's only one holy catholic Church which is the Church that Christ established. There's only dispute about which is that Church. I don't accept that Christ established the Papacy and made Peter a universal bishop who was given the responsibility to oversee His Church on earth and that he passed on this responsibility to his successors. This is just based on a misinterpretation of Scripture (particularly Matthew 16:18) and a false historical narrative. The early bishops of Rome were at most first among equals not superior over all other bishops. It was hundreds of years after Christ before the Roman bishops began to assert their superiority and imposed themselves on other churches as their leaders. The true catholic Church is a spiritual body composed of everyone in the world who has true faith in Christ, and who is justified before God through this faith alone. The Church is therefore in essence invisible and only visible to God as we can't see another's faith. The idea that the one true Church is an organisation with its headquarters in Rome is a misunderstanding of what the Church actually is. The popes are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and all who are inwardly deceived by them as regards how a person is righteous before God (which the popes deny is through faith alone without works as Paul teaches) aren't members of the one holy catholic Church.
The ironic thing is that you appear proud about being wrong about salvation. Paul teaches that we’re justified through faith alone without works, and that good works are done as a consequence of being saved, and not in order to be saved (Ephesians 2:8-10) yet your church rejects this, which means it's wrong about salvation. Christ promised that His Church wouldn't be overcome by false teaching (i.e. the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against it) yet that is what has happened to your church. Your church also teaches falsely about Mary saying she's a queen in heaven ruling alongside Christ, and that she can influence Christ on a person's behalf as if He wasn't a merciful Saviour who only needs to be trusted but is simply a judge who needs to be softened up. There are also other examples of your church teaching falsely. Paul for instance said that forbidding people to be married is a teaching of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-3) yet your church forbids marriage to its clergy. Another example is the teaching of your church that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice which contradicts Scripture that Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross brings complete redemption. With regards to the way the popes have conducted themselves in past centuries they used to sanction the burning and killing of those who they regarded as heretics, and encourage their followers to go on violent crusades, both of which are unchristian. So in conclusion your church isn't the One True Church because it does teach wrongly about salvation, and has conducted itself in an unchristian manner in past centuries.
Thank you to both of you.
Very challenging question.
To God the Glory!
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations
:)
A perfect reforned answer.
I am not a Lutheran but I completely agree with the Lutheran position on this. It seems to align with Scripture way better than the "Calvinist/Armenian" heads of the coin.
You are basically saying Scripture is in contradiction with itself. To say monergism is true and yet why some are not saved is simply because they rejected it is impossible. Monergistic Grace can’t be rejected, thats why it is called monergism. It’s really like saying “I am fat and I am not fat”, both can’t be true. The difficulty is not solved by saying both are true. Its not virtuous to affirm contradiction
Look: Calvinists are wrong because they don’t think you can lose your salvation, Catholics and Arminians are wrong because they don’t believe in monergism and Lutherans are wrong because they affirm a contradiction. Augustine provided a solution: The Christian life is not fully monergistic but largely so. So the gift of faith and getting into the relifion is solely by God, its monergistic. This Grace is therefore ofc not given to all otherwise all would believe. Yet after this monergistic gift there are some synergistic capabilities for the Christian. So all who stay in this synergism will fall away, because how much more will we fall away if Adam couldn’t even manage a simple commandment with an uncorrupted nature. So God will give his elect a gift of perseverance, which is effectual. Augustine said all who get this gift will persevere and no one without the gift will persevere, i.e. effectual. So people who fall away fall away because of their own will, but those who make it to heaven will do so by Gods effectual gift. There are no contradictions in this scheme and it makes sense of the biblical data
@@nonpossenonpeccare9104 It sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself here. If I understand what you are saying, you claim that grace cannot be rejected, yet after we receive it we can reject it.
@@sarco64 Monergistic grace can’t be rejected. The Christian life consists of multiple parts. The first part is conversion which is monergistic. After that human have some synergistic capability. If you stay in this ability you will fall away. So for his elect God will give additional monergistic perseverance so that the elect do not fall away, while the non-elect believers fall away. There is no contradiction here
@@wetfart420 No it isn’t. Lutherans affirm the contradiction. I am saying the Christian life has multiple stages. The first part is conversion which is monergistic gift. After that conversion the Christian will have synergistic capabilities. Those who stay in synergism will fall away, but for the elect God will give an additional monergistic gift of perseverance. There js no contradiction coz that which is monergistic can’t be rejected, unlike the Lutherans who do claim it can be rejected
I would love to go deeper on this topic. Are there books that dive into this from a Lutheran perspective?
This Lutheran response sounds exactly like what most Calvinists say, that I've ever heard. Charles Spurgeon, a self-avowed Calvinist, taught this.
Agreed. It seems to me that Lutherans value not being Reformed a bit too much that they sometimes invent differences where none exist or where our real differences would have been notable anyway. And I find it rather distasteful that everyone presents equal ultimacy, a view rejected in the Reformed confessions, as if it was _the_ Reformed view.
@@oracleoftroy If Spurgeon taught that, then that is still lutheran, not calvinist. Luther wrote this in direct response to Calvinism and Arminianism, claiming both are wrong, and Calvin has rejected Luthers' view as well. Calvinism very explicitly does not say what Luther is saying. So if Spurgeon taught that, then he taught a lutheran position, not a calvinist one. I mean, how does "irresistable grace" fit into "one can resist his grace"? It doesn't. It's two different concepts. Which is okay, one doesn't have to agree 100% with everything your denomination says. There are reformed churches, particularly in Europe, who do hold a similar view. Namely those who affirm the Leuenberg Agreement and are part of the Communion of Protestant Churches in Europe, a group aimed to mending the schism between reformed and lutheran churches.
@@Dsingis I don't know about spurgen, I am speaking of the Reformed Confessions. Many have argued that Luther put forward a "double" predestination view in Bondage of the Will, the same view Calvin held and the Reformed still hold. It is distinct from equal ultimacy and the "single" predestination of modern Lutherans. I've heard it claimed that Lutherans started moving away from Luther after his death.
You can see that confessions like the Westminster Confession distinguish between what God ordains unto death and what God predestines unto live in chapter 3. What God ordains includes esteblishing the free will of man and the liberty and contingency of second causes, showing the understanding that it is our willful sin that condemns us unto hell, but God's will that predestines us unto life.
As for irresistible grace, it is unclear if you are going by the Canon of Dort's claims. "Grace" is specifically regeneration, which scripture tells us is as the Spirit moves, and we can resist that as much as a baby can resist being generated in the first place (it is as their parents move).
Nowadays, grace is used in a broader way that was not in view when Dort was worked out.
Thanks, send this to all the Calvinists out there as well. They keep mislabeling us
They do tend to label most non calvinists as arminians.
@@SolaScriptura21 Yep, but they won't even call Catholics Christians. They don't hate Lutherans normally but they always feel superior in a way. I do know a few myself and we get along, but those are usually not the youtube commenters 😆
@@Dilley_G45 to be fair, most who comment on TH-cam tend to be or will be harsh with their words, seems to be the nature of the internet from my observations.
@Ddd1-cx4ed you make the mistake of thinking we can make God oblige. That's your calvinist interpretation. We don't say that. It's a core tenant of Lutheranism that we are saved by grace alone. Not by works of any kind. That doesn't mean we cannot reject the grace freely offered. We don't make God offer grace. But he surely doesn't condemn most of us to be forever unable to receive it. Dr. Cooper was a Presbyterian and I'm sure he understands both sides of the argument very well.
Most calvinists tend to call non calvinists arminians, I think it’s just laziness, since they don’t like to explore other beliefs, so they’ll just put people in 2 categories.
I find it interesting how the Lutheran understanding of the Crux Theologorum is objected as "Not making sense", despite other incomprehensible realities of God being fully accepted without question; the Triune Godhead, the natures of Christ, the eternal aspect of God, etc.
I think you make a good point. I might use “comprehend” instead of “understand” though.
Because we can understand all those things. But we can never truly comprehend or grasp them.
This isn't just a Lutheran thing. For example, nearly all Christians accept the doctrine of the trinity, even though the concept of one God yet three persons doesn't "make sense" in human terms. I do think that Lutherans, more than many others, are OK with saying that various Christian doctrines which don't "make sense" in human terms are divine mysteries, and leave it at that, rather than trying to come up with rational explanations.
There is a difference between that which cannot be understood fully by reason and that which is wholly contrary to reason.
For instance, God can unite His essence to a human nature. This is beyond reason.
God cannot create a married bachelor. That is contrary to reason.
Lutheranism in its distinctives - as is affirmed time and again by these short clips and demonstrated to be the case through careful study of their dogmatics - is the latter.
@@reimannsum9077 No, it's not.
Well said Dr. Cooper
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations
:)
Both the Reformed and Lutherans are monergistic in their teaching about initial salvation, but only the Reformed teach that God will complete what He started in the sinner until the finner's final salvation in heaven.
Who's the guy in the video with Dr Cooper?
A rapper named "Flame" I think
In teaching that the monergistically saved sinner can still be lost after initial salvation, Lutheran teaching obviously corresponds with the Remonstrant teaching of those who followed the theology of Jacob Arminius on this issue.
Would it be fair to say that in the Lutheran understanding, if we can be said to make a positive choice for God, we make that choice after already receiving the gift of salvation, not before receiving it as in the Arminian understanding?
Definitely after receiving not before, this is different because Calvinism teaches one can't make a positive choice for God after election. For example many have an issue with "treasures in heaven" as they believe people can't store them up.
Yes. If we are saved, if we revieve the Holy Spirit, then that is 100% grace and a free gift of god. But Lutheranism also acknowledges that a christian can fall away from the faith, which calvinism denied. (They claim they never were saved to begin with). Luther's view is that one can make a conscious decision to reject salvation even after having recieved it. That's not something passive, nobody can tear you away fom god's hand, but it's an active decision to reject everything. Apostasy for example. But even a non-believer rejecting the truth does so because of his own will. Lutherans disagree with "irresistable grace".
Arminius himself certainly wouldn’t say that “free will” is the answer to that issue. In fact, he provided an answer that is very close to the pure passivity view of many intuitu fidei Lutherans, among other Lutherans. For example:
“It is this grace which operates on the mind, the affections, and the will; which infuses good thoughts into the mind, inspires good desires into the actions, and bends the will to carry into execution good desires. This grace goes before, accompanies, and follows.”
-Jacob Arminius
The prevenient grace includes at least four aspects or elements: calling, convicting, illuminating, and enabling. No person can repent, believe and be saved without the Holy Spirit’s supernatural support from beginning to end. All the person does is cooperate by not resisting.
Do you agree with the above statement?
As a classical Arminian, I would agree with this. I’ve never claimed that Lutherans are just Arminians, but I do thank Arminianism can be understood as starting at the Calvinist position and taking a step back towards Lutheranism.
@@SacramentalBaptist
I think you are incorrect, Calvinism and Lutheranism are both monergistic unlike Arminianism which is synergistic.
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 Just as some intuitu fidei Lutherans argue, yes.
@@TheOtherCaleb
Intuitu fidei isn't Lutheran orthodoxy.
So...if I'm not mistaken, it sounds like Lutherans believe that God gives grace to all but everyone responds to that grace differently. Of course we cannot say it is our work because without the free gift of grace, we wouldn't respond to anything. So it is all God's doing. Am I on the right track?
From my research Lutherans certainly seem to have the right answer on this
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations
:)
The was this Lutheran fellow named Martin who wrote a book called "The Bondage of the Will".😁
Marin Luther was the primary man associated with "The Reformation" so it's well past the time to re-take the title "Reformed".
And I have noticed that Calvinists tend to think the Orthodox are just Catholics without a pope.
They won't really distinguish 😆 explain the difference between a patriarch and a pope. They won't really care. Or that orthodox have differing views, different rules for marriage and priesthood, immaculate conception, etc. I like the orthodox version of the niceene creed which lines up with scripture. I always prefer when the apostolic creed is read. No confusion there
As a Lutheran, this drives me nuts!
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
Hahahahah That's funny. Thanks for the teaching and for pinpointing the distinctions, Dr. Cooper!
So we need saving Grace, we can only be saved if God works in us, God works in some and not others, they’re responsible for rejecting something they need God to give (was everyone who isn’t saved given the gift and they reject it?), and somehow those who received Gods gift willingly can lose it by rejecting it?
Do you guys believe in conversion? (I’m not sure how to make sense of losing salvation while holding to conversion).
The problem with the Lutheran position is that this doesn't make logical sense. As Calvinists correctly point out, if one believes the scriptures about going to Heaven being entirely God's doing, then by not electing certain people God is essentially condemning them to Hell. Conversely, as Arminians correctly point out, if one believes the scriptures about God willing for all to be saved, and that condemnation comes only because of human free will to reject the gospel, then by not making this choice to reject the gospel we Christians are choosing to accept God's grace.
As a Lutheran, I admit that the Lutheran position doesn't stand up to scrutiny by human logic, and I ask why it would have to. God's triune nature is beyond our ability to understand logically, as is Jesus' dual nature as fully human and fully divine. God is not obligated to work in a manner that is fully comprehensible by human logic.
As an Arminian I don’t think it’s that way.
If God leaves someone alone (because that person wants to be left alone), then He’s letting them figure it out. If they could save themselves (which they believe they’re good enough on their own a lot of times), then God would let them do it. I don’t even think God has to send them to hell or torment or whatever, because Satan would snatch them himself, as that person isn’t under God’s protection (and isn’t going to heaven) when they die. Please don’t affirm double predestination.
That being said, Lutherans are Arminian in every way that really counts. I’m happy about that. Limited atonement and double predestination are ghastly doctrines.
I always thought they had a really interesting kinship with Presbyterians--in the sense that they are both more people of the mind over emotion. Deep theological thinkers
Lutherans are Lutherans.
Arminians are Arminians.
That's it. WHY?
This is called the "Law of Non-contradiction."
Blessings to you.
Pastor John
Dr Cooper, could you recommend a book to read on the Lutheran view, I’m intrigued and having been grappling with this issue for some time.
Matthew 22:1-14
Their predestination is essentially Thomist
Great answers.
I’m inclined listening to this.. to say lutherans are moderate Calvinists.. it’s basically the same answer?
Lutherans are older. So if anything calvinists are a spin off of Lutherans. We are not moderate, we are different. Unlike Calvinists we don't ditch the sacraments, and we find no biblical command to ditch hymns or vestments, we do communion weekly, it's a sacrament, as is Baptism. We don't believe in double predestination and we certainly don't invent doctrines.
@@Dilley_G45 The Reformed also believe in the sacraments, and while they don't believe in baptismal regeneration (at least most modern ones don't) all the Reformed confessions make it clear they do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is coming from a former Calvinist who is considering converting to Lutheranism.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 well baptismal regeneration is the consequence of baptismal efficacy, as per Acts 2:38-39, 1 Peter 3:21
@@Dilley_G45 The Reformed have a pretty weird view of baptism I'll admit. The point is that they do believe in the sacraments. In fact, I think it's the Westminster Shorter Catechism which calls the sacraments a means of grace effectual for salvation.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 just be Lutheran and avoid all confusion and at the same time enjoy a beautiful church building with stained glass windows, crosses, vestments and even beautiful hymns and you're still not under the pope 😆
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
This is just willfully ignorant.
The real presence view of communion goes back to the beginning yes. But transubstantiation specifically came later having come from Greek Philosophy vs. apostolic tradition.
Or in other words, many of the early church fathers believed in the real presence but didn’t define how it worked.
Luther’s formulation to me makes more sense and is not derivative of Greek philosophy. So yeah.
@@dakotasmith1344 Transubstantiation, applied in 1215, is just a term that means to change one form or substance into another. That's it! At Catholic and Orthodox Holy Mass the bread and wine become the carnal/corporeal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ with His Soul and Divinity, despite appearing to the senses as still being bread and wine.
The Council of Trent 1551 did not dogmatise Greek aristotelism, nor the aristotelan theory of form and matter etc to try and state how God performs the miracle of the Eucharist - which is impossible to define. The Catholic Church only dogmatized the fact that the bread and wine during the Mass become really, truly and substantially the living Body and Blood of Christ, the outward appearances alone remaining unchanged. This was done in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council in Canon 1. And Catholic Church dogma did not deviate then, nor does it now, from the teachings of Jesus Christ, His Apostles and the early Church Fathers on the Eucharist. The Catholic Church teaches what happens not how it happens.
You are misusing WI because if you bother to read the teachings of the Catholic Church then you would not be regurgitating typical protestant hearsay about the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist - unless you are going to be WI that is. Please find links below to The Council of Trent and the Catholic Catechism where you can see for yourself that aristotelan theory is not to be found and what the Catholic Church does officially teach on the Eucharist.
www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/thirteenth-session-of-the-council-of-trent-1479
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, October, 1551, Session XIII: Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist & Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist
www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 3 THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
As I said in my post the idea is utterly preposterous that Luther got it right with Jesus Christ being “in, with and under” the bread and wine and the Catholic and Orthodox Church had got it wrong for 1500 years that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
If one thinks Jesus Christ was being anything other than literal and definite when He said “This is my body” and “This is my blood” then, as the 1500’s reformation proved with five different theories between them, the Lord’s Supper can mean anything one wants it to.
A man becomes a Priest in the Catholic and Orthodox Church when he is ordained by the Sacrament of Holy Orders by a Bishop of Apostolic Succession. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is a miraculous event, with its linage going back to the Apostles, where a sacred power/a special gift of the Holy Spirit/sacerdotal powers is conferred on the Priest. Holy Orders enables the ordained to exercise a sacred power in the name and with the authority of Christ for the service of the People of God.
The principal use of a Catholic and Orthodox Priest’s sacerdotal powers is, acting in the person of Christ, the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body, blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
The Lutheran church does not have Bishops of Apostolic Succession and therefore the Sacrament of Holy Orders and therefore the bread and wine remain bread and wine at a Lutheran church service.
So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” (John 6:53-56)
The way to partake in the Lord’s Supper as our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ intended is to be a member of the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church.
God bless you
Even the ancients agreed that fate vs free will is a profane conversation, not worth discussing- much less basing your religion off it.
So we only choose when we choose to reject God? Where is that in Scripture? I seem to recall God commanding His people to choose life.
Think of it like this, when you make a "yes" or "no" choice, whichever option you pick, you reject the other.
When you pick "no" you reject "yes" , and - as you have intuited - when you pick "yes" you reject "no".
In either case it *is* a choice.
The point that is being made about only being saved through grace (as far as I understand it) is that without the grace of God you would have no opportunity to choose *either way*.
The wages of sin is death, if not for the grace of God calling you to repentance you die in bondage as a slave to sin.
When God calls you by grace and you respond with "yes" you have been saved *because* of His grace, but if you reject Him it's not that He didn't try to save you, it's not that He didn't offer grace, it's that you chose to reject Him.
Essentially, you can do nothing to save yourself but everything to condemn yourself.
Does that help?
May the LORD bless you and keep you
@@Glory_to_YAHWEH That makes sense, but largely because that is the Arminian position. We are saved by grace alone.
Dr. Cooper sounded like he was saying the "yes" is more in line with Calvinism.
We don't choose the salvation. Jesus did thebwork for us on the cross. We can't earn it. So the offer of Grace is there. But you can walk away. Your will cannot earn salvation but you can choose to otnaccept by rejecting it
I’m not Calvinist or Arminian but some secret third thing
A tortilla? Jk as I was typing a tirtum quid my phone auto corrected to a tortilla 😂
Molinist?
Provisionism? Lutheran? Molinism? Wesleyan is also slightly different than Arminus.
It is strange how shallow and unthinking Calvinists are on this issue.
Never read the Canons of Dort, I see. Read before you comment negatively about others.
@@scottmcdermand8697 Dort doesn’t change anything in my previous comment. I can rightly state Calvinists in general are shallow and unthinking on this issue because if a person doesn’t prescribe to their particular version of monergism (which they think is the only form of monergism), they’re labeled a synergist.
@@flashhog01 Yes, you can rightly engage ad hominem generalizations. However, broad generalizations about "Calvinists" without considering what "Calvinist" church bodies actually believe actually sounds a bit shallow and unthinking.
Would love to know which kind of "Calvinists" you've come across. They've probably never read their own confessional documents.
For what it's worth, the term "Calvinists" is actually a misnomer since there is no actual group of people under the banner of Calvin. Calvin was one guy, and no Reformed ecclesiastical bodies are called by his name.
Which shallow and unthinking people are you referring to? There are the Reformed, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Congregationalists, and there a few Baptists who subscribe to the London Baptist Confession. I've found most to be rather well-read and well-spoken. They will even read and listen to what others believe and they are especially fond of Luther and his writings because they see themselves as having come from his thought.
@@scottmcdermand8697Thanks but you’re just playing word games to wriggle out of common behavior exhibited by Calvinists/Reformed people.
@@flashhog01 More ad hominem? My suggestion is to read the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Standards and engage with those rather than with the behavior of the alleged "Calvinists" that you've allegedly come across. That way you can respond to the substance rather than generalizing and disparaging others that you have allegedly come across, allegedly. It may also help to read some of the history on the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly. The authors of these documents were well aware of Luther and Lutheranism and were not writing in a vacuum.
If you are drowning and a lifeguard swims out to rescue you, you can kick and splash and fight him off... and die. If you remain passive, the lifeguard grabs you, and you live. You get zero credit for playing a role in being saved, because the lifeguard did _all_ of the work.
Was there a choice to remain passive and trust the lifeguard to do the saving? 🤔
You could say this, but I think it's kind of meaningless. Yes, I did not interfere with the lifeguard, but would it make any sense to say that I "chose" to be saved? At any rate, this is just one small mind's/ small man's attempt to understand a deep issue... it's useful for me, but I don't want it to stand in the way of anyone "coming to Jesus" (or, as a Lutheran might say, "receiving Jesus" ;-). Thanks for engaging my comment 🙂 @@richardwashington421
That still suggests that we are saved because we are better than others. Phrase it however you want. We are "less evil" than the non-elect. God's election is unconditional, not based on who wants to be saved or who cooperates.
Calvinists do not deny the responsibility of man. People go to hell because they reject God. People go to heaven because of God's mercy. Calvinism upholds both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man.
Chapter 3 - God’s Decree
1. From all eternity God decreed everything that occurs, without reference to anything outside himself. He did this by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably. Yet God did this in such a way that he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin. This decree does not violate the will of the creature or take away the free working or contingency of second causes. On the contrary, these are established by God’s decree. In this decree God’s wisdom is displayed in directing all things, and his power and faithfulness are demonstrated in accomplishing his decree.
Correct. This framing of the Will as understood confessionally by the Reformed tradition is woefully inadequate and imprecise, which is understandable to a degree given the informal nature of the conversation here, but one should expect more considering how many will take this presentation as accurate and precise.
@@reimannsum9077 it is meant to be a summary. That is the purpose. If one wants to go deeper Paul deals with this in great detail in Romans 8-11 especially 8 and 9. The confessions serve more as guide rails to help keep from error and summarize doctrines. I guess my purpose in writing the original comment was to try help others nee what calvinism actually says. Because the answer Dr Cooper gave on what Calvinism teaches was not really correct and we would actually heartily amen what he said as far as the Lutheran position that he gave in this clip. Though of course underneath there would be some slightly different emphasis or meaning behind certain terms. But we fully affirm man's responsibility. Man cannot come to Christ apart from God's regenerative work because man does not want to come. He loves his sin and hates God until God does a work of grace in the person's heart. Nobody goes to heaven because they deserve it, and nobody goes to hell who doesn't deserve it.
I don't accept that the Lutheran position on their being predestination to heaven but no predestination to hell is Biblical. Scripture teaches the reality of double predestination. For instance in John 6 only those can come to Christ who are drawn by the Father through the Holy Spirit and those who are unbelievers aren't drawn and granted the ability to believe in Christ by the Father. (John 6:44,64,65). The Lutheran position that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word isn't Scriptural, and Luther agreed that the Holy Spirit doesn't will to save everyone who hears the Gospel. This is Luther's position in The Bondage of the Will where he teaches that there's no free will and that God's hidden will and foreknowledge determines everything that happens, and that people are predestined to both heaven and hell.
"This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time." 1 Timothy 2:3-6
If you would believe this passage you would deny double predestination.
"The Lutheran position that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word isn't Scriptural"
This statement is incorrect.
"so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." Isaiah 55:11
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 I take it you haven't studied The Bandage of the Will because Luther distinguished between God's hidden omnipotent will which determines everything that happens and His revealed will through Christ which desires everyone's salvation. It doesn't follow that because Christ atoned for the sins of the world that God by His hidden will has willed to save everyone. Luther argued correctly that God's eternal will and foreknowledge determines what happens and that everything is predestined to happen.
God's Word accomplishes what He intends to accomplish which is that only some of those who hear the Gospel are to be irresistibly regenerated by the Holy Spirit so that they're saved. The idea that one can resist being regenerated as confessional Lutherans maintain is the case is false. If that was true then no one could be predestined by God to be saved because those God intended to save could offer resistance and thwart God’s predestination which is impossible.
I agree with Luther on predestination which means I don't accept that Martin Chemnitz’s denial of predestination to hell in the Formula of Concord is either Scriptural or Lutheran. The early Lutherans such as Nicholas Amsdorf held with Luther that Scripture teaches double predestination.
I take it you haven't studied The Bondage of the Will because Luther distinguished between God's hidden omnipotent will which determines everything that happens and His revealed will through Christ which desires everyone's salvation. It doesn't follow that because Christ atoned for the sins of the world that God by His hidden will has willed to save everyone. Luther argued correctly that God's eternal will and foreknowledge determines what happens and that everything is predestined to happen.
God's Word accomplishes what He purposes which is that only some of those who hear the Gospel are to be irresistibly regenerated by the Holy Spirit so that they're saved. The idea that one can resist being regenerated as confessional Lutherans hold is false. If that was true then no one could be predestined by God to be saved because those God intended to save could offer resistance and thwart God’s predestination which is impossible.
I’m a Lutheran and I agree with Luther on predestination which means I don't accept that Martin Chemnitz’s denial of predestination to hell in the Formula of Concord is either Scriptural or truly Lutheran. The early Lutherans such as Nicholas Amsdorf held with Luther that Scripture teaches double predestination.
Jesus died for all, knowing that some would still reject him. Foreknowledge isn’t the same as overcoming the human will to force an event which is what calvinism teaches. God can have foreknowledge, sovereignty and will the good, while also allowing humans to be secondary causes with free will to reject or accept the offer of salvation. God wills that all men be saved but allows us to reject it, this is the predestination, he doesn’t revoke any sovereignty by setting up humans as a secondary cause to make their own real decisions
@@Flame1500 Where did Calvin or the Canons of Dort teach that God 'overcomes the human will' to force them to reject him? Calvinism and Lutheranism both teach that our default state is rejecting God. He doesn't need to do anything to make us turn away from him. In fact, it takes the miracle of regeneration to bring us back to him.
Sounds like traditionalist you need to talk with Dr. flowers.
Not even close, traditionalism is basically semi pelagianism or crude synergism, at least Arminianism teaches prevenient grace which allows man to make the decision of faith unlike Traditionalism.
it is definitely not traditionalism.
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7which allows man to make the decision of faith. It exactly what traditionalist/ proviniste agree on. Strong belief of free well but Also Gods election. God provided the means to which we are saved ( Christ sacrifice) we recognize/ trust( faith) in what has provided. There for we are saved. And those who are saved are called the elect. Because In Gods sovereignty he planed for salvation In Christ before it came to be.
No. Provisionism is the opposite in-between view. If you consider the questions "Is election unconditional" and "Can salvation be lost":
Yes No -> Calvinism
Yes Yes -> Lutheranism
No No -> Provisionism/Traditionalist
No Yes -> Arminianism
@@maxxiong Err, you currently have your second column flipped, or you changed your question and didn't update the column. You ask "Can salvation be lost", to which Calvinists say "no" and Lutherans say "yes".
I'd also personally put a question mark there for Provisionsim. The SBC roots of it would certainly answer "no" to whether salvation can be lost, but as it mostly comes across as an anticalvinist movement with no clear positive theology, people from just about every tradition seem to call themselves "provisionist" these days if they have a beef with Calvinism, whether their own tradition would agree with them or not. Maybe it is just whatever Leighton believes, in which case it should be a clear "no", but plenty of people who call themselves provisionists would say "yes", and I'm not sure there is a clear enough independent standard to exclude them.
I'm not sure about Arminians. I've seen several self professed Arminians who would answer "no" and others who would answer "yes". I haven't read the articles of the Remonstrates or Arminius directly to know where he stood on that.
Pop arminianism may at times say it is “free will” by which one is saved, but that’s too simplistic. Everyone w/out exception is granted faith and repentance. It is up to the sinner, posteriori, to receive God’s grace after the spirit convicts the sinner by which he is given the ability to overcome the deleterious effects of sin. God sovereignly ordained that man must believe in order to be saved.
- First you must prove your assertion from Scripture alone
- Secondly you ought to cite Luther in "The Bondage of the Will" with chapter and page references.
- Thirdly, you may make your assertions from Luther's citations and defend them both Scripurally and consistently with Luther's sense, , if you can..
For those who really want to understand the Reformed position, I'm sure Dr. Cooper would recommend reading the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Standards. That would be a good place to start for anyone who is curious about what the Reformed actually believe and confess. The confessions and catechisms are what matter, not what you heard a "Calvinist" say one time. Although it is much easier to watch a short video and then comment on how lazy and stupid "Calvinists" are than it is to read historical documents. I wonder if Dr. Cooper sees these comments and is disappointed in some of his Lutheran followers? Hopefully those who post negative comments about other Christians are not his parishioners. I obviously don't agree with my Lutheran friends on every theological point, but nor do I call them lazy, stupid, or unthinking because we have different views. It's much more fun to share a bottle of Scotch and talk theology in a respectful and inquisitive manner.
It's called "False Dichotomy", or "Bifurcation" , which is known as one of the classic logical fallacies.
Indeed it reflects ignorance of the true doctrine and history of the various streams of false doctrine.
The Remedy?
Read Luther's book:
"THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL"
All will be revealed ......
As a calvinist I see Lutherans as 4 points calvinists or something like that, to be honest. They aren't semi-pelagians as arminians or catholics/orthodox, but not die hard on predestination as calvinists.
Lutherans (officially) don’t believe in Limited Atonement or Unconditional Election
They are like 2.5 point or something. Lutherans deny eternal security.
@@Flame1500 Lutherans believe God's election to salvation is conditioned on man in some way? That's news to me. I would have named God's Perseverance of the Saints as the other point they reject, not Unconditional Election.
If one accepts the Lutheran position, then one is accepting that you have two tenets that are in contradiction to each other.
Lutherans are okay with that I am not. Gods word is harmonious. There are paradoxes but no real
Contradiction. To say this is a contraction only in our minds but not Gods seems a big stretch. Mysteries are trans rational but not anti rational. This approach opens up hermeneutical can of worms where one can hold contradictory positions and hide behind this. It makes void any use of reason
As an outside observer, this video only demonstrates that Calvinists and Lutherans are equally capable of straw-manning Arminians.
Everyone has to jump on the Arminians. They all love to throw around the terms "pelagian" and "semi pelagian". The problem is if they hold to their standards across the board, they have to throw out most of the early Church Fathers as "semi pelagian". Generally, the reformed just ignore the early Church outside of Augustine. When you read other Fathers, especially the Greek Fathers, you know why. Calvin, himself, noted how "bad" the Greek Fathers were with free will and synergism.
@@vitaignis5594Thank you!
@@vitaignis5594Watch Truth unites channel. Dr Gavin Ortlund goes far beyond just Augustine. I think you’d find it interesting
I don't know any arminian who would say that anybody was save by their "free will, maybe assisted by God's grace". Arminians seem to be very consistent on saying that the grace of God is absolutely necessary for anybody to be saved.
You're not wrong, however the problem arises from what is implicitly suggested. Jesus may have done all the work - living a perfect life, dying, and rising from the dead; and faith itself may still be a gift from God. But if humans must choose to accept the faith, then there is still an ounce of responsibility on the individual. Jesus may have done all the work yet *you* need to accept it yourself. If this is the case, you need to do something to be saved - that is, believe. God did the 99.999%, but it's up to you to contribute the 1% via belief.
@@restedassurance I would certainly agree that there is responsibility in the human part. I am not sure how many ounces of it, but enough to make him the cause of his own damnation in case he rejects the grace offered. But whatever this responsibility is, it is not meritorious, and that I think is the matter of the question. I may be responsible to accept or reject the grace offered, and yet not deserve any merit for salvation. ANd I would say that even this capacity to receive grace is from grace. And that is absolutely glorious and beautiful. In any case, all the glory is God's.
Only acording to "Calvinists"
Does anyone care?
Armenians are a branch of Calvinism - so it's a false dichotomy to begin with. Armenius spent his life defending Calvinism until he died
reformed nonsense. I can't believe that someone would dare say that the sinner is "passive" in his belief in Christ. READ John 1:12 "receive" is literally a full on embracing of Christ and "believe" is also fully conscious and active. Reformed theory is man-made garbage.
Indeed the verb.
"received" (ἔλαβον)
And the participle "believe" (πιστεύουσιν) are both in the active voice.
This is because the faith which God works in our hearts really is our faith.
Nevertheless it is worked within us by the power of the Gospel (Romans 1:16) and is by His doing (John 6:45) and a result solely of His mighty working
(1 Thessalonians 1:5 and 2:13)
What denomination are you?
Dr Cooper is moving at right direction. Next stop is Catholism.
IMAGINE BEING PROUD OF BEING WRONG ABOUT SALVATION
🇻🇦THERE'S ONLY 1 HOLY CATHOLIC & APOSTOLIC CHURCH🇻🇦
There's no dispute over the fact that there's only one holy catholic Church which is the Church that Christ established. There's only dispute about which is that Church. I don't accept that Christ established the Papacy and made Peter a universal bishop who was given the responsibility to oversee His Church on earth and that he passed on this responsibility to his successors. This is just based on a misinterpretation of Scripture (particularly Matthew 16:18) and a false historical narrative. The early bishops of Rome were at most first among equals not superior over all other bishops. It was hundreds of years after Christ before the Roman bishops began to assert their superiority and imposed themselves on other churches as their leaders.
The true catholic Church is a spiritual body composed of everyone in the world who has true faith in Christ, and who is justified before God through this faith alone. The Church is therefore in essence invisible and only visible to God as we can't see another's faith. The idea that the one true Church is an organisation with its headquarters in Rome is a misunderstanding of what the Church actually is. The popes are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and all who are inwardly deceived by them as regards how a person is righteous before God (which the popes deny is through faith alone without works as Paul teaches) aren't members of the one holy catholic Church.
Yep to all of the above 个🙄
The ironic thing is that you appear proud about being wrong about salvation. Paul teaches that we’re justified through faith alone without works, and that good works are done as a consequence of being saved, and not in order to be saved (Ephesians 2:8-10) yet your church rejects this, which means it's wrong about salvation. Christ promised that His Church wouldn't be overcome by false teaching (i.e. the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against it) yet that is what has happened to your church. Your church also teaches falsely about Mary saying she's a queen in heaven ruling alongside Christ, and that she can influence Christ on a person's behalf as if He wasn't a merciful Saviour who only needs to be trusted but is simply a judge who needs to be softened up. There are also other examples of your church teaching falsely. Paul for instance said that forbidding people to be married is a teaching of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-3) yet your church forbids marriage to its clergy. Another example is the teaching of your church that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice which contradicts Scripture that Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross brings complete redemption. With regards to the way the popes have conducted themselves in past centuries they used to sanction the burning and killing of those who they regarded as heretics, and encourage their followers to go on violent crusades, both of which are unchristian. So in conclusion your church isn't the One True Church because it does teach wrongly about salvation, and has conducted itself in an unchristian manner in past centuries.
@@Edward-ng8ooDid you write this to me ...😳?
@@mathete9968 No I was replying to the original poster who is obviously a Catholic.