Our website: www.justandsinner.org Patreon: / justandsinner This is part of our five reasons series in which I address a number of misconceptions and myths about Lutheranism.
1. Good works 1:30 2. Lutherans hate reason and logic 5:24 3. Normative worship 9:04 4. Consubstantiation 14:29 5. Lutherans follow Melanchthon, not Luther 20:49
It’s helpful to study the development of the theology of the GnesioLutherans within Lutheranism. They broke Lutheranism away from Melanchthon. Melanchthon and Calvin followed Luther substantially. I sometimes call myself a pre-Gnesio Lutheran.
Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. ____________________________________ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary. _________________________ Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics. _________________________ Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.✝️✝️
@@mynameis......23 my boy typed up a whole essay in a reply. I’m R. Catholic too. I hope your work is fruitful and valuable, regardless of weather or not it is read by the people you intended too.
These are predominately Reformed misconceptions about Lutheranism, there are also plenty of Roman Catholic misconceptions which are a completely different set of things to address lol.
Hey, u mind if I ask you a question? I think I recall your former username being Lambeth Anglican if I’m not mistaken, and while I love the Book of Concord (which I finally got around to finishing, minus some boring sections of the Apology lol) I can’t help but feel discouraged by the mark Pietism has left on contemporary Lutheranism, with the exception of maybe some Nordic countries and even they have large swaths of Pietism besides Sweden and Finland. Lutheranism, as established, is I think the closest thing we have to a continuity with the Patristic church. But it’s just not what it used to be anymore, especially in America. It’s really hard to find Evangelical Catholic parishes in my experience. Whereas Anglicanism, although perhaps very Reformed in its origins, had the opposite trajectory with a more Catholic bent emerging from the Oxford Movement. I think some of them go too far with novel doctrines like transubstantiation and invocation of the saints, but I find a very convincing continuity with the Prayer Book Catholic/English Use tradition. It seems to have all of the appreciated good changes of the Oxford Movement while also not going too far with Romanist innovations, and to me there’s a surprisingly convincing blend of elements of the Caroline Divines and Non-Jurors of the Old High Church tradition and their quasi-Lutheran perspectives on soteriology and anti-Calvinism, the sacramental emphases of the Tractarians with things like the weekly Eucharist, corporeal Real Presence and the renewed emphasis on confession and absolution, all topped off with the liturgical outer trappings of the Medieval church which, despite its theological abuses, is still a part of the Church catholic’s history. As a liturgist, the trajectory of Anglicanism is exactly what I desire, and while I find myself very theologically Lutheran as per the Confessions, the Gnesio-Lutheran emphasis of the Augsburg Confession seems to be completely different than contemporary Lutheranism. I know my place belongs in either of these two camps, but I’m having trouble deciding and I’d really appreciate your thoughts. Apologies for the word vomit, just thought you’d be a good person to ask :)
@@DeFyYing just my 2 cents. 3 of the 4 LCMS churches near me are book of concord heavy, confessional, high church evangelical catholic. I think a lot of this is going to depend on what churches you have around locally. I’ve been blessed to have 3 highly traditional Lutheran churches near me to pick from when I made the jump. I would have gone ACNA if Otherwise. My brother is ACNA high church Anglican and there is very little difference between his churches liturgy, practice, etc…and my Lutheran church. We visit each other’s churches often and both enjoy sharing our traditions with each other. It all depends on what’s available in your area.
@@DeFyYing Yes, you've raised good points. I wouldn't say the Augsburg Confession is particularly "Gnesio" as it was written by Melancthon. In fact, in many ways, the Philipist party won out even in many of the pronouncements of the Fomula of Concord (rejection of the capernaitic localist eating, rejection of Matthias Flacius on sin-nature, affirmation of the usus clause, etc.) I would call myself a Philipist for the most part, seeing as how I hold much affinity for the Anglican tradition of Cranmer and Bucer (both of which learned under the Melancthonian school)... I for one, am not a big fan of Hermann Sasse due to the trajectory he set in the 20th century of driving a wedge between Luther and Melancthon/Chemnitz/Gerhard on the Supper. (The Formula is clear that Melancthon rather than Luther is correct on the Supper, the Augustinian view is correct, and thus there is general agreement among Jesuits, Calvinists and Lutherans -- Christ is not locally/bodily/physically present in the Supper, but he is present sacramentally/substantially/spiritually). So, in some sense, I see myself as a "Reformed-Catholic" Lutheran, which is why I see more overlap with Anglicanism than dissimilarity. In terms of non-confessional externals, I do think Anglicanism has SO MUCH to offer the Lutheran tradition in terms of how to _live out_ "Reformation Catholicism" rather than simply what to believe. Particularly, in ecclesiology and worship: 1. No Church claiming the identity of "Catholic" has any excuse practicing Congregationalism (or at least being anti-episcopal); such is contrary to the confessions and the church Catholic. 2. Anglican liturgy is better. It just is. Luther was a musician more than a liturgical scholar, meanwhile Cranmer had devoted his life to liturgiology prior to the Reformation. This is obvious in the difference between the BCP and the Luther Masses; one was a careful revision of the Western Rite to fit the new context of Reformed faith (including a beautiful tradition of evangelical Eucharistic Prayers, sorely absent in Lutheran history and consciousness -- at least in Germany and America)... the other establishing the precedent of musical paraphrases of historical canticles and creeds, and the scandalizing innovation of a canon-less eucharistic rite never before used in Christendom. Again, Lutheranism is cleaner theologically, but in practice... I lean Anglican. That's why I hold one foot in each camp. As for Pietism, I would describe myself as having Pietist leanings, even quasi-charismatic leanings... but that doesn't mean low church. In Sweden, Pietism was simply a renewal movement that emphasized Mysticism and the internals to balance out the dangers of dry, intellectual, institutionalism inherent in establishment religion. Often Pietism went along with the renewal of monastic communities in Sweden, so again, not to be confused with low church German Pietism. (E.g. Bishop Bo Giertz was a High Church Pietist)
@@vngelicath1580 Good point, I like Melanchthon’s more diplomatic and calm nature compared to Luther lol. I didn’t know Philippism was still a thing, would you say it still had a decent following in contemporary Lutheranism? I appreciate that Melanchthon was trying to make peace with the Reformed, but I’m not too sure I agree he should’ve compromised on Eucharistic theology
Part 2 would be cool. Some. Other comments have said this, but your points here are mainly from the reformed/Presbyterian perspective. Would be interesting if in part two you talk about misconceptions that catholics and/or orthodox might have of Lutheranism. God bless, your videos have inspired me to contemplate the seminary!
I Am from Finland and found your channel today. I have watched some of your videos and cannot stop. Your channel is a real treasure chest. I have never found any other source making sense of Lutheranism like your channel. Here in Finland, 80% of the population are Lutherans, so you rarely have to ask questions about why being a Lutheran when you rarely meet people believing otherwise. That’s why your channel is so excellent. Finnish Lutheran authorities do not have to explain things you need to know in the more religious diversified USA. Our Lutheran church is quite liberal, but here are many revival movements in the Lutheran church that strictly try to hold on to the Lutheran confession. The future will tell if we can continue in the mother church..
@@mmusic8558 the Norwegian Lutheran state Church is much more influenced by internal evangelicals. Instead of becoming free churches they stayed in the national Church.
@@sonye-jin6737 Yes, I see.. There are many revival movements in the Finnish Lutheran church, but all of them, with the exception of one or two, hold strictly to the Lutheran confession. Movements not accepting the Lutheran doctrine are what we call free churches, and completely outside the Lutheran church. But this is not so in Norway if I understood you right.
@@mmusic8558 in Sweden the confessionals split off from Church in modern times to create Missionsprovinsen (claiming to be in the tradition of Church of Sweden) but there are holdouts of different conservatives in Church of Sweden despite liberalism
It's kind of sad how hard Calvinists try to make their theology seem so universal and resort to strawmen arguments in order to bolster the claims of their supposed infallible theology.
I found your channel through the LCMS subreddit. Thank you for this video! I was not raised LCMS, but my husband was. We fell away, now feel belief again, and are making sure we proceed in a way that respects both of us and our past experiences. Thank you so much.
I think, that a Part 2 video on this topic might be good. Plus, I should send you a video on Lutherans, who are not mainstream Conservative Lutherans like you and me, since I'm curious about your thoughts on Lutherans with unusual beliefs for Lutherans. Keep up the good work, Dr. Cooper.
I especially appreciate the Augsburg Confession's point re: good works. Only the Lutheran church actually teaches how good works may be done. They are not created by the preaching of the law-- "Biblical Principals," for example-- but through the preaching of the Gospel.
How did you not have the dumbest misconception on Lutherans: "They're Catholics without the Pope and politically liberal" and yes I have heard this wayyyy too often from people.
Point 4 is the only one I have really heard. Then again, I come from the Restoration Movement (Stone- Campbell ) so I often feel historically alienated from many of the debates you are discussing. I understand they are foundational to how my group got to where we are, but still feel as if I am not part of the dialog.
thanks for the video, that was some great clarification. im lcms and one thing ive had to belabour to our reformed and baptist brothers is our sacremental theology, some misunderstand us to have an ex opera operato view of the sacrements and ive had to explain quite a bit that we are not. that what we believe is that what is being given in the sacrements is only recieved by faith. and that we do not teach that one cannot be saved without baptism. but that it is one of the ordinary means of grace that the holy spirit works in, word and sacrement.
Would love to hear your take on the topic of the Weimar Disputation, and the show down between Matthias Flacius and the Phillipist Victor Strigel. Flacius defeats Striglel in the end but "steps" in it in the end.
To your point about outsiders describing Lutheran theology, I just looked up an online dictionary for the word, consubstantiation, and it specifically ties it to Lutheran belief.😊
Oh wow, what a funny mistake you made when quoting Luther around 19:37 "I'd rather drink wine with the Pope, than mere blood with the sacramentarians..."
Would be so cool to hear you and James White discuss these issues in a friendly way. Both of you guys are great and do such a good job of defending your points of view. I recently read "Between Wittenberg and Geneva" and it left a lot to be desired. I bet you and White could collaborate on a much more robust and interesting project.
It would be a massive undertaking. But perhaps you should consider presenting an overview on the Book of Concord over several episodes to present the Lutheran doctrine. Specifically present it in a way the addresses the misconceptions and the major theological differences.
Dr. Cooper, when you mentioned "reason(s)" in the second myth about Lutheranism, is that the same meaning as Luther used in his reply to the Diet of Worms, i.e., "unless I am convinced...by plain and clear reasons, I cannot and I will not recant anything"?
As a Reformed Baptist who's attended a Presbyterian church for 5 years, most of this was foreign to me. All I knew was that Lutherans took communion like a Catholic, that their pastors wore robes or collars like Catholics and that the congregation confessed their sin together, which the pastor said was forgiven. I watch Steven K and Fighting for the Faith, and I agree with just about everything they say, so I thought we had more in common that not.
Most historical Protestant traditions have pastors in robes and liturgy! Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Congregationalist, Methodists, etc. It’s the Baptists that are the outliers here. 😊
@@fighterofthenightman1057 Hmmm, true, maybe they were outliers for going back to being obedient to what special clothing the Bible says pastors should wear. I heard someone say that where the Bible is silent, so should we be. IMHO, the special pastor clothing is a tradition of men. I have no problem with it, and it probably does good in some ways. Shrug. Thanks for the comment though. I really liked talking with a Christian right now. I don't get much of that. :-)
I believe the reason so many on the Reformed side would attempt to perpetuate the Melanchthon myth is two fold. First, they look at the effect Cranmer and other Reformers had to push the Anglican Church from Henry V’s English Catholicism towards the Reformed of influence that eventually prevailed. Second, Melanchthon did begin to embrace some Reformed views. This later led to the Philippist and the Gnesio Lutheran split. These two taken together allows some Reformed to present an ahistorical interpretation of Lutherans. While it is true that Melanchthon did write much of the Lutheran doctrine in the Book of Concord, it is not true to say it was his interpretation. Luther did review and approve all of these doctrines as they were presented. It was only after Luther’s death that Melanchthon was able to present his doctrine as the Lutheran Churches, leading to the previously mentioned split. Of course, if this ahistorical Reformed view holds, obviously we have Calvin to thank for a reformation that started long before he showed up in Geneva the first time.
Awesome video Pastor Cooper. I am so grateful to be a part of the Lutheran Church. We have such a gift in our Book of Concord. Also, that's an awesome shirt!
The most surprising is hearing what Orthodox scholars think Luther taught. Even the really educated Orthodox tend to mangle what Luther taught to the point where you wonder if they’re doing it purposefully. I assume they’re just parroting what they’ve heard or read from their own circle… not surprising, I guess.
@@maximosmagyar9653 Oh, I’m working from memory of over a decade ago, but it seems they would say Luther taught the sinner’s prayer, once saved always saved, licentiousness, lumping with anabaptists, memorial view of the Eucharist, spiritual view of the Eucharist, and a few other things that made me chuckle because of how wrong they were. Luther was a major historical figure, so they ought to at least learn the basics of his views before trying to criticize him.
Martin Chemnitz wrote two books: one on the Lord’s Supper and the other related book is On the Two Natures of Christ. Martin Chemnitz asserts that Christ is present in the elements of bread and wine just as the attributes of the two natures in Christ who is both God and man. This is a mystery that Saint Paul refers to in Ephesians 4:10 “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens that he might fill all things.” Because of His personal union with the Father, the body of Jesus can be anywhere in the universe at the same time. This is difficult for us to understand, so Jesus gives us a focal point in the Lord’s Supper in that He is known in the breaking of bread or the Sacrament of the Altar.
The command is "Take and eat" not "Take and understand". My idea is that the effect lies in obedience, not understanding. Some people may be called to figure it out but I'm called only to obey.
The first accusation appears merely a Roman Catholic caricature that I've never encountered in Reformed circles, but it is a vital one to rebut for all denominations that adhere to the doctrine of Sola Fide.
As someone raised evangelical, I can tell you that it is no mere caricature in those circles, even if it isn't true of Lutherans. I've known so many people who believed it "didn't matter what they did" after the moment they were "saved" because they had their get out of hell free card. One man said he could be cheating on his wife at the moment Christ returned and he would still be taken up to heaven.
@@unit2394 I've only heard it made by Romanists against "protestants" (whatever that means to them), never by a Reformed Christian against a Lutheran. Unless the Lutheran was unconfessional and did seem to hold to a form of antinomianism (but then we have people like that in our ranks who also need correcting). Reformed understand that Lutherans also hold to the five solas.
@@oracleoftroy many Reformed I have encountered have never really learned about or interacted with the Lutheran confessions and have a very caricatured view of Lutheranism, which includes it being antinomian.
@@unit2394 Hmm, in my experience, most Reformed assume Lutherans are more like them than Lutherans believe, as they both came out of the reformation and on key doctrines are in lock step. Especially because Lutherans hold to the same three use of the law as the Reformed do. I've been in Reformed denominations on both the contanental and Presbyterian side for ~30 years and never heard anything about Lutherans being antinomian. I agree that both sides hold to some caricatures. For example, I was taught that Lutherans hold to consubstantiation, and most Lutherans think we deny the real presence in the Lord's supper or are Zwinglists in general on the sacraments.
I am leaning to lutheran. lutheran church is so similar on roman catholic. so i think i would feel very comfortable in the luaytheran church. i think every church has issues on what people believe, but i can understand on what dr. cooper is saying. so maybe i belong to lutheran instead of roman catholic. but i am non practicing and i still do my catholic prayers and rosary,divine mercy chaplet,and st. micheal chaplet and many others. but no matter what i choose to go to God is with me.
Yes, please give us a part 2! Also, I'd suggest more references to Biblical verses upon which Lutherans base their confession. This would lower the learning curve necessary to keep up with the main substance of your videos by helping newer our younger watchers keep up.
You flipped that Luther quote. Luther actually said, "I would rather drink the blood of Christ with the Pope than wine with the sacramentarians." You kind of flipped Luther's quote there.
The New Testament never mentions anything about wearing clothes in worship. Does that mean the principle of regulative worship forbid the wearing of clothes as it's not mentioned in the New Testament?
Yes, do another part for this please.I would also encourage you to do a comparison of election onto faith versus election in light of faith, and how election in light of faith is not the same as Arminianism
As a converted Christian, I had no idea where I should turn to. I read and read and read. And for a while I thought RC was it. Then I learned about Lutheran view of works, and it perfectly mad sense to me. I absolutely felt as my true father has just come in to my life, told me He was angry at my behaviour, but that it is okay, and He is not going to hold it against me. I instantly desired to show the same unconditional love towards my neighbours. And this is what I am saved into, in my view, and from the constant games of this world. Perhaps a few find their way to this without such a realization, but I think most are unable to, if any. I think this is what Christians do, when they are in faith. The Lutheran way of saying it makes most sense to me. I do think Christians everywhere feel the same, when they are in faith, even though they seem to have this fear that this grace just isn't enough, and we must sort of threaten each other into good works. I find those who have faith are very concerned with how to do good works and try to help each other in this, regardless of denomination. You don't actually need the theory to be in faith. It's a matter of utter dependence and response to grace. Though the theory can help when stuck in doubt and fear.
When does it become the body and blood of Christ literally. Does it happen when a priest consecrates it? And only a consecrated priest can perform this function? And is it only a priest that has been consecrated in the Lutheran Church.
The words of Christ are the power that produces the presence, and it occurs through the words of Christ. It is not the person or work of the minister. We do not speculate on what happens if lay people usurp the Office of the Ministry, but simply insist that the called and ordained servant of the word must preach the gospel and administer sacraments. Formula of Concord, Epitome, VII, AFFIRMATIVE THESES, "3. Now, as to the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation _of the minister_ [of the church] produces this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this is to be ascribed only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ. "4. But at the same time we also believe, teach, and confess unanimously that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of the institution of Christ should in no way be omitted, but should be publicly recited, as it is written 1 Cor. 10:16: The cup of blessing which we bless, etc. *This blessing occurs **_THROUGH THE RECITATION_** of the words of Christ."* Augsburg Confession, Article V, "That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted."
Square in Rome named after Martin Luther / by Rosie Scammell August 27, 2015
The Vatican has given its backing to naming a central Rome square after Martin Luther. Luther, a German Catholic priest and theologian before he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X in 1521, denounced the corruption he saw among clergy in Rome. Around the time of his visit to Rome in 1510, Luther reportedly repeated the saying, “If there is a hell, Rome is built over it.” Luther was not allowed to return to the Catholic Church in his lifetime, but now the Vatican’s views on him have changed. A hilltop square in Rome is being named Piazza Martin Lutero in memory of Luther’s achievements. The site chosen is a park on the Oppian Hill that overlooks the Colosseum.
That’s what I was taught in an evangelical , non-denominational Christian school. Catholics had transubstantiation while Lutherans had consubstantiation.
Hello Dr. Cooper, if you could, I think it would be wise to respond to some of the claims about Martin Luther. Many things he says are taken out of context and it would be nice to see you critique it.
Im pretty sure that the terminology of "normative principle" originated from the English reformation during the debates between puritans/non-conformists and the Anglican conformists. I used to attend an Anglican church where the pastor taught on worship and used the term normative principle. So just like we're stuck with "high church low church" which also originated in the Anglican church, the term normative also gets applied to us.
There are many Lutheran individuals who don't care about good works or evangelism. If this is brought up they will dismiss that as "works righteousness"
The more I listen to you and contemplate my own tradition, the more I am convinced of the irreducible ineffability of divine truth. The mystery is like a volume of toothpaste in a tube. We can squeeze it tone end or another or manipulate it evenly, nut we can not make the sides of the tube touch completely. The root of the ineffable nature of the gospel is in the supreme casm between the divine nature and our creaturely nature. This can only be properly responded to with awe and gratitude, the twin pillars of worship.
Director of Parish Music student at Concordia University Irvine, an LCMS university here to weigh in on the idea of the "Normative Principle" of worship here. Though that term is not explicitly used in most of my classes (I did have one adjunct music faculty use it), we're being taught here that much of what is practiced in worship is "audiaphora," meaning that it's not explicitly referred to in scripture, and thus, we have freedom as Christians to practice certain things or not practice certain things. That which is commanded in scripture, namely preaching of teh Word and administration of the Sacraments, is retained, and indeed, we are taught that worship must always center around Word and sacrament. What is considered optional are things like using the LSB and the Divine Service settings or using contemporary styles of music in worship. Thus, historic liturgical worship is absolutely permissible in worship, and free flowing contemporary styles of worship are also permissible so long as the Word is correctly taught and the sacraments are rightly administered. The practices of every local congregation should be carefully crafted based on the context of that congregation to most effectively communicate God's word.
Thanks for this. My sister married a man who had a mixed upbringing in church, from Catholic to Pentecostal. He got his ideas of what he "knew" Lutheranism to be along the way. After they had spent a year overseas, they came back and I asked where they were going to be going to church. She said, "Anywhere not Catholic or Lutheran". It surprised me, since she was raised in a conservative Lutheran congregation. Well, the years have passed, they've jumped from one to another, Covenant, Christian and Missionary Alliance, back to Covenant, now in a "house church" with one other couple, but the kids kept going to the Covenant youth group. Some irony is that when the youngest was "dedicated", they sent out invites with Acts 16:15 on the cover, about Lydia being baptized (baby named Lydia), missing the part about "and the members of her household". Middle child, a boy, is on staff at the Lutheran camp we all have grown up at, and wanted to be baptized at our family reunion. Camp director said sure, and did a straight up Lutheran baptism on an adult, in the small pool at this "rich man's retreat bought and turned into a Bible Camp". The lad and his parents would have balked at doing it at a baptismal font, but Lutheran theology doesn't preclude immersion. To make a short story long, their whole thing about Lutherans is based on one non-Lutheran pastor's opinions, years ago, that a high school boy took to heart.
I have been a Lutheran for about 14 years. It has been an interesting experience due to the fact that I graduated from arguably the finest Reformed theological seminary in the world in the 80s and worked in two other top Reformed institutions. I particularly appreciate Lutheran spirituality and worship style. Theologically speaking, it seems to me Lutherans have misgivings about Calvinism because they have no idea what Reformed theology actually believes and teaches. Lutheran pastors I have talked with could benefit greatly from an in-depth understanding of American Puritanism, Dutch Calvinism and Scottish Presbyterianism as well as the Continental Reformation as a whole.
@@davidthenewtheologian7757 Good question. Reformed theology in Europe now is pretty much “gone to seed” as the American Midwestern farmers would say. But a rich blend of historically Reformed Theology is having somewhat of a resurgence in the US and maybe a few other places. From a layman’s perspective, the video, print and public conference work of Ligonier Ministries is a good start. Then there is the published work of faculties at 8 or 10 primary Reformed seminaries in the US. The Biblical, systematic, dogmatic and historical theology of Berkof, Bavinck and more recent Sproul, Ferguson, and quite a few others on the scene today. And, of course there are the magnificent Reformed Confessions; Westminster, Heidelberg, Canons of Dort, Belgic, 1st and 2nd Helvetic, etc.
@@davidthenewtheologian7757 It is not correct to say Calvin didn’t teach particular atonement. Limited atonement is a pejorative phrasing of the concept of definite, particular atonement for the sin of those elected, predestined, called to eternal salvation. Jacob Amyrault held that the the atonement was made by Christ for all but the Spirit did not apply the finished atoning work of Christ to all. His position was not accepted as mainstream Calvinism progressed. Which brings up an interesting difference in Lutheranism and Calvinism; Unlike, in Calvinism, theological development or progress in American Lutheran theology is not widely appreciated. It’s about exegeting the words of one man, albeit a great man. In Calvinism you have substantial welcomed contributions from a number of Reformation countries. I mentioned English Puritanism particularly in the area of Christology ; Scottish Presbyterianism in the area of church and national government; and Dutch Calvinism in the area of cultural application of Biblical theology and theology of creation. And there is much more to say here.
I have a lot of respect for Luther. I think he eliminated a lot of the disagreeable things that are in Catholicism, but kept the things that are pure and true, whilst refining them further. The only thing to be held against him was his anti-Semitism.
Thank you. As a Reformed person, I appreciate your clarification. As for normative worship vs regulative worship, there we very few American Protestant churches that even know what “regulative worship” is. Indeed, even among the small number of confessionally-Reformed churches,Regulative worship is, sadly, rare. As for the Lord’s Supper, in my humble opinion, Calvin and Luther are not in essential disagreement. The problem, I have been told, was inability of some Reformed to see beyond memorial significance of the elements (Zwingki). As a Dutch Reformed I truly believe that Christ’s blood and body are spiritually present in the elements.
I've heard one of the issues is one people tried to talk to luther about it he would scream the body and blood of christ in German over and over again. Seems like alot of Christans just have no interest in listening to each other and think they are right there for everyone else is crazy. I belive we need to pray about where are hearts are in certain issues and really listen to other people.
@@jcpg9592 I’ve never been north of Bethlehem but I have seen pictures. Why a beautiful area to live in. May God bless your congregation, consistory, and pastor.
Man without the Spirit cannot understand how good works aren’t really ours, they are God’s good works he does through us. Luther in his doctrine of vocation teaches how we can serve our neighbor going through our mundane tasks in life such as a mother who changes her babies diapers daily or cooks meals for her family. These are her Holy Works the ones God put her here to do and therefore it is pleasing to God and Holy. Luther realized (through the Word) that joining a monastery and shutting yourself away from your neighbor wasn’t at all God’s purpose for us here. I just wanted to point that out after the first misconception.
"Good Works" Here in the so-called "Bible Belt" of the US south, influence is largely drawn from Southern Baptist/Wesleyan/Revivalist understandings. Clergy and faithful often happily pointed their fingers at others and accused them of "earning salvation by good works." All the while, many of these people highly selective pietists who never understood the fact their abstention from beer, dance, cards, etc. was as "works based" as any other Christian discipline such as service or fasting. This was always a big source of frustration and irritation for me.
As a Reformed believer I am glad to see a fantastic and winsome Lutheran presence in the person of Dr Cooper. I am a tad jealous that he is more likable than some of the better known "Reformed/Calvinists" that seem to constantly whine and whinge. While it is good to stress our distinctive and there is only so much available time and patience, I do see Dr Cooper perhaps over-stressing the gulf and divide between Lutherans and Reformed. From what I can recall from history classes, Melanchthon and Calvin were quite friendly and Melanchthon even varied the Augsburg Confession for Calvin's approval. I would hope that such an amicable spirit would still prevail even amid our small but deep differences.
The variata of Melanchthon is not something confessional Lutherans are fond of. You may notice a large number of old churches with U.A.C. inscribed on the cornerstone or displayed on the sign. It means Unaltered Augsburg Confession.
@@jasonharris2291 Yes, I knew that but I have not ever seen it. I am the opposite of Dr Cooper. I was baptized Lutheran, but became Presbyterian in my college years.
“My doctrine is not to be judged by any man, nor even by the angels; because I am certain of it, I will judge you and the angels likewise, as St. Paul says (Gal. i. 8), and whosoever does not accept my teaching will not arrive at blessedness. For it is God’s and not mine, therefore my judgment is God’s and not mine.”(Martin Luther, 1522) And there is the sick, twisted, cruel and inhumane ideas from Luther in his “On the Jews and Their Lies” - The Nazi’s were so impressed with Luther’s book they distributed it for free in Germany before WWII.
It depends on the synod. ELCA has departed from biblical truth and now allows gay clergy and same sex marriage. LCMS, does not. There are other Lutheran synods with which I am not as familiar, but I believe them to be more conservative than ELCA. The Bible condemns homosexuality, so therefore any church that departs from biblical truth should be avoided.
very interesting. ive never heard lutherans dont engage in or like talking about good works, but I do know that some reformed folks misunderstand the role of good works. or at least they talk like they dont sometimes
There's a line that I'm not exactly sure where it originates, but it is variously credited to Luther and Calvin and sometimes other Reformers that goes like: "We are justified by faith alone, but faith is never alone" Meaning that true living faith is accompanied by works, but those works are not the cause or instrument of our justification. Lutherans and the Reformed should be in full agreement as both hold to the five Solas. I assume it is a Romanist making the objection (or maybe one from the eastern church) and that Cooper's introduction makes it misleadingly sound like it comes from the Reformed side. I hope that isn't his intention, but there were a few points where he seems to not get the Reformed position, like our affirmation of the Real Presence and rejection of Zwingli's symbolic view of the supper.
I am an irish catholic ,i have absolutely no conception of lutheranism at all ,its not really a protestant denomination that has any presence in the country that i know of.There is the anglican tradition,baptist,calvinist and methodist.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure Dr. Cooper agrees. That combination of verses 8-9 and then verse 10, exactly sets in contra-distinction the two types of righteousness that Dr. Cooper explained.
@@josephbirch3635 James said that faith without works is dead and that works show faith. James is hard to understand but He did NOT say that works are necessary for salvation.
@@markhorton3994 "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24. This is also the only time the phrase "faith alone" appears in the Bible that I know of.
I am from India 👍🏼😍 Lutheran Church member 👍🏼 People from Salvation Army 😍 always criticized our way of worship 😂 repeating the same order of service round the year and for centuries 😁they also ask questions about the communion 😍I believe in the Symbolic representation of Bread and 🍷 wine as the body and blood of our Lord 😍 finally our seminaries are lacking spiritual growth which produces pastors who are not knowing the fundamentals of Lutheranism 😍😁
I like to watch videos about theology because my religion is personal - not institutional - and I am, therefore, always looking for ways to explain my religious beliefs, my religious practices, my religious preferences and my religious prohibitions. Conversion I consider biblical references to conversion to be about the miracle whereby a person’s trust is transferred from what he thought he could do to earn or deserve salvation from sin or its consequences to what the Lord does (has done, is doing and will yet do) to save (justify, sanctify and glorify) us. I have reasons to think most of the people who have asked me whether I am “saved” have, themselves, not experienced that miracle. Good Works “[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” The fact that someone does things that might be considered “good” is not proof of conversion but I take this passage to mean that “good works” are the inevitable result of conversion. Reason The working definition of, “faith”, in our society (U.S.) - even most people who profess “faith” in Jesus - is a belief (or set of beliefs) for which there is insufficient evidence - or none. I think of faith AS the evidence of things not seen. The Lord’s Supper I don’t insist that the bread and wine of the Lord’s supper are “merely” symbolic but I do consider them to be symbolic so I’m astonished that anyone would ever have argued about how, exactly, they are “more than” symbolic. John Calvin vs. Jakob Hermanszoon (Latinized as Jacobus Arminius) I believe the creator knew, before each of us was born, whether we would be saved or lost. I don’t agree with Calvin that he decided, before we were born, whether we would be saved or lost. I think, however, that Calvin’s doctrine was helpful to many people in the sixteenth century because they had been accustomed to thinking their salvation depended on the decision of their priest. Calvin’s doctrine was a step in the right direction. I'm even less acquainted with Arminian doctrine. I agree that we have free moral agency but I don’t agree that we are saved (justified, sanctified or glorified) by our choice (or our choices). Protestant/Reformed/Evangelical I think of the protestant reformation has having begun before the sixteenth century (although it wasn’t called that until the sixteenth century) and I believe there is a need for reform/reformation to continue. Because everyone who is truly protestant is, in at least one sense, “reformed”, I object to the use of the word “reformed” as a reference to the doctrines of John Calvin.
To me it seems bodies in general are symbolic emmanations of invisible truths. So I don't see a sharp distinction between saying symbolic and real bodily presence. But there are of course different types of symbols. But I guess some think more along the lines that symbolic means not real, disconnected, of pure fancy, or something like that. Anyway, the important part is that one comes to the meal, because one has been invited to partake and that God is really there in an embodied way.
Though I do think there is some importance to being able to affirm it is still bread. Just like the devine does not have to displace the substance of a human to be fully present, neither does the breadness have to yield in order to make room for the divine. It makes no worldly sense, but in light of the gospel, it makes a lot of sense.
The big one for me is the belief that Luther's Two Kingdom Theology helped to contribute to the Lutheran Church in Germany turning a blind eye to how the nazis treated the Jews. Obviously prior anti-semistism contributed to this, but Luther's writings about the Jews probably didn't help with that. But Luther's Two Kingdom view allowed the German Church to theologically disconnect from any involvement of "the Jewish problem."
@@Mygoalwogel Did Italy start this? Or was it another way that they were influenced by Hitler's "Final Solution"? Either way it started in Germany first.
@@losely451 Regardless of where it started, what "contribute[d] to the [Papist] Church in [Italy] turning a blind eye to how the [Italian fascists and German] nazis treated the Jews"?
@@losely451 I think you missed the point. You claimed: _"Luther's Two Kingdom Theology helped to contribute to the Lutheran Church in Germany turning a blind eye to how the nazis treated the Jews."_ I agree roughly *20 million Papists* and 40 million Protestants turned a blind eye. It is a fact the Holocaust began in Germany first, 1939. No argument from me. My question is: [What] helped to contribute to the [Papist] Church in [Italy] turning a blind eye to how the [Italian fascists and German] nazis treated the Jews"? Do you agree roughly *43 million Papists* turned a blind eye? It is a fact the Holocaust began *later* in Italy, 1943.
I'm not convinced that Jesus' disciples, or really anyone in the early church, would have accepted that they were drinking actual blood. That seems to go against what we know of Jewish people at the time. They wouldn't have gone along with such a ritual. I think they all knew that Jesus was once again speaking symbolically as he often does.
Read John 6 carefully. Jesus repeatedly tells his disciples they must eat (lit. gnaw upon) his flesh in order to have life. They feel shocked and scandalized, begin arguing with each other, and many of them abandon him afterward. They understood what a metaphor is. The early Church was not with Zwingli on the Eucharist. They affirmed Real Presence.
By referring to us ELCA Lutherans as super duper liberals, you are suggesting that we are not right. To the contrary, I believe that ELCA Lutherans are just more correct than LCMS Lutherans.
@@stevekohl5351ELCA are so far from Luther’s teaching I would not even consider them to be Lutheran! Homosexual Pastors is pure evil! Jesus said where homosexuality will end up.
Add this one to the list, I have heard this from soooooo many catholic apologists, both lay and ordained (who should know better). Myth: Lutherans do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
As a Reformed guy, I hear that about us from Lutherans as well. I assume it's a similar argument "Catholic -> Lutheran" or "Lutheran -> Reformed": You don't have _my_ understanding of the real presence, therefore you don't believe in real presence at all! Sadly Cooper did something similar in this video when he falsely lumped the Reformed view with Zwingli.
You pretty much said good works don’t actually accomplish anything, so no it’s not a caricature of Lutheranism, it’s exactly what Catholics believe about Lutheranism and what we criticize. The whole idea of losing your salvation is completely contradictory, you can’t keep your salvation through good works, but somehow you can lose it by evil works, that makes absolutely no sense.
Erm no still a caricature. Sola Fide is receiving God's righteousness, Passive righteousness solely by faith. All accomplished by Christ work on the Cross. The initial reception of Salvation and justification is by faith. However Salvation is conditioned by Faith. U don't loose ur salvation cause u do evil works. U loose your salvation cause u departed from the faith. Paul tells us quote plainly in Romans 14:23 and anything that is sin DOES NOT COME FROM FAITH. The Faith that saves and justifies us before God would produce works.
@@jenex5608 Except that this man within the video clearly said that evil works forfeit salvation, this is a total contradiction, you’re making a separate argument. Also, if the evil works are merely a demonstration of losing faith, like how you think good works are a demonstration of faith, it’s the same contradiction anyway.
@@lyricalmike7162 His correct evil works forfeit your salvation. Cause Paul teaches anything that isn't from faith is sin. So when u sin u don't do it from faith. Ur faith becomes dead. Therfore the very requirement for salvation th is ur faith. Become Dead
@@jenex5608 TH-cam keeps deleting my response, figures, but I refute this exact argument in my latest video on another app for content makers, my account name is “santo floridano” without the space.
All as have been sanctified are by definition “saints!” with a lower case. Hence the CHURCH UNIVERSAL as the COMMUNION of SAINTS. The third article of the Apostles’ Creed must be properly understood as referring to, I believe in the Holy Ghost. in I believe in the holy Christian Church “which is THE Communion of SAINTS”, i.e., the gathering in fellowship of all believers as have been sanctified through the blood, meaning the atoning death AND resurrection of Christ as Victor…. Remembering that the definition of the church is “where two or more of you are gathered in my NAME,” see here: “Where the Holy Spirit is, there the church is whom He has sanctified in Christ. The phrase in the Creed, communio sanctorum, can be translated in one of two ways. It can mean “communion of the saints” as a further explanation of “the holy Christian Church” or it can mean “the communion in the holy things,” also a fair translation of the Latin…. (See also an excellent article on the subject by Pastor Jason D. Lane). Remember that Paul, in his epistles, usually start with the salutation, “To the Saints in (X)…”. The proper reading of the Creed, written in Latin, is key to a correct understanding that the word “saints” is in reference to ALL CHRISTIANS! The Roman Catholic notion of saints as referring to those only as formally canonized is simply incorrect. This also should be understood in conjunction with Luther’s point in Universal Priesthood. As saints, we all are part of the Ministry of God, whether as laymen or as ordained clergy. There is no distinction between “person vs. parson,” other than the fact that some undergo professional training as preachers/teachers of the Word…! God bless!
Our good work are a product,byproduct of the work of the SON YESHUA HAMASHIACH.The PARACLETE nudges us,prompts us,leads us to become a new creation in the SON YES- HUA HAMASHIACH.Speaking for myself I have done good work to justify myself,so I can brag and boast in myself.I also struggle with tha I am not that badism,I am better than othersism,I am always trying to do my bestism to redeem myself.For most of my life I did not grasp how decayed,delinquent,derelict,fallen,lost,sully my affections,desires,nature was.I am not Luthe -ran,but I appreciate this brief explanation much.🕊 Thank You Very Much Doctor Jordan B Cooper 🧠😏🎯
Dr. Cooper, you left out the usual quick explanation of the Sacrament. The bread and the body of Christ, the wine and blood of Christ all have real presence. We do not pretend to know enough for more detail.
If that's a Lutheran quick explanation, why are they so quick to dismiss the Reformed view? Lutherans _do_ say more. A Lutheran could probably agree with most of Westminster Confession 29.7 for example, but there is a glaring piece that all Lutherans in my experience do take issue with, the physical presence: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, *really and indeed,* yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, *receive and feed upon Christ crucified,* and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as *really,* but spiritually, *present to the faith of believers in that ordinance,* as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
@@oracleoftroy The reformed view that the body and blood of Christ are not physically present is precisely what we Lutherans reject. It is not quickly. The rejection is long decided. When Luther met Zwingli to try to resolve differences Luther removed the tablecloth either to reveal or to write the words "THIS IS MY BODY " ( in German or Latin) pounding on the table to emphasize each word as he pronounced it, Emphatically. This solidified the separation of Lutheran and Reformed. I was tought in confirmation class many many years ago to classify ( NOT judge) Christian denominations by this difference. Catholics believe that only Christ's body and blood are actually present by transsubstantiation. Reformed believe that Christ's body and blood are present only spiritual as Zwingli said or only symbolically as many say. Lutherans believe that both the bread and wine and Christ's body and blood have real present. We have believed that since before Melancthan, who first formalized Lutheran theology in writing, was forced to leave for changing his mind.
@@markhorton3994 Not sure why you are talking about Zwingli. I know Lutherans get confused by this, but Zwingli and Calvin are actually two different people and don't share the same view of the sacraments. Calvin's view was much closer to Luther save as I already noted, that he did held to a real presence that was spiritual not physical. He didn't hold to a mere memorialism or mere symbolism. I find it strange how sectarian Lutherans are, such that even when there is agreement they have to find ways to disagree and cast off everyone else. On this issue there are important differences, but we don't need to exaggerate them or lie about them.
@@oracleoftroy It was Zwingli who Luther met with and disagreed with about real presence. The followers of Zwingli were the start of the Reformed movement and used that name. Luther never met Calvin but did read his work. He agreed with Calvin about the bondage of the Will but absolutely not about double predestination. Today "Reformed " and "evangelical" seem to be blanket terms covering a wide range of theology. All seem to agree on the infallibility of Scripture but disagree on what that means. The range seems to be that only the KJV is the Word of God and not one letter or punctuation mark is not exactly as God sent it to my viewpoint that every word as originally inspired is what God intended it to be but not all of it is literal and not all of it is command eg "the four corners of the Earth " does not mean that the Earth is flat and rectangular " and David and Bathsheeba is not a command to commit murder and adultery All translations and all manuscripts contain human errors in transmission but God has preserved His message. Some "Reformed " or "evengelicals" are Calvinist others are closer to Arian, some (like Luther) are neither. All are Trinitarian. Views on the Sacraments vary also. Almost all believe in "believer Baptism ". Some believe that Christ's body and blood are spiritually but not physically present others that the Lord's Supper is only symbolic. Many make a distinction between "Protestant", "Reformed ", and "evangelical" but their definitions vary greatly, when they have definitions.
@@oracleoftroy Yes Lutherans are sectarian. We do not fellowship with those who disagree with our beliefs. Our pastors do not preach in other churches or offer prayer at public gatherings to avoid pressure to compromise. We do not allow clergy of other denominations to preach from our pulpits. We practice closed communion, members only, and do not take communion in other churches. But ANYONE is welcome to worship with us and I at least will attend any Christian church on occasion. We do not judge anyone. God will judge when it is time. We acknowledge Christians we disagree with as our brothers in Christ. We will know who is correct on non Salvation issues soon enough, if they actually matter. We will not budge on the things that matter such as the Bible being the Word o fGod, the Trinity, the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and Jesus being the ONLY way to the Father.
I find it’s very disrespectful to the whole meaning of the Vestment to call them robes or dresses! Same with calling it the cup instead of the Challas!
Calvinists accusing modern Lutherans of following Melancthon and Luther being a pseudo-Calvinist sure show their lack of knowledge concerning Melancthon.
To be honest, I've heard it said more often about Martin Chemnitz than Melanchthon. In my reading, Bucer and Melanchthon seemed very keen to seek unity among the reformers, and while Luther and Calvin were a bit hotheaded at times, they mostly seemed on board. But Chemnitz and others in his time seemed much more sectarian and unwilling to seek unity.
@@Mygoalwogel true. But I don't think that I am being rude for noticing the facts of life. I guess I notice things that concern me as well - I am getting old as well. And by the way, I hope that your goal is not to be judgmental.
With respect to reason I don't accept that the confessional Lutheran teaching of single predestination is on a par with the Trinity. The Trinity is beyond human reason but it's not logically contradictory as is the Lutheran rejection of double predestination. To put it as plainly as possible it has to follow if people are saved only by being predestined by God to be saved (which confessional Lutherans accept is the case) that those not predestined to be saved are predestined to be damned. So to deny this means that one is involved in a logical contradiction, and what is logically contradictory can of course never be true in reality. So the only valid conclusion one can reach is that confessional Lutherans (unlike Luther) have misinterpreted the Bible to teach something which isn't true. Romans 9 in particular shows that single predestination isn't Biblically correct. With respect to Melanchthon at the beginning of the Reformation he was in agreement with Luther's teaching of absolute predestination, but later on of course he rejected this. Luther however never changed his belief that all things are predestined by God and there's no free will. It's clear to me that the authors of the Formula of Concord were more influenced by Melanchthon than Luther when it came to predestination. David Chytraeus for instance, who was one of the authors, is quoted (in Walther and the Predestination Controversy: The Error of Modern Missouri) as having said to the theological faculty of the university of Wittenberg with reference to some of the things Luther had written in The Bondage of the Will: "These and many similar exceedingly terrible utterances, which at that time were taught in your school as divine revelations, are now nowhere retained except in the schools of the Calvinists. Philippus (Melanchthon) our common teacher, has gradually softened and removed them … and this already while Luther was living.” (p. 23). So this confirms that the Formula of Concord owes more to Melanchthon than it does to Luther when it comes to predestination. Also since confessional Lutherans reject that God has predestined anyone to be damned and believe that the reason why people are damned is due to them having resisted the Holy Spirit this is tantamount to holding that damnation is to be attributed to one's own free will. So if one is damned through free will then it follows logically that salvation is also to be attributed to one's free will, since if it's possible to be damned by offering resistance then it's possible to be saved by not offering resistance. The truth is that confessional teaching on salvation and damnation is logically contradictory and therefore can't in reality be true. It's logically inconsistent to say one believes in monergism if at the same time one rejects predestination to hell. The two are opposite sides of the same coin.
"Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live." (Ezekiel 33:11) "Who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4) "Not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) "He gave his life to pay for our sins. But he not only paid for our sins. He also paid for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2) "The living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10) Do you boldly proclaim these verses, or do you mostly try to ignore them until sometimes -- when absolutely necessary -- you do a 70's Disco Inferno dance around them? Quantum Physics reveals a reality that is far more complex than previously imagined. And God is behind it. Additionally, I'm sure there is plenty of "true truth" (re: the term popularized by the one greatly personally admired Francis Schaeffer) that is God-level logic this side of Heaven. It's not important that the words of God are always apparently 100% logically consistent TO US. It is for God's glory that He conceals secret complexities of reality (Proverbs 25:2, Deut. 29:29), and Job went all the way to his death -- in spite of God directly communicating with him -- with many of his questions left unanswered. The important thing to God was a childlike FAITH/TRUST.
The way I look at it is we are all technically predestined to hell by our own sins unless saved by God. However, God is not willing for anyone to perish. Yet, He has to open our eyes and hearts. How both can be true is a mystery beyond my understanding.
@@utubeskreename9516 I'm in agreement with Luther's position as explained in The Bondage of the Will which is that God has both a revealed will which desires to save everyone in time, and a hidden will which has determined what happens to everyone from eternity. Although this seems paradoxical, this is the only way of logically making sense of the Biblical data and combining Romans 9 and other similar passages such as in John 6 with passages which teach that God doesn't will that any should perish like Ezekiel 33:11. Erasmus in his defence of free will and in opposition to Luther's support of absolute predestination also referred to Ezekiel 33:11, and if you've got access to a copy of Luther's Works Vol. 33 you can read Luther's response from pages 135 to 140. Briefly Luther's argument is that Ezekiel is referring to God's preached offer of mercy (His revealed will) not God's hidden inscrutable will which determines who are to be recipients of God's mercy: "Diatribe, however, deceives herself in her ignorance by not making any distinction between God preached and God hidden, that is, between the Word of God and God himself. God does many things that he does not disclose to us in his word; he also wills many things which he does not disclose himself as willing in his word. Thus he does not will the death of a sinner, according to his word; but he wills it according to that inscrutable will of his." (p.140)
@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 It's not the teaching of the Bible to say that we're all predestined to hell by our sins. For instance Paul says in Ephesians 1 that believers in Christ have been predestined to be saved before creation and that God works out everything according to His will (His hidden will). What happens in this world and the next has been predestined to happen by God from eternity. All people are born sinful and deserve hell but that's not the same as saying they're predestined to hell. Only those whom God hasn't predestined to be saved are predestined to hell.
@@utubeskreename9516 With respect to Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever ..." I don't accept that this is implying that logically contradictory assertions about God can be true in reality. Nothing logically contradictory can ever be true otherwise God would be an absurd being. It's absurd to assert that God has predestined only some people to be saved and only they are saved, but that those who aren't predestined to be saved aren't predestined to be damned but are themselves to be blamed for having rejected being saved. This is to confuse God's wills. Only according to God's revealed will in Christ is it correct to blame people for their damnation because they've rejected salvation by refusing to believe in Christ. According to God's hidden will however they're not responsible for being unbelievers because only those whom the Father draws to Christ by the Holy Spirit are able to believe, and those who don't believe are unbelievers because the Father hasn't granted them the ability to believe - John 6:44,64,65. Confessional Lutherans have illogically combined God's revealed and hidden wills and have made God into an absurd being.
![[FULL EP.69] #เอิร์นจิรวรรณ เปิดบ้านหมื่นล้านทุกมุม ครั้งแรก! l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_J4_nw8c64o/mqdefault.jpg)
1. Good works 1:30
2. Lutherans hate reason and logic 5:24
3. Normative worship 9:04
4. Consubstantiation 14:29
5. Lutherans follow Melanchthon, not Luther 20:49
It’s helpful to study the development of the theology of the GnesioLutherans within Lutheranism. They broke Lutheranism away from Melanchthon. Melanchthon and Calvin followed Luther substantially. I sometimes call myself a pre-Gnesio Lutheran.
Number 5 is a myth spread by catholics.
The Gnesio Lutherans defended Lutheran Orthodoxy against the Philippists and Lutheran Calvinism.
I'm a R. Catholic. I found this video to be extremely helpful. Well done, sir. Thank you for sharing.
Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
_________________________
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
_________________________
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
____________________________________
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary.
_________________________
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics.
_________________________
Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.✝️✝️
@@mynameis......23 my boy typed up a whole essay in a reply. I’m R. Catholic too. I hope your work is fruitful and valuable, regardless of weather or not it is read by the people you intended too.
Same dude 👏
@@mynameis......23I’m not Catholic, but:
I AINT EVEN READING ALLAT🗣️💯
@@mynameis......23 You must be fun at parties lol
These are predominately Reformed misconceptions about Lutheranism, there are also plenty of Roman Catholic misconceptions which are a completely different set of things to address lol.
Hey, u mind if I ask you a question? I think I recall your former username being Lambeth Anglican if I’m not mistaken, and while I love the Book of Concord (which I finally got around to finishing, minus some boring sections of the Apology lol) I can’t help but feel discouraged by the mark Pietism has left on contemporary Lutheranism, with the exception of maybe some Nordic countries and even they have large swaths of Pietism besides Sweden and Finland. Lutheranism, as established, is I think the closest thing we have to a continuity with the Patristic church. But it’s just not what it used to be anymore, especially in America. It’s really hard to find Evangelical Catholic parishes in my experience.
Whereas Anglicanism, although perhaps very Reformed in its origins, had the opposite trajectory with a more Catholic bent emerging from the Oxford Movement. I think some of them go too far with novel doctrines like transubstantiation and invocation of the saints, but I find a very convincing continuity with the Prayer Book Catholic/English Use tradition. It seems to have all of the appreciated good changes of the Oxford Movement while also not going too far with Romanist innovations, and to me there’s a surprisingly convincing blend of elements of the Caroline Divines and Non-Jurors of the Old High Church tradition and their quasi-Lutheran perspectives on soteriology and anti-Calvinism, the sacramental emphases of the Tractarians with things like the weekly Eucharist, corporeal Real Presence and the renewed emphasis on confession and absolution, all topped off with the liturgical outer trappings of the Medieval church which, despite its theological abuses, is still a part of the Church catholic’s history.
As a liturgist, the trajectory of Anglicanism is exactly what I desire, and while I find myself very theologically Lutheran as per the Confessions, the Gnesio-Lutheran emphasis of the Augsburg Confession seems to be completely different than contemporary Lutheranism.
I know my place belongs in either of these two camps, but I’m having trouble deciding and I’d really appreciate your thoughts. Apologies for the word vomit, just thought you’d be a good person to ask :)
@@DeFyYing just my 2 cents. 3 of the 4 LCMS churches near me are book of concord heavy, confessional, high church evangelical catholic. I think a lot of this is going to depend on what churches you have around locally. I’ve been blessed to have 3 highly traditional Lutheran churches near me to pick from when I made the jump. I would have gone ACNA if Otherwise. My brother is ACNA high church Anglican and there is very little difference between his churches liturgy, practice, etc…and my Lutheran church. We visit each other’s churches often and both enjoy sharing our traditions with each other. It all depends on what’s available in your area.
@@DeFyYing Yes, you've raised good points. I wouldn't say the Augsburg Confession is particularly "Gnesio" as it was written by Melancthon. In fact, in many ways, the Philipist party won out even in many of the pronouncements of the Fomula of Concord (rejection of the capernaitic localist eating, rejection of Matthias Flacius on sin-nature, affirmation of the usus clause, etc.)
I would call myself a Philipist for the most part, seeing as how I hold much affinity for the Anglican tradition of Cranmer and Bucer (both of which learned under the Melancthonian school)... I for one, am not a big fan of Hermann Sasse due to the trajectory he set in the 20th century of driving a wedge between Luther and Melancthon/Chemnitz/Gerhard on the Supper.
(The Formula is clear that Melancthon rather than Luther is correct on the Supper, the Augustinian view is correct, and thus there is general agreement among Jesuits, Calvinists and Lutherans -- Christ is not locally/bodily/physically present in the Supper, but he is present sacramentally/substantially/spiritually).
So, in some sense, I see myself as a "Reformed-Catholic" Lutheran, which is why I see more overlap with Anglicanism than dissimilarity.
In terms of non-confessional externals, I do think Anglicanism has SO MUCH to offer the Lutheran tradition in terms of how to _live out_ "Reformation Catholicism" rather than simply what to believe. Particularly, in ecclesiology and worship:
1. No Church claiming the identity of "Catholic" has any excuse practicing Congregationalism (or at least being anti-episcopal); such is contrary to the confessions and the church Catholic.
2. Anglican liturgy is better. It just is. Luther was a musician more than a liturgical scholar, meanwhile Cranmer had devoted his life to liturgiology prior to the Reformation. This is obvious in the difference between the BCP and the Luther Masses; one was a careful revision of the Western Rite to fit the new context of Reformed faith (including a beautiful tradition of evangelical Eucharistic Prayers, sorely absent in Lutheran history and consciousness -- at least in Germany and America)... the other establishing the precedent of musical paraphrases of historical canticles and creeds, and the scandalizing innovation of a canon-less eucharistic rite never before used in Christendom.
Again, Lutheranism is cleaner theologically, but in practice... I lean Anglican. That's why I hold one foot in each camp.
As for Pietism, I would describe myself as having Pietist leanings, even quasi-charismatic leanings... but that doesn't mean low church. In Sweden, Pietism was simply a renewal movement that emphasized Mysticism and the internals to balance out the dangers of dry, intellectual, institutionalism inherent in establishment religion. Often Pietism went along with the renewal of monastic communities in Sweden, so again, not to be confused with low church German Pietism. (E.g. Bishop Bo Giertz was a High Church Pietist)
Seriously- former RC and was shocked to find out how wrong I was about the Lutheran Church.
@@vngelicath1580 Good point, I like Melanchthon’s more diplomatic and calm nature compared to Luther lol. I didn’t know Philippism was still a thing, would you say it still had a decent following in contemporary Lutheranism? I appreciate that Melanchthon was trying to make peace with the Reformed, but I’m not too sure I agree he should’ve compromised on Eucharistic theology
Part 2 would be cool. Some. Other comments have said this, but your points here are mainly from the reformed/Presbyterian perspective. Would be interesting if in part two you talk about misconceptions that catholics and/or orthodox might have of Lutheranism.
God bless, your videos have inspired me to contemplate the seminary!
I Am from Finland and found your channel today. I have watched some of your videos and cannot stop. Your channel is a real treasure chest. I have never found any other source making sense of Lutheranism like your channel. Here in Finland, 80% of the population are Lutherans, so you rarely have to ask questions about why being a Lutheran when you rarely meet people believing otherwise. That’s why your channel is so excellent. Finnish Lutheran authorities do not have to explain things you need to know in the more religious diversified USA.
Our Lutheran church is quite liberal, but here are many revival movements in the Lutheran church that strictly try to hold on to the Lutheran confession. The future will tell if we can continue in the mother church..
similar situation in Sweden and Denmark too.
Slightly different in Norway.
@@sonye-jin6737 in what sense is it different in Norway?
@@mmusic8558 the Norwegian Lutheran state Church is much more influenced by internal evangelicals. Instead of becoming free churches they stayed in the national Church.
@@sonye-jin6737 Yes, I see.. There are many revival movements in the Finnish Lutheran church, but all of them, with the exception of one or two, hold strictly to the Lutheran confession.
Movements not accepting the Lutheran doctrine are what we call free churches, and completely outside the Lutheran church. But this is not so in Norway if I understood you right.
@@mmusic8558 in Sweden the confessionals split off from Church in modern times to create Missionsprovinsen (claiming to be in the tradition of Church of Sweden) but there are holdouts of different conservatives in Church of Sweden despite liberalism
It's kind of sad how hard Calvinists try to make their theology seem so universal and resort to strawmen arguments in order to bolster the claims of their supposed infallible theology.
I found your channel through the LCMS subreddit. Thank you for this video! I was not raised LCMS, but my husband was. We fell away, now feel belief again, and are making sure we proceed in a way that respects both of us and our past experiences. Thank you so much.
Yeah, please do Part Two!!!
Yes, please do more you should make this a mini series.
I think, that a Part 2 video on this topic might be good. Plus, I should send you a video on Lutherans, who are not mainstream Conservative Lutherans like you and me, since I'm curious about your thoughts on Lutherans with unusual beliefs for Lutherans. Keep up the good work, Dr. Cooper.
Thank you!!! I’d love to hear more!
I especially appreciate the Augsburg Confession's point re: good works. Only the Lutheran church actually teaches how good works may be done. They are not created by the preaching of the law-- "Biblical Principals," for example-- but through the preaching of the Gospel.
The reformed don’t actually believe that either. I would refer to you the Puritan work, “The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification”.
Go for it, more parts. Also would be nice some more videos about Gerhard's works.
How did you not have the dumbest misconception on Lutherans: "They're Catholics without the Pope and politically liberal" and yes I have heard this wayyyy too often from people.
No, that's Episcopalians (of whom I am one). 😊
Point 4 is the only one I have really heard.
Then again, I come from the Restoration Movement (Stone- Campbell ) so I often feel historically alienated from many of the debates you are discussing. I understand they are foundational to how my group got to where we are, but still feel as if I am not part of the dialog.
Thanks for clearing thing up. You should start doing time stamps for videos like this
thanks for the video, that was some great clarification. im lcms and one thing ive had to belabour to our reformed and baptist brothers is our sacremental theology, some misunderstand us to have an ex opera operato view of the sacrements and ive had to explain quite a bit that we are not. that what we believe is that what is being given in the sacrements is only recieved by faith. and that we do not teach that one cannot be saved without baptism. but that it is one of the ordinary means of grace that the holy spirit works in, word and sacrement.
Please make a part 2
I lean reformed, this was a very helpful video for helping to understand Lutheranism. Thanks Jordan!
Would love to hear your take on the topic of the Weimar Disputation, and the show down between Matthias Flacius and the Phillipist Victor Strigel. Flacius defeats Striglel in the end but "steps" in it in the end.
To your point about outsiders describing Lutheran theology, I just looked up an online dictionary for the word, consubstantiation, and it specifically ties it to Lutheran belief.😊
Thank you. 5 more please. God's peace be with you.
Oh wow, what a funny mistake you made when quoting Luther around 19:37 "I'd rather drink wine with the Pope, than mere blood with the sacramentarians..."
Oops. You know what I meant...
@@DrJordanBCooper , yes I do. Just thought you might confuse some others at that point.
Would be so cool to hear you and James White discuss these issues in a friendly way. Both of you guys are great and do such a good job of defending your points of view. I recently read "Between Wittenberg and Geneva" and it left a lot to be desired. I bet you and White could collaborate on a much more robust and interesting project.
Please do a part 2 of this video. I want to know more about my faith that I was never taught ;)
It would be a massive undertaking. But perhaps you should consider presenting an overview on the Book of Concord over several episodes to present the Lutheran doctrine. Specifically present it in a way the addresses the misconceptions and the major theological differences.
Dr. Cooper, when you mentioned "reason(s)" in the second myth about Lutheranism, is that the same meaning as Luther used in his reply to the Diet of Worms, i.e., "unless I am convinced...by plain and clear reasons, I cannot and I will not recant anything"?
Yes, as He says by Scripture and plain reason.
I like this. You should do a part II
Number 5 is the favorite of James White lol. Thanks again for your work Dr. Cooper. Part 2 please !
As a Reformed Baptist who's attended a Presbyterian church for 5 years, most of this was foreign to me. All I knew was that Lutherans took communion like a Catholic, that their pastors wore robes or collars like Catholics and that the congregation confessed their sin together, which the pastor said was forgiven.
I watch Steven K and Fighting for the Faith, and I agree with just about everything they say, so I thought we had more in common that not.
A presbyterian started the collar thing, and Anglicans made it popular.
@@MortenBendiksen Ha, well that's interesting!
Most historical Protestant traditions have pastors in robes and liturgy! Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Congregationalist, Methodists, etc. It’s the Baptists that are the outliers here. 😊
@@fighterofthenightman1057 Hmmm, true, maybe they were outliers for going back to being obedient to what special clothing the Bible says pastors should wear.
I heard someone say that where the Bible is silent, so should we be. IMHO, the special pastor clothing is a tradition of men. I have no problem with it, and it probably does good in some ways.
Shrug. Thanks for the comment though. I really liked talking with a Christian right now. I don't get much of that. :-)
I believe the reason so many on the Reformed side would attempt to perpetuate the Melanchthon myth is two fold.
First, they look at the effect Cranmer and other Reformers had to push the Anglican Church from Henry V’s English Catholicism towards the Reformed of influence that eventually prevailed.
Second, Melanchthon did begin to embrace some Reformed views. This later led to the Philippist and the Gnesio Lutheran split.
These two taken together allows some Reformed to present an ahistorical interpretation of Lutherans. While it is true that Melanchthon did write much of the Lutheran doctrine in the Book of Concord, it is not true to say it was his interpretation. Luther did review and approve all of these doctrines as they were presented. It was only after Luther’s death that Melanchthon was able to present his doctrine as the Lutheran Churches, leading to the previously mentioned split. Of course, if this ahistorical Reformed view holds, obviously we have Calvin to thank for a reformation that started long before he showed up in Geneva the first time.
Awesome video Pastor Cooper. I am so grateful to be a part of the Lutheran Church. We have such a gift in our Book of Concord. Also, that's an awesome shirt!
The most surprising is hearing what Orthodox scholars think Luther taught. Even the really educated Orthodox tend to mangle what Luther taught to the point where you wonder if they’re doing it purposefully. I assume they’re just parroting what they’ve heard or read from their own circle… not surprising, I guess.
Do you have any specific misconceptions in mind?
@@maximosmagyar9653
Oh, I’m working from memory of over a decade ago, but it seems they would say Luther taught the sinner’s prayer, once saved always saved, licentiousness, lumping with anabaptists, memorial view of the Eucharist, spiritual view of the Eucharist, and a few other things that made me chuckle because of how wrong they were.
Luther was a major historical figure, so they ought to at least learn the basics of his views before trying to criticize him.
Question do the Lutheran confessions require one ti believe that Christ body can be omnipresent or that it is omnipresent?
Martin Chemnitz wrote two books: one on the Lord’s Supper and the other related book is On the Two Natures of Christ. Martin Chemnitz asserts that Christ is present in the elements of bread and wine just as the attributes of the two natures in Christ who is both God and man. This is a mystery that Saint Paul refers to in Ephesians 4:10 “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens that he might fill all things.” Because of His personal union with the Father, the body of Jesus can be anywhere in the universe at the same time. This is difficult for us to understand, so Jesus gives us a focal point in the Lord’s Supper in that He is known in the breaking of bread or the Sacrament of the Altar.
The command is "Take and eat" not "Take and understand". My idea is that the effect lies in obedience, not understanding. Some people may be called to figure it out but I'm called only to obey.
Nice video
The first accusation appears merely a Roman Catholic caricature that I've never encountered in Reformed circles, but it is a vital one to rebut for all denominations that adhere to the doctrine of Sola Fide.
I have heard it leveled by Reformed folks towards Lutheranism as well.
As someone raised evangelical, I can tell you that it is no mere caricature in those circles, even if it isn't true of Lutherans. I've known so many people who believed it "didn't matter what they did" after the moment they were "saved" because they had their get out of hell free card. One man said he could be cheating on his wife at the moment Christ returned and he would still be taken up to heaven.
@@unit2394 I've only heard it made by Romanists against "protestants" (whatever that means to them), never by a Reformed Christian against a Lutheran. Unless the Lutheran was unconfessional and did seem to hold to a form of antinomianism (but then we have people like that in our ranks who also need correcting). Reformed understand that Lutherans also hold to the five solas.
@@oracleoftroy many Reformed I have encountered have never really learned about or interacted with the Lutheran confessions and have a very caricatured view of Lutheranism, which includes it being antinomian.
@@unit2394 Hmm, in my experience, most Reformed assume Lutherans are more like them than Lutherans believe, as they both came out of the reformation and on key doctrines are in lock step. Especially because Lutherans hold to the same three use of the law as the Reformed do. I've been in Reformed denominations on both the contanental and Presbyterian side for ~30 years and never heard anything about Lutherans being antinomian.
I agree that both sides hold to some caricatures. For example, I was taught that Lutherans hold to consubstantiation, and most Lutherans think we deny the real presence in the Lord's supper or are Zwinglists in general on the sacraments.
I am leaning to lutheran. lutheran church is so similar on roman catholic. so i think i would feel very comfortable in the luaytheran church. i think every church has issues on what people believe, but i can understand on what dr. cooper is saying. so maybe i belong to lutheran instead of roman catholic. but i am non practicing and i still do my catholic prayers and rosary,divine mercy chaplet,and st. micheal chaplet and many others. but no matter what i choose to go to God is with me.
I would enjoy a part 2!
Yes, please give us a part 2! Also, I'd suggest more references to Biblical verses upon which Lutherans base their confession. This would lower the learning curve necessary to keep up with the main substance of your videos by helping newer our younger watchers keep up.
You flipped that Luther quote. Luther actually said, "I would rather drink the blood of Christ with the Pope than wine with the sacramentarians." You kind of flipped Luther's quote there.
Exactly, and as a Lutheran I feel the same
That juggler comment had me rolling 😂
The New Testament never mentions anything about wearing clothes in worship. Does that mean the principle of regulative worship forbid the wearing of clothes as it's not mentioned in the New Testament?
Vielen Dank! Best regards from Germany :)
Yes, do another part for this please.I would also encourage you to do a comparison of election onto faith versus election in light of faith, and how election in light of faith is not the same as Arminianism
Election onto faith is the Lutheran standpoint, right?
As a converted Christian, I had no idea where I should turn to. I read and read and read. And for a while I thought RC was it. Then I learned about Lutheran view of works, and it perfectly mad sense to me. I absolutely felt as my true father has just come in to my life, told me He was angry at my behaviour, but that it is okay, and He is not going to hold it against me. I instantly desired to show the same unconditional love towards my neighbours. And this is what I am saved into, in my view, and from the constant games of this world. Perhaps a few find their way to this without such a realization, but I think most are unable to, if any.
I think this is what Christians do, when they are in faith. The Lutheran way of saying it makes most sense to me. I do think Christians everywhere feel the same, when they are in faith, even though they seem to have this fear that this grace just isn't enough, and we must sort of threaten each other into good works. I find those who have faith are very concerned with how to do good works and try to help each other in this, regardless of denomination. You don't actually need the theory to be in faith. It's a matter of utter dependence and response to grace. Though the theory can help when stuck in doubt and fear.
When does it become the body and blood of Christ literally. Does it happen when a priest consecrates it? And only a consecrated priest can perform this function? And is it only a priest that has been consecrated in the Lutheran Church.
The words of Christ are the power that produces the presence, and it occurs through the words of Christ. It is not the person or work of the minister. We do not speculate on what happens if lay people usurp the Office of the Ministry, but simply insist that the called and ordained servant of the word must preach the gospel and administer sacraments.
Formula of Concord, Epitome, VII, AFFIRMATIVE THESES, "3. Now, as to the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation _of the minister_ [of the church] produces this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this is to be ascribed only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ.
"4. But at the same time we also believe, teach, and confess unanimously that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of the institution of Christ should in no way be omitted, but should be publicly recited, as it is written 1 Cor. 10:16: The cup of blessing which we bless, etc. *This blessing occurs **_THROUGH THE RECITATION_** of the words of Christ."*
Augsburg Confession, Article V, "That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted."
Square in Rome named after Martin Luther / by Rosie Scammell
August 27, 2015
The Vatican has given its backing to naming a central Rome square after Martin Luther.
Luther, a German Catholic priest and theologian before he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X in 1521, denounced the corruption he saw among clergy in Rome. Around the time of his visit to Rome in 1510, Luther reportedly repeated the saying, “If there is a hell, Rome is built over it.”
Luther was not allowed to return to the Catholic Church in his lifetime, but now the Vatican’s views on him have changed.
A hilltop square in Rome is being named Piazza Martin Lutero in memory of Luther’s achievements. The site chosen is a park on the Oppian Hill that overlooks the Colosseum.
I’m also R Catholic and also really enjoyed this. Thx!
I did actually hear the phrase consubstantiation thrown around in the ELCA, not that that proves anything.
What is an evangelical catholic?
That’s what I was taught in an evangelical , non-denominational Christian school. Catholics had transubstantiation while Lutherans had consubstantiation.
@@apologiaromana4123 fancy word for Lutheran (with subtle implications toward the high church side)
@@vngelicath1580 Thank you for the response! Which of the confessional lutheran churches in the U.S. would be "evangelical catholics"?
S.D.G.
@@apologiaromana4123 in theory the LCMS is Evangelical Catholic, however there are like in any denominations internal problems.
Hello Dr. Cooper, if you could, I think it would be wise to respond to some of the claims about Martin Luther. Many things he says are taken out of context and it would be nice to see you critique it.
This is huge, I never considered Christ never stopped and offered his way in exchange for healing. He just did it.
Hi
Where can I get schaffs fathers cheap
Im pretty sure that the terminology of "normative principle" originated from the English reformation during the debates between puritans/non-conformists and the Anglican conformists. I used to attend an Anglican church where the pastor taught on worship and used the term normative principle. So just like we're stuck with "high church low church" which also originated in the Anglican church, the term normative also gets applied to us.
There are many Lutheran individuals who don't care about good works or evangelism. If this is brought up they will dismiss that as "works righteousness"
Then they have not Read Luther.
Luther rejected that View And Refuted it ij his work against the antinomians
The more I listen to you and contemplate my own tradition, the more I am convinced of the irreducible ineffability of divine truth. The mystery is like a volume of toothpaste in a tube. We can squeeze it tone end or another or manipulate it evenly, nut we can not make the sides of the tube touch completely. The root of the ineffable nature of the gospel is in the supreme casm between the divine nature and our creaturely nature. This can only be properly responded to with awe and gratitude, the twin pillars of worship.
Director of Parish Music student at Concordia University Irvine, an LCMS university here to weigh in on the idea of the "Normative Principle" of worship here. Though that term is not explicitly used in most of my classes (I did have one adjunct music faculty use it), we're being taught here that much of what is practiced in worship is "audiaphora," meaning that it's not explicitly referred to in scripture, and thus, we have freedom as Christians to practice certain things or not practice certain things. That which is commanded in scripture, namely preaching of teh Word and administration of the Sacraments, is retained, and indeed, we are taught that worship must always center around Word and sacrament. What is considered optional are things like using the LSB and the Divine Service settings or using contemporary styles of music in worship. Thus, historic liturgical worship is absolutely permissible in worship, and free flowing contemporary styles of worship are also permissible so long as the Word is correctly taught and the sacraments are rightly administered. The practices of every local congregation should be carefully crafted based on the context of that congregation to most effectively communicate God's word.
Thanks for this. My sister married a man who had a mixed upbringing in church, from Catholic to Pentecostal. He got his ideas of what he "knew" Lutheranism to be along the way. After they had spent a year overseas, they came back and I asked where they were going to be going to church. She said, "Anywhere not Catholic or Lutheran". It surprised me, since she was raised in a conservative Lutheran congregation. Well, the years have passed, they've jumped from one to another, Covenant, Christian and Missionary Alliance, back to Covenant, now in a "house church" with one other couple, but the kids kept going to the Covenant youth group. Some irony is that when the youngest was "dedicated", they sent out invites with Acts 16:15 on the cover, about Lydia being baptized (baby named Lydia), missing the part about "and the members of her household". Middle child, a boy, is on staff at the Lutheran camp we all have grown up at, and wanted to be baptized at our family reunion. Camp director said sure, and did a straight up Lutheran baptism on an adult, in the small pool at this "rich man's retreat bought and turned into a Bible Camp". The lad and his parents would have balked at doing it at a baptismal font, but Lutheran theology doesn't preclude immersion. To make a short story long, their whole thing about Lutherans is based on one non-Lutheran pastor's opinions, years ago, that a high school boy took to heart.
With all respect, have you ever done a critique of the ELCA? I am former ELCA now LCMS, so I was just curious.
Don't you mean a critique of LCMS? There is still time for you to return to the ELCA.
I have been a Lutheran for about 14 years. It has been an interesting experience due to the fact that I graduated from arguably the finest Reformed theological seminary in the world in the 80s and worked in two other top Reformed institutions. I particularly appreciate Lutheran spirituality and worship style. Theologically speaking, it seems to me Lutherans have misgivings about Calvinism because they have no idea what Reformed theology actually believes and teaches. Lutheran pastors I have talked with could benefit greatly from an in-depth understanding of American Puritanism, Dutch Calvinism and Scottish Presbyterianism as well as the Continental Reformation as a whole.
Where could we get a true understanding of reformed theology ?
@@davidthenewtheologian7757 Good question. Reformed theology in Europe now is pretty much “gone to seed” as the American Midwestern farmers would say. But a rich blend of historically Reformed Theology is having somewhat of a resurgence in the US and maybe a few other places. From a layman’s perspective, the video, print and public conference work of Ligonier Ministries is a good start. Then there is the published work of faculties at 8 or 10 primary Reformed seminaries in the US. The Biblical, systematic, dogmatic and historical theology of Berkof, Bavinck and more recent Sproul, Ferguson, and quite a few others on the scene today. And, of course there are the magnificent Reformed Confessions; Westminster, Heidelberg, Canons of Dort, Belgic, 1st and 2nd Helvetic, etc.
@@justintillett but even Calvin didn’t believe in limited atonement and wasn’t amyrault affirmed at the synod of Dort ?
@@davidthenewtheologian7757 It is not correct to say Calvin didn’t teach particular atonement. Limited atonement is a pejorative phrasing of the concept of definite, particular atonement for the sin of those elected, predestined, called to eternal salvation. Jacob Amyrault held that the the atonement was made by Christ for all but the Spirit did not apply the finished atoning work of Christ to all. His position was not accepted as mainstream Calvinism progressed. Which brings up an interesting difference in Lutheranism and Calvinism; Unlike, in Calvinism, theological development or progress in American Lutheran theology is not widely appreciated. It’s about exegeting the words of one man, albeit a great man. In Calvinism you have substantial welcomed contributions from a number of Reformation countries. I mentioned English Puritanism particularly in the area of Christology ; Scottish Presbyterianism in the area of church and national government; and Dutch Calvinism in the area of cultural application of Biblical theology and theology of creation. And there is much more to say here.
@@justintillett so where do you attend? Are you Presbyterian, Anglican ?
How much do Lutherans follow Luther himself? And how much do they not necessarily follow him?
I have a lot of respect for Luther. I think he eliminated a lot of the disagreeable things that are in Catholicism, but kept the things that are pure and true, whilst refining them further. The only thing to be held against him was his anti-Semitism.
JORDAN B Cooper: Planned Parenthood is advertising on your videos
Thank you. As a Reformed person, I appreciate your clarification. As for normative worship vs regulative worship, there we very few American Protestant churches that even know what “regulative worship” is. Indeed, even among the small number of confessionally-Reformed churches,Regulative worship is, sadly, rare.
As for the Lord’s Supper, in my humble opinion, Calvin and Luther are not in essential disagreement. The problem, I have been told, was inability of some Reformed to see beyond memorial significance of the elements (Zwingki). As a Dutch Reformed I truly believe that Christ’s blood and body are spiritually present in the elements.
Beautiful response. I too am Dutch Reformed (URCNA).
@@jcpg9592 Thank you. I’m also in the URCNA (at Covenant URCNA, Fresno, California.)
@@sierragrey7910 that's wonderful! I attend Pocono Reformed Bible Church (Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania)
I've heard one of the issues is one people tried to talk to luther about it he would scream the body and blood of christ in German over and over again. Seems like alot of Christans just have no interest in listening to each other and think they are right there for everyone else is crazy.
I belive we need to pray about where are hearts are in certain issues and really listen to other people.
@@jcpg9592 I’ve never been north of Bethlehem but I have seen pictures. Why a beautiful area to live in. May God bless your congregation, consistory, and pastor.
Man without the Spirit cannot understand how good works aren’t really ours, they are God’s good works he does through us. Luther in his doctrine of vocation teaches how we can serve our neighbor going through our mundane tasks in life such as a mother who changes her babies diapers daily or cooks meals for her family. These are her Holy Works the ones God put her here to do and therefore it is pleasing to God and Holy. Luther realized (through the Word) that joining a monastery and shutting yourself away from your neighbor wasn’t at all God’s purpose for us here.
I just wanted to point that out after the first misconception.
"Good Works"
Here in the so-called "Bible Belt" of the US south, influence is largely drawn from Southern Baptist/Wesleyan/Revivalist understandings. Clergy and faithful often happily pointed their fingers at others and accused them of "earning salvation by good works." All the while, many of these people highly selective pietists who never understood the fact their abstention from beer, dance, cards, etc. was as "works based" as any other Christian discipline such as service or fasting. This was always a big source of frustration and irritation for me.
Do you consider not sinning to be a species of good work?
I once heard a Catholic argue that repenting was a good work.
As a Reformed believer I am glad to see a fantastic and winsome Lutheran presence in the person of Dr Cooper. I am a tad jealous that he is more likable than some of the better known "Reformed/Calvinists" that seem to constantly whine and whinge.
While it is good to stress our distinctive and there is only so much available time and patience, I do see Dr Cooper perhaps over-stressing the gulf and divide between Lutherans and Reformed. From what I can recall from history classes, Melanchthon and Calvin were quite friendly and Melanchthon even varied the Augsburg Confession for Calvin's approval. I would hope that such an amicable spirit would still prevail even amid our small but deep differences.
The variata of Melanchthon is not something confessional Lutherans are fond of. You may notice a large number of old churches with U.A.C. inscribed on the cornerstone or displayed on the sign. It means Unaltered Augsburg Confession.
@@jasonharris2291 Yes, I knew that but I have not ever seen it. I am the opposite of Dr Cooper. I was baptized Lutheran, but became Presbyterian in my college years.
I'm trying to think of who you could mean. RC Sproul could not be on your mind, surely.
(Melanchthon varied the AC for his Elector not for Calvin)
@@lilacDaisy111
No, I really have come to like the late Sproul. I was thinking of more Baptisty folk such as MacAthur or James White.
bro the Melancthon argument sound like something straight out of the gnostic gospels
What's the name of the song at the beginning
A Mighty Fortress by MartinLuther.
@@walterhelm8186 Thank you!
“My doctrine is not to be judged by any man, nor even by the angels; because I am certain of it, I will judge you and the angels likewise, as St. Paul says (Gal. i. 8), and whosoever does not accept my teaching will not arrive at blessedness. For it is God’s and not mine, therefore my judgment is God’s and not mine.”(Martin Luther, 1522)
And there is the sick, twisted, cruel and inhumane ideas from Luther in his “On the Jews and Their Lies” - The Nazi’s were so impressed with Luther’s book they distributed it for free in Germany before WWII.
19:29 soooooo you're saying there's a CHANCE that Transubstantiation is right
I have a question: What does the Lutheran church believe about human sexuality? Ordination of gay clergy and same sex marriage?
It depends on the synod. ELCA has departed from biblical truth and now allows gay clergy and same sex marriage. LCMS, does not. There are other Lutheran synods with which I am not as familiar, but I believe them to be more conservative than ELCA. The Bible condemns homosexuality, so therefore any church that departs from biblical truth should be avoided.
Part 2 pls
very interesting. ive never heard lutherans dont engage in or like talking about good works, but I do know that some reformed folks misunderstand the role of good works. or at least they talk like they dont sometimes
There's a line that I'm not exactly sure where it originates, but it is variously credited to Luther and Calvin and sometimes other Reformers that goes like: "We are justified by faith alone, but faith is never alone" Meaning that true living faith is accompanied by works, but those works are not the cause or instrument of our justification. Lutherans and the Reformed should be in full agreement as both hold to the five Solas.
I assume it is a Romanist making the objection (or maybe one from the eastern church) and that Cooper's introduction makes it misleadingly sound like it comes from the Reformed side. I hope that isn't his intention, but there were a few points where he seems to not get the Reformed position, like our affirmation of the Real Presence and rejection of Zwingli's symbolic view of the supper.
Please we need to do more videos on the idealistic misconception of integrating human ideology in resonating with the bible. just totally wrong
I am an irish catholic ,i have absolutely no conception of lutheranism at all ,its not really a protestant denomination that has any presence in the country that i know of.There is the anglican tradition,baptist,calvinist and methodist.
Even tho I'm a baptist, I've became a christian in a Lutheran Church. It will always have a sweet spot in my heart.
Salvation leads to works. We were made to do good works. See Effesians 2:10 the very next verse after saying that Salvation is NOT by works.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure Dr. Cooper agrees. That combination of verses 8-9 and then verse 10, exactly sets in contra-distinction the two types of righteousness that Dr. Cooper explained.
What about James saying that salvation is "not by faith alone"?
@@josephbirch3635 James said that faith without works is dead and that works show faith. James is hard to understand but He did NOT say that works are necessary for salvation.
@@markhorton3994 "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24. This is also the only time the phrase "faith alone" appears in the Bible that I know of.
Well, I could imagine a juggler in the context of a children's message...
I am from India 👍🏼😍 Lutheran Church member 👍🏼 People from Salvation Army 😍 always criticized our way of worship 😂 repeating the same order of service round the year and for centuries 😁they also ask questions about the communion 😍I believe in the Symbolic representation of Bread and 🍷 wine as the body and blood of our Lord 😍 finally our seminaries are lacking spiritual growth which produces pastors who are not knowing the fundamentals of Lutheranism 😍😁
I like to watch videos about theology because my religion is personal - not institutional - and I am, therefore, always looking for ways to explain my religious beliefs, my religious practices, my religious preferences and my religious prohibitions.
Conversion
I consider biblical references to conversion to be about the miracle whereby a person’s trust is transferred from what he thought he could do to earn or deserve salvation from sin or its consequences to what the Lord does (has done, is doing and will yet do) to save (justify, sanctify and glorify) us. I have reasons to think most of the people who have asked me whether I am “saved” have, themselves, not experienced that miracle.
Good Works
“[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” The fact that someone does things that might be considered “good” is not proof of conversion but I take this passage to mean that “good works” are the inevitable result of conversion.
Reason
The working definition of, “faith”, in our society (U.S.) - even most people who profess “faith” in Jesus - is a belief (or set of beliefs) for which there is insufficient evidence - or none. I think of faith AS the evidence of things not seen.
The Lord’s Supper
I don’t insist that the bread and wine of the Lord’s supper are “merely” symbolic but I do consider them to be symbolic so I’m astonished that anyone would ever have argued about how, exactly, they are “more than” symbolic.
John Calvin vs. Jakob Hermanszoon (Latinized as Jacobus Arminius)
I believe the creator knew, before each of us was born, whether we would be saved or lost. I don’t agree with Calvin that he decided, before we were born, whether we would be saved or lost. I think, however, that Calvin’s doctrine was helpful to many people in the sixteenth century because they had been accustomed to thinking their salvation depended on the decision of their priest. Calvin’s doctrine was a step in the right direction. I'm even less acquainted with Arminian doctrine. I agree that we have free moral agency but I don’t agree that we are saved (justified, sanctified or glorified) by our choice (or our choices).
Protestant/Reformed/Evangelical
I think of the protestant reformation has having begun before the sixteenth century (although it wasn’t called that until the sixteenth century) and I believe there is a need for reform/reformation to continue.
Because everyone who is truly protestant is, in at least one sense, “reformed”, I object to the use of the word “reformed” as a reference to the doctrines of John Calvin.
To me it seems bodies in general are symbolic emmanations of invisible truths. So I don't see a sharp distinction between saying symbolic and real bodily presence. But there are of course different types of symbols. But I guess some think more along the lines that symbolic means not real, disconnected, of pure fancy, or something like that. Anyway, the important part is that one comes to the meal, because one has been invited to partake and that God is really there in an embodied way.
Though I do think there is some importance to being able to affirm it is still bread. Just like the devine does not have to displace the substance of a human to be fully present, neither does the breadness have to yield in order to make room for the divine. It makes no worldly sense, but in light of the gospel, it makes a lot of sense.
The big one for me is the belief that Luther's Two Kingdom Theology helped to contribute to the Lutheran Church in Germany turning a blind eye to how the nazis treated the Jews. Obviously prior anti-semistism contributed to this, but Luther's writings about the Jews probably didn't help with that. But Luther's Two Kingdom view allowed the German Church to theologically disconnect from any involvement of "the Jewish problem."
"The Holocaust in Italy was the persecution, deportation, and murder of Jews between 1943 and 1945" -- Wikipedia
@@Mygoalwogel Did Italy start this? Or was it another way that they were influenced by Hitler's "Final Solution"? Either way it started in Germany first.
@@losely451 Regardless of where it started, what "contribute[d] to the [Papist] Church in [Italy] turning a blind eye to how the [Italian fascists and German] nazis treated the Jews"?
@@Mygoalwogel No. I don't think Italy would've initiated if Germany hadn't done it first. The timeline says as much.
@@losely451
I think you missed the point. You claimed:
_"Luther's Two Kingdom Theology helped to contribute to the Lutheran Church in Germany turning a blind eye to how the nazis treated the Jews."_
I agree roughly *20 million Papists* and 40 million Protestants turned a blind eye. It is a fact the Holocaust began in Germany first, 1939. No argument from me.
My question is:
[What] helped to contribute to the [Papist] Church in [Italy] turning a blind eye to how the [Italian fascists and German] nazis treated the Jews"?
Do you agree roughly *43 million Papists* turned a blind eye? It is a fact the Holocaust began *later* in Italy, 1943.
I'm not convinced that Jesus' disciples, or really anyone in the early church, would have accepted that they were drinking actual blood. That seems to go against what we know of Jewish people at the time. They wouldn't have gone along with such a ritual. I think they all knew that Jesus was once again speaking symbolically as he often does.
Read John 6 carefully. Jesus repeatedly tells his disciples they must eat (lit. gnaw upon) his flesh in order to have life. They feel shocked and scandalized, begin arguing with each other, and many of them abandon him afterward. They understood what a metaphor is.
The early Church was not with Zwingli on the Eucharist. They affirmed Real Presence.
@@norala-gx9ld Thank you for this response, I really appreciate it. I'll check this out
So basically Lutherans have a monogism view of Salvation, but a Synergism View of Damnation.
As a Arminian i can manage with that
What about Martin Luther hated the Jews and the Peasantry
At least in the ELCA, most all of us acknowledge that this was one of Luther's grave sins.
You need to do an entire 1hr video of why not all Lutherans are super duper liberal, ELCA Lutherans.
By referring to us ELCA Lutherans as super duper liberals, you are suggesting that we are not right. To the contrary, I believe that ELCA Lutherans are just more correct than LCMS Lutherans.
@@stevekohl5351ELCA are so far from Luther’s teaching I would not even consider them to be Lutheran! Homosexual Pastors is pure evil! Jesus said where homosexuality will end up.
@@stevekohl5351ELCA are not Lutheran as they don’t keep Luther doctrine. They have fallen away from scripture.
Add this one to the list, I have heard this from soooooo many catholic apologists, both lay and ordained (who should know better).
Myth: Lutherans do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
As a Reformed guy, I hear that about us from Lutherans as well. I assume it's a similar argument "Catholic -> Lutheran" or "Lutheran -> Reformed": You don't have _my_ understanding of the real presence, therefore you don't believe in real presence at all!
Sadly Cooper did something similar in this video when he falsely lumped the Reformed view with Zwingli.
It seems risky to rely on medieval theology to define the "substance" of the Lord's supper. I prefer to simply rely on Scripture.
God is faithful to complete the good work he started in you. No Christians will fall away. God means what he says.
You pretty much said good works don’t actually accomplish anything, so no it’s not a caricature of Lutheranism, it’s exactly what Catholics believe about Lutheranism and what we criticize. The whole idea of losing your salvation is completely contradictory, you can’t keep your salvation through good works, but somehow you can lose it by evil works, that makes absolutely no sense.
Erm no still a caricature.
Sola Fide is receiving God's righteousness, Passive righteousness solely by faith. All accomplished by Christ work on the Cross.
The initial reception of Salvation and justification is by faith.
However Salvation is conditioned by Faith. U don't loose ur salvation cause u do evil works. U loose your salvation cause u departed from the faith.
Paul tells us quote plainly in Romans 14:23 and anything that is sin DOES NOT COME FROM FAITH. The Faith that saves and justifies us before God would produce works.
@@jenex5608 Except that this man within the video clearly said that evil works forfeit salvation, this is a total contradiction, you’re making a separate argument. Also, if the evil works are merely a demonstration of losing faith, like how you think good works are a demonstration of faith, it’s the same contradiction anyway.
@@lyricalmike7162
His correct evil works forfeit your salvation. Cause Paul teaches anything that isn't from faith is sin. So when u sin u don't do it from faith. Ur faith becomes dead.
Therfore the very requirement for salvation th is ur faith. Become Dead
@@jenex5608 TH-cam keeps deleting my response, figures, but I refute this exact argument in my latest video on another app for content makers, my account name is “santo floridano” without the space.
Who can be called Saint in Lutheran Church?
A committee
All as have been sanctified are by definition “saints!” with a lower case.
Hence the CHURCH UNIVERSAL as the COMMUNION of SAINTS.
The third article of the Apostles’ Creed must be properly understood as referring to,
I believe in the Holy Ghost. in
I believe in the holy Christian Church “which is THE Communion of SAINTS”, i.e., the gathering in fellowship of all believers as have been sanctified through the blood, meaning the atoning death AND resurrection of Christ as Victor….
Remembering that the definition of the church is “where two or more of you are gathered in my NAME,” see here:
“Where the Holy Spirit is, there the church is whom He has sanctified in Christ.
The phrase in the Creed, communio sanctorum, can be translated in one of two ways. It can mean “communion of the saints” as a further explanation of “the holy Christian Church” or it can mean “the communion in the holy things,” also a fair translation of the Latin….
(See also an excellent article on the subject by Pastor Jason D. Lane).
Remember that Paul, in his epistles, usually start with the salutation, “To the Saints in (X)…”.
The proper reading of the Creed, written in Latin, is key to a correct understanding that the word “saints” is in reference to ALL CHRISTIANS! The Roman Catholic notion of saints as referring to those only as formally canonized is simply incorrect.
This also should be understood in conjunction with Luther’s point in Universal Priesthood. As saints, we all are part of the Ministry of God, whether as laymen or as ordained clergy.
There is no distinction between “person vs. parson,” other than the fact that some undergo professional training as preachers/teachers of the Word…!
God bless!
Apostates were NEVER Christians. If ur saved by grace...then, ur kept by grace.
Our good work are a product,byproduct of the work of the SON YESHUA HAMASHIACH.The
PARACLETE nudges us,prompts us,leads us
to become a new creation in the SON YES-
HUA HAMASHIACH.Speaking for myself I
have done good work to justify myself,so I
can brag and boast in myself.I also struggle
with tha I am not that badism,I am better than othersism,I am always trying to do my bestism to redeem myself.For most of my life I did not grasp how decayed,delinquent,derelict,fallen,lost,sully my affections,desires,nature was.I am not Luthe -ran,but I appreciate this brief explanation much.🕊 Thank You Very Much Doctor Jordan B Cooper
🧠😏🎯
Dr. Cooper, you left out the usual quick explanation of the Sacrament. The bread and the body of Christ, the wine and blood of Christ all have real presence. We do not pretend to know enough for more detail.
If that's a Lutheran quick explanation, why are they so quick to dismiss the Reformed view? Lutherans _do_ say more. A Lutheran could probably agree with most of Westminster Confession 29.7 for example, but there is a glaring piece that all Lutherans in my experience do take issue with, the physical presence:
Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, *really and indeed,* yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, *receive and feed upon Christ crucified,* and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as *really,* but spiritually, *present to the faith of believers in that ordinance,* as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
@@oracleoftroy The reformed view that the body and blood of Christ are not physically present is precisely what we Lutherans reject. It is not quickly. The rejection is long decided. When Luther met Zwingli to try to resolve differences Luther removed the tablecloth either to reveal or to write the words "THIS IS MY BODY " ( in German or Latin) pounding on the table to emphasize each word as he pronounced it, Emphatically. This solidified the separation of Lutheran and Reformed. I was tought in confirmation class many many years ago to classify ( NOT judge) Christian denominations by this difference. Catholics believe that only Christ's body and blood are actually present by transsubstantiation. Reformed believe that Christ's body and blood are present only spiritual as Zwingli said or only symbolically as many say. Lutherans believe that both the bread and wine and Christ's body and blood have real present. We have believed that since before Melancthan, who first formalized Lutheran theology in writing, was forced to leave for changing his mind.
@@markhorton3994 Not sure why you are talking about Zwingli. I know Lutherans get confused by this, but Zwingli and Calvin are actually two different people and don't share the same view of the sacraments. Calvin's view was much closer to Luther save as I already noted, that he did held to a real presence that was spiritual not physical. He didn't hold to a mere memorialism or mere symbolism.
I find it strange how sectarian Lutherans are, such that even when there is agreement they have to find ways to disagree and cast off everyone else. On this issue there are important differences, but we don't need to exaggerate them or lie about them.
@@oracleoftroy It was Zwingli who Luther met with and disagreed with about real presence. The followers of Zwingli were the start of the Reformed movement and used that name.
Luther never met Calvin but did read his work. He agreed with Calvin about the bondage of the Will but absolutely not about double predestination.
Today "Reformed " and "evangelical" seem to be blanket terms covering a wide range of theology. All seem to agree on the infallibility of Scripture but disagree on what that means. The range seems to be that only the KJV is the Word of God and not one letter or punctuation mark is not exactly as God sent it to my viewpoint that every word as originally inspired is what God intended it to be but not all of it is literal and not all of it is command eg "the four corners of the Earth " does not mean that the Earth is flat and rectangular " and David and Bathsheeba is not a command to commit murder and adultery All translations and all manuscripts contain human errors in transmission but God has preserved His message. Some "Reformed " or "evengelicals" are Calvinist others are closer to Arian, some (like Luther) are neither. All are Trinitarian. Views on the Sacraments vary also. Almost all believe in "believer Baptism ". Some believe that Christ's body and blood are spiritually but not physically present others that the Lord's Supper is only symbolic.
Many make a distinction between "Protestant", "Reformed ", and "evangelical" but their definitions vary greatly, when they have definitions.
@@oracleoftroy Yes Lutherans are sectarian. We do not fellowship with those who disagree with our beliefs. Our pastors do not preach in other churches or offer prayer at public gatherings to avoid pressure to compromise. We do not allow clergy of other denominations to preach from our pulpits. We practice closed communion, members only, and do not take communion in other churches. But ANYONE is welcome to worship with us and I at least will attend any Christian church on occasion.
We do not judge anyone. God will judge when it is time. We acknowledge Christians we disagree with as our brothers in Christ. We will know who is correct on non Salvation issues soon enough, if they actually matter. We will not budge on the things that matter such as the Bible being the Word o fGod, the Trinity, the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and Jesus being the ONLY way to the Father.
VESTMENTS, brother. VESTMENTS not RoBeS
I find it’s very disrespectful to the whole meaning of the Vestment to call them robes or dresses! Same with calling it the cup instead of the Challas!
Calvinists accusing modern Lutherans of following Melancthon and Luther being a pseudo-Calvinist sure show their lack of knowledge concerning Melancthon.
To be honest, I've heard it said more often about Martin Chemnitz than Melanchthon. In my reading, Bucer and Melanchthon seemed very keen to seek unity among the reformers, and while Luther and Calvin were a bit hotheaded at times, they mostly seemed on board. But Chemnitz and others in his time seemed much more sectarian and unwilling to seek unity.
Suddenly, you look so much older. Years are passing by.
Jesus' call to be "Not of this world" should not be an encouragement to be tactless and rude.
@@Mygoalwogel true. But I don't think that I am being rude for noticing the facts of life. I guess I notice things that concern me as well - I am getting old as well. And by the way, I hope that your goal is not to be judgmental.
With respect to reason I don't accept that the confessional Lutheran teaching of single predestination is on a par with the Trinity. The Trinity is beyond human reason but it's not logically contradictory as is the Lutheran rejection of double predestination. To put it as plainly as possible it has to follow if people are saved only by being predestined by God to be saved (which confessional Lutherans accept is the case) that those not predestined to be saved are predestined to be damned. So to deny this means that one is involved in a logical contradiction, and what is logically contradictory can of course never be true in reality. So the only valid conclusion one can reach is that confessional Lutherans (unlike Luther) have misinterpreted the Bible to teach something which isn't true. Romans 9 in particular shows that single predestination isn't Biblically correct.
With respect to Melanchthon at the beginning of the Reformation he was in agreement with Luther's teaching of absolute predestination, but later on of course he rejected this. Luther however never changed his belief that all things are predestined by God and there's no free will. It's clear to me that the authors of the Formula of Concord were more influenced by Melanchthon than Luther when it came to predestination. David Chytraeus for instance, who was one of the authors, is quoted (in Walther and the Predestination Controversy: The Error of Modern Missouri) as having said to the theological faculty of the university of Wittenberg with reference to some of the things Luther had written in The Bondage of the Will: "These and many similar exceedingly terrible utterances, which at that time were taught in your school as divine revelations, are now nowhere retained except in the schools of the Calvinists. Philippus (Melanchthon) our common teacher, has gradually softened and removed them … and this already while Luther was living.” (p. 23). So this confirms that the Formula of Concord owes more to Melanchthon than it does to Luther when it comes to predestination.
Also since confessional Lutherans reject that God has predestined anyone to be damned and believe that the reason why people are damned is due to them having resisted the Holy Spirit this is tantamount to holding that damnation is to be attributed to one's own free will. So if one is damned through free will then it follows logically that salvation is also to be attributed to one's free will, since if it's possible to be damned by offering resistance then it's possible to be saved by not offering resistance. The truth is that confessional teaching on salvation and damnation is logically contradictory and therefore can't in reality be true. It's logically inconsistent to say one believes in monergism if at the same time one rejects predestination to hell. The two are opposite sides of the same coin.
"Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live." (Ezekiel 33:11) "Who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4) "Not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) "He gave his life to pay for our sins. But he not only paid for our sins. He also paid for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2) "The living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)
Do you boldly proclaim these verses, or do you mostly try to ignore them until sometimes -- when absolutely necessary -- you do a 70's Disco Inferno dance around them?
Quantum Physics reveals a reality that is far more complex than previously imagined. And God is behind it. Additionally, I'm sure there is plenty of "true truth" (re: the term popularized by the one greatly personally admired Francis Schaeffer) that is God-level logic this side of Heaven. It's not important that the words of God are always apparently 100% logically consistent TO US. It is for God's glory that He conceals secret complexities of reality (Proverbs 25:2, Deut. 29:29), and Job went all the way to his death -- in spite of God directly communicating with him -- with many of his questions left unanswered. The important thing to God was a childlike FAITH/TRUST.
The way I look at it is we are all technically predestined to hell by our own sins unless saved by God. However, God is not willing for anyone to perish. Yet, He has to open our eyes and hearts. How both can be true is a mystery beyond my understanding.
@@utubeskreename9516 I'm in agreement with Luther's position as explained in The Bondage of the Will which is that God has both a revealed will which desires to save everyone in time, and a hidden will which has determined what happens to everyone from eternity. Although this seems paradoxical, this is the only way of logically making sense of the Biblical data and combining Romans 9 and other similar passages such as in John 6 with passages which teach that God doesn't will that any should perish like Ezekiel 33:11.
Erasmus in his defence of free will and in opposition to Luther's support of absolute predestination also referred to Ezekiel 33:11, and if you've got access to a copy of Luther's Works Vol. 33 you can read Luther's response from pages 135 to 140. Briefly Luther's argument is that Ezekiel is referring to God's preached offer of mercy (His revealed will) not God's hidden inscrutable will which determines who are to be recipients of God's mercy:
"Diatribe, however, deceives herself in her ignorance by not making any distinction between God preached and God hidden, that is, between the Word of God and God himself. God does many things that he does not disclose to us in his word; he also wills many things which he does not disclose himself as willing in his word. Thus he does not will the death of a sinner, according to his word; but he wills it according to that inscrutable will of his." (p.140)
@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 It's not the teaching of the Bible to say that we're all predestined to hell by our sins. For instance Paul says in Ephesians 1 that believers in Christ have been predestined to be saved before creation and that God works out everything according to His will (His hidden will). What happens in this world and the next has been predestined to happen by God from eternity. All people are born sinful and deserve hell but that's not the same as saying they're predestined to hell. Only those whom God hasn't predestined to be saved are predestined to hell.
@@utubeskreename9516 With respect to Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever ..." I don't accept that this is implying that logically contradictory assertions about God can be true in reality. Nothing logically contradictory can ever be true otherwise God would be an absurd being. It's absurd to assert that God has predestined only some people to be saved and only they are saved, but that those who aren't predestined to be saved aren't predestined to be damned but are themselves to be blamed for having rejected being saved.
This is to confuse God's wills. Only according to God's revealed will in Christ is it correct to blame people for their damnation because they've rejected salvation by refusing to believe in Christ. According to God's hidden will however they're not responsible for being unbelievers because only those whom the Father draws to Christ by the Holy Spirit are able to believe, and those who don't believe are unbelievers because the Father hasn't granted them the ability to believe - John 6:44,64,65.
Confessional Lutherans have illogically combined God's revealed and hidden wills and have made God into an absurd being.