I am protestant believer from Ethiopia and i have enjoyed your presentation on the Martin Chemnitz's book. All the four arguments of Martin Chemnitz and your supportive explanation against RCC view of tradition is lesson giving. Waiting part two.
I'm an Orthodox philosopher with a lot of respect for Anglican and Lutheran churches. Your channel is 100% of my favorite of the Christian TH-camrs. This is a great video, especially the bit about how tradition is used inconsistently. I'm convinced that philosophical argument, not just historical precedent, is key here. You can't just appeal to the fathers, nor can you just appeal to development of doctrine.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 Please go to a PCA Presbyterian or OPC Presbyterian church, or maybe a Rpcna/Rpc Presbyterian church If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church
Thank you so much for these videos Dr. Cooper, as a Baptist I’m learning so much. EDIT: Well I’m no longer a Baptist, thanks to your videos Dr. Cooper I’ll be starting my catechesis for the LCMS soon!
PLEASE do a series going through Chemnitz's examination of the Council of Trent piece by piece! Even if it's a million episodes, I'll watch every single one. It would be super edifying to people struggling with Rome's claims.
I’m a Deacon at our local Baptist church, and would like to say I enjoy your channel. I had no idea who you were until I saw you on Gavin Ortlund’s channel. I grew up until the age of 10 as a Jehovah’s Witness. The JW organization has their own version of the RC idea of “doctrinal development” which is referred to by JW’s as “new light”. Essentially, as RC’s do, JW’s claim to be the one true church and have their own form of the magisterium known as “The Governing Body”. The problem that arises with these sorts of claims is that inevitably the history of the group claiming ultimate authority will be plagued with inconsistency. The only way to solve this is to default to a position of doctrinal development. Mormons have the same issues, and when pressed on them also default to doctrinal development arguments. Thanks again for your channel, I appreciate the academic and irenic approach you and Gavin have on your pushback on Rome. God bless.
What tradition did you come into Lutheranism from? Im Baptist background but kind of up in the air right now, the only things im sure of is that im a monergist and that the sacraments actually deliver saving grace. Leaning Reformed but looking into lutheranism and anglicanism as well.
@@ninjakn3628 I was from a more Non-Denom/Reformed view. I really thought I wanted to go East to the EOdox. What I was searching for was a church that really represented the historical. What Chemnitz is an absolute master at is backing any argument he makes up with multiple Church Fathers. It becomes clear that Lutheran ideas aren't without a historical origin. Like you, it became more clear that synergism has issues and I found Lutheran gave me the history I wanted with the Scriptural foundation that is necessary. I hope this helps.
@@asdfasdf3989 No, the claims of Catholicism are pretty clearly false when you look at history. The entirety of Romes claims rests on their preservation of tradition and doctrine, but they just dont have that. Dr. Cooper does a great job of unpacking some of that in this video.
@@mattnxtc1 Thats definitely helpful, thank you. I think im the same right now with wanting a church that is truly historical. Ill definitely check out Chemnitz, thanks again
You quoted Timothy, which reminded me that a lot of higher critics have "strong evidence" that Timothy is a forgery. I think we all would really like you do to do a video responding to the arguments of the higher critics, because most "apologists" are bad at apologetics and have bad theology
I've been waiting a looong time for you to go in-depth on the Marian dogmas. That thing about not making doctrines from typology is so spot-on and applies to at least 75% of Catholicism at this point.
"I hope you found this helpful..." You have no idea how much this helped me. Thank you for relieving my anxiety in a moment. I was considering Catholicism before this, but now I see what I suspected in true points and arguments.
Great video, Doctor. I think it would be worthwhile to continue to explore the big issues that Chemnitz deals with in his Examination of the Council of Trent.
Thank you, Dr. Cooper!! Been waiting for 1.5 years since I first came across you. Like others have noted, I would welcome more videos on Chemnitz’s volumes
That's exactly right, when you say essentially Roman apologists will say we Protestants don't match the Fathers but when they don't match they appeal to development of doctrine. Articulated in a slightly different way when engaging with Roman apologists I have noticed when I point out patristic inconsistency they will immediately dismiss those particular Fathers as not speaking for "the magisterium " and only being private theologians but when select Father's are on "their side" they will appeal to them essentially as the gospel or the authority.
What I found very interesting was a video Gavin did on whether Augustine believed in sola scriptura. Gavin showed various writings to show clearly that Augustine indeed held canon scripture above all other writers, above bisphops and all church councils. There were a flurry of replies by Catholic apologists, some of them pretty steamy. Not one would concede that Augustine wrote clearly on this. They would use strawman titles like, "Was Augustine protestant?". No, that wasn't the claim and wasn't at all what Augustine described. He still held to tradition as well, but clearly put scripture above it. Augustine would point to tradition as coming from scripture. He believed in an aprophal bible canon, which was accepted in his day, and the Roman traditions of that day, but still scripture above all. Very interesting.
@@Adam-ue2ig The "fallacy of distraction" worked well in the video titled if Augustine was protestant. I was a bit disappointed w/ Pints with Aquinas on that one. He has great dialogue w/ protestants on his channel. But that particular video, of course his followers were indignant that Gavin would suggest that Augustine was protestant. He of course was not, but he did clearly adhere to some level of sola scriptura, well before the term was coined by the official reformers. I've also noticed that Gavin is of course not the first to notice this in Augustine's writings and there's a number of Catholic sites that respond to and deny it as well. Though none of them do it well, because it seems beyond dispute, as Augustine did not leave any room for doubt on this matter.
Thank you so much Dr Cooper, I have only been taught about the Lutheran tradition very recently and all ready I have been able to convince some people of its merits. Largely this has to do with your amazing videos, please keep doing what you’re doing.
It's not that we don't have tradition, it's just that our tradition is that of the first 500 years of the church, while the tradition of the RCC is that of Vatican 1 and Trent.
Hmmm….so when Ignatius talks about not praying with heretics who DO NOT BELIEVE THE EUCHARIST TO BE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST? NO Lutheran believes this.
Former Catholic, had both forms of communion many times, usually at weekday Mass or special occasions, Lutheran now. My pastor is very traditional, large Crucifix over altar, and on special days small Icons'.
I really like the statues, stained glass and stations of the cross in Catholic churches. Someone called it a gospel for the eyes, and I'd agree. It's the bowing and praying to that I have to draw solid lines at.
Dr. Cooper, what is the Lutheran interpretation of this verse: “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”” (John 20:23 NASB2020) And what do Lutherans make of the sacramental priesthood in the early church spoken of by John Chrysostom and Augustine and Cyprian and others? This is one thing I don’t quite understand how to get around since even Anglicans accept the sacramental priesthood.
since you probably wont get a response ill take a crack at it. Im a simple LCMS layperson but I would say that in general you may be conflating Lutheranism with some of the more reformed traditions. Lutherans would affirm the doctrine of the office of the keys as you mention in John 20 ( it also appears in the other gospels) with the obvious stipulation that that office is not limited the Roman Catholic Church. So Lutherans would say that yes "the church" has the ability to remit or withhold remission of sins. "the church" being a more vague and universal concept of Organized Christianity as opposed to the very specific and visible institution of Rome or Constantinople. This concept of a more universal general church can also be found in other reformed traditions as its the logical place you have to go after you break from a specifically Episcopal structure such as the RCC. With regards to the Sacramental priesthood, Lutherans would differ substantially from the reformed traditions such as Baptists and be more in line with the EO or RCC. some Nordic Lutheran Bishops in fact claim to have older traceable apostolic succession than the majority of RCC bishops. however this is not as emphasized in the Lutheran church because our claims rest on our doctrines agreement with scripture rather than a chain of succession. with regards to the priesthoods sacramental character, the Lutheran church professes that pastors should be ordained a serve congregations for the good order of the church but they are not a required element of a sacrament. Only the Word and Elements are required for an efficacious sacrament, the Word being either the words of institution for the eucharist or a correct trinitarian formulation for baptism. therefore if some sort of disaster occurred and no ordained ministers could be found the means of grace would not be unable to be received as laypeople could preform the sacrament. the idea being that God does the work in a sacrament not the priest therefore his participation is desired and strongly encouraged but not strictly required. I have not read any of Chrysostom or Cyprian and only limited of Augustine so I just sort of assumed what you were referring to my apologies if I misunderstood sacramental priesthood. also i would encourage you to read the book of concord as it lays everything out better and clearer than my probably misremembered catechesis. I hope i did not mischaracterize anything and hope you find the understanding you are looking for. Grace and peace.
I think what would be very beneficial would be this: to have a good faith conversation (not debate) with a catholic on these issues. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a good lecture, but rather that dialogue can often make things clearer.
16:33 As an Anglican, with regard to Lutheran theology as a via media between Roman Catholic and Evangelical theology, among from Evangelical friends who are wary of Anglo-Catholicism, I often point to Lutheran theology when it helps to illustrate points where Evangelicalism and the Reformed have isolated themselves from broader Christian tradition, i.e., concerning the sacraments and the meaning of ‘regeneration’ in first century context.
58:00 Your comment about Baptists coming up with ideas on their views of baptism from passages that have nothing to do with Baptism is spot on. Brian Wolfmueller made a similar observation in one of his videos. Frequently, they will read Romans 10 or other passages to show baptism can't save because it's accepting Jesus into your heart that saves. But Ephesians 5 says Christ washed his Bride, the church, in water and with the word. There are also the other key baptism passages that show baptism saves. I was a confessional 1689 Baptist and recognized that baptism does *something* to us. Same with the Lord's supper. But a lot of fellow Baptists would talk about how baptism is just a profession of faith and the Lord's supper is just a memorial meal. Even as a Baptist, I felt like I didn't fit in. But after reading and praying over Scripture, I've come to a confessional Lutheran understanding on most topics. I still struggle with the use of images of Christ, so I'm studying and praying through that.
In regards to the question of Orthodox succession, the Roman Catholic Church fully believes they have valid succession in that they have fully preserved the inner tradition. In "Principles of Catholic Theology", Ratzinger says two things regarding the Orthodox that are really interesting to me: 1) That formulating something so important such as the baptismal symbolum is only possible with the aid of the Orthodox. Meaning it would only have been possible with the full assent of all the successive Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) and that formulating such a thing would not be possible today while in schism. 2) That any reunion with the Orthodox could only ask that Orthodox accept the primacy of Rome as accepted in the first millenium. He also goes into Augsburg Confession and examines possibility of what ecumenicism with Protestants would look like and what is standing in the way from the Catholic perspective. It's an interesting book for anyone interested in ecumenicsm.
@@asdfasdf3989 in the book he talks about ecumenism with various Christian groups, and for Orthodox he thinks it would be reasonable to have them accept the primacy of the pope as it was formulated in the first 1000 years, and not strictly adhere to Vatican 1 formulation if that is an impediment for them
Thanks for addressing this. Other topics you could cover alongside this are your thoughts on the Eliakim argument for the Papacy and the Apocryphal books
35:12 With regard to the epistemological contentions, I’d be curious to see some interaction at some point with epistemologies which are neither strictly premodern (though likely descended from premodern thought) nor modernist in the sense of an internalist classical foundationalism or its positivist cousins in the philosophies of science and history. I’m thinking especially of schemes like virtue epistemology or Reformed epistemology, both perhaps filtered through Alasdair MacIntyre’s concepts of tradition and rationality. (If no one beats me (or has beaten me…) to the punch, I’m strongly considering writing my dissertation on considerations along these lines.)
I hate the argument that the typology of Marry is Eve it doesn't make sense. She's not the bride of Christ nor was she made by His side. Nor is she really any of the Trinitys help mate. If anything the typology would be the ark of the coventant because inside her hold the person who is better then the law and prophets and He Himself will bring fourth the new mana every morning. If anyone has the typology of Eve it is the church as a whole for we were brought into the kingdom through His side (the piercing of His side), we are His bride and we are His help mate.
Mary is a type of the Church, who is the New Eve. Typology isn't one-to-one, Jesus is New David, but that doesn't mean he's a murderer/adulterer. Mary is the New Eve because of her status as the Mother of the New Creation (through her Son). Part of the issue is if you fail to see Christ according to His two natures -- from one perspective, Christ is Israel, and thus Mary is symbolic of all of Israel, culminating to this point to produce Him. Israel is the spouse/consort of Yahweh, and thus, the Eve imagery comes in for her/Israel. Looked at from another angle, Christ is Yahweh in the relationship, and thus Adam to the Church/Israel's Eve. It's complicated, and an oversimplification of typology to say that Mary is Jesus' mother but also bride (in order for "Eve" to work symbolically).
@@vngelicath1580 yes I recognize typology isn't one for one that's why I called her a box of wood overlaid with gold. But creation wasn't brought forth through Eve but God. And also the new birth is attributed in Scripture to the Spirit so it couldn't have any part to do with Mary. Also just because Jesus is the Jew the Israelite, doesn't make Mary one by relation, the only way you can say that is by Jesus being born out of Mary so too salvation comes from Isreal but thats cause shes in isreal while giving birth to the Savior. Yet still the imagery of the Eve is better held by the church then to Mary because it's much more direct and actually taught in scripture that we are to be the help mate of God (not that He needs us) to share the Gospel. While Mary while someone to be honored, isn't doing that still as the everlasting bride of God.
@John Doe Israel (which is the Old Testament Church) is both the mother who brings about the Savior through whom all creation is redeemed (proto-Euangelion, Mary being the personal manifestation of Israel/Church as mother of the Messiah) and simultaneously Yahweh's/the Savior's bride (more expansive). It's not that complicated. It's a two-natures thing. The Church/Israel is the 'Mother of God' through Mary as much as she is the Bride of Christ.
The Church is most properly the New Eve (mother of the new creation rather than the old -- yes God is the Creator, but He does it through means/people) but Mary is the most intense type for the Church. This is why the woman in Revelation 12 has historically (even by Protestants) been regarded as both Mary AND The Church.
Jordan, can you please explain what regulations there about receiving monetary gifts? Who is the regulator in your country controlling the publishing of your financial accounts? Do you publish your accounts?
How can you argue that all the traditions of the Pharisees were rejected when there are obvious moments when Christ either agrees with the schools of Hillel or Shammai?
On the level of apologetics, it really seems like in many ways there are two Roman Catholic Churches - pre-development hypothesis and post-development hypothesis. Their claims about the authority of their teaching are radically different - perhaps even so different as to cause one to question whether or not doctrinal development itself is a valid doctrinal development.
I had discussions with the Orthodox, and of course I was called a heretic. But not one had an answer for this bible verse: 2 Timothy 3:16 says All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. All tradition is taught in the gospel by the apostles. All other traditions are man-made and have absolutely nothing to do with salvation. It really is that simple. The Orthodox will say that the Roman Catholics traditions are corrupt, and the Roman Catholics will say that the Orthodox traditions are in error.
Some time ago i made a rough translation of all section about tradition on Chemnitz Examination. A shame that this books are hard to get specialy in my country.
Thanks for your work. May I offer a correction. You state that the Sadducees' canon consists of the Pentateuch alone. This view is based on a misunderstanding of Jerome. They actually accepted a much wider canon. See FF Bruce, Canon of Scripture, 40-41. With respect and thanks, cant wait to hear more from Chemnitz.
BornagainRN has argued that actually there isn't evidence that the sadducees had a different canon but it is based on speculating on their disbelief in certain things.
I think a sticking point to this whole thing is simply the authority of the Church. You rightly point out that the Church, through it’s magisterium, reserves the right to define what Traditions are apostolic and which ones aren’t. To reject that claim isn’t a problem with the veracity of the apolocity of the Tradition in question, rather, the veracity of the authority claimed by the magisterium. So to reject the Roman magisterium based on what you judge to be authentic Tradition, is to argue in a circle. You have to first disprove the magisterium to argue that the Tradition is not apostolic. You may believe the burden of proof is on the Roman Church to prove its authority, but it is the Protestants that have “protested”, or departed from the historical sequence of events in Church history. Finally, you can hand-wave away the development of doctrine issue all you want, and if you don’t find it convincing, that’s certainly your prerogative, but that doesn’t make it an invalid explanation for what appears to be a historical silence in the patristics. The bottom line is, although the Roman Church certainly strongly looks to the patristics for continuity, nevertheless, the Roman Church believes that Christ has established a living authority in every age - not merely an authoritative voice from the past
When I post about how you need to furnish cheap Chemnitz, I am (mostly) joking. I, too, am a small publishing house. Maybe I should furnish cheap Chemnitz. But if I get the funds, wouldn't that conflict with my brand as a kids' book author? The issue for me is nuanced. On the one hand, Mormons hand out free books of Mormon, and Christians of all stripes hand out free Bibles. On the other hand, Lutherans charge a premium for their distinctive works. Our not kissing the Pope's ring and submitting to Rome says our distinctives matter a lot, even to a life and death level. Our saying Chemnitz is our top apologist, and then making him hard to access says that our distinctives don't matter at all, go join whatever sect you like. Further, the current situation where there's a hundred free Bible translations available on my phone arose in my lifetime, and lots of people having a Bible of their own is only about 500 years old. 60 bucks a volume for 4 volumes is steep, but within the grasp of even the poor if we want it badly. All in all, I wish CPH had both the premium hardcovers for libraries and churches, but also cheap paperbacks to make our arguments more accessible. But even though I would make a different decision in their place, and will frequently, ruefully express that, that's not the same as saying they made a wrong or sinful decision. They made different choices than I would have in a situation where those choices have upsides and downsides. So does everyone. So *must* everyone. Other than my excessive rejoinder to your aside, excellent vid. Looking forward to the other half. God bless.
Hello Jordan, I have a question that has troubled my mind as I have spoken with my parents who are of LDS (Mormon) faith; when does soul start to exist? Before time or at conception. It is hard to find resources on this. Thank you in advance.
Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” From the moment of conception God breaths a new soul to a distinct human being. That is why we have to abolish abortion and protect women.
@Tony Eriksson - The bigger concern of LDS theology is the working and striving of Mormon men to become a God of their own planet/universe to be worshipped as a God by billions and billions of people. As a Mormon, you are endeavoring to partake in a reality wherein you will be worshipped as Deity. “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea. He was once a man like us, yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an Earth. Here then is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn to be Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you. I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the elders for 15 years.” -Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith “All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions and millions of others. You will see the time when you will have millions of children around you. If you are faithful to your covenants, you will be mothers of nations. You will become Eves to earths like this, and when you have assisted in peopling one earth, there are millions of earths still in the course of creation.” -Mormon prophet Brigham Young “This royal path has now been trod, by righteous men each now a God…As now God is, so man may be,-Which doth unfold man’s destiny. As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be. They shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods.” -Mormon prophet Lorenzo Snow
Highly recommend the YT channels God Loves Mormons (which I have seen several of their videos on this topic), aaron shafovaloff, and what kind of love is this? There are also some general resources (e.g. some ivestreams by Mike Winger and also some talks and debates by James White) but these three channels are super focused on Mormonism and have a lot of videos on them that can be easily located and learned from.
For the first human, i believe our soul came when God breathed Holy Spirit into our nostril. But after that, I believe we started since zygote. There is a research publication i just see quickly from its headline, they found interesting experiment, when 2 gonad cells merged, they created a light, like our neurons if it receives an impulse.
My question re: the authority of the church in relation to the canon and tradition is: Is there an ontological difference between the Pharisees and the church? i.e. is there a difference between God's people in the old covenant period and God's people in the new covenant considering old covenant believers did not have the Holy Spirit in the same way that new covenant believers have? And does this make a difference to the authority of the traditions/teachings of the new covenant church (because the church possesses the HS in a different, more permanent way)?
While I do think we have something that pre-Pentecostal believers did not have (the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit), the Old Testament is filled with testimony of how God directed the priesthood and even leaders and others He chose to use for His purposes… He did it through prophets, signs and wonders, physical presence (such as the cloud on the mountain, the Angel of the Lord, burning bush, or the pillars of smoke and fire), and even through the use of sacred lots and the holy breast-piece containing the gems of Israel’s tribes. He also promised Israel He would always be with them and direct them… but that certainly didn’t mean Israel would be free from error, rebellion and discipline - as the Bible and history clearly show. In the end, God used them to capture and preserve His word despite all of their faults along the way.. and Jesus confirmed the Old Testament scriptures they had compiled and preserved while rebuking their manmade traditions at the same time. Jesus also promised He would be with us always and send the Holy Spirit to guide us - and that promise was for all believers, not for a physical church institution only. The parallels between Pharisees of Jesus’s day and some physical church institutions today is uncanny
Please also do a video on the Apocrypha. You‘re always „setting this issue aside“, and Rob Koons made a good point that you can‘t simply separate these issues
@@DrJordanBCooper when you do please be sure to address these important historical points- History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did?
A question I would ask Roman Catholics, do we accept the Canon because it _is_ tradition? Or do we accept it because _through_ the tradition, we know that the Canon is apostolic?
The movie Dogma was a scurrilous attempt to call a pastor or priest a female dog. Would service times then be the specific heats? Otherwise, they would be latent?
I actually do think that Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture. It's in Matthew 22:23-29, read in a certain tenor: Matthew 22:23-29 23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection [or, INSERT ANY TEACHING OPPOSED TO SCRIPTURE], came to [Jesus] with a question ... . . . ...29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." +++ That's Jesus our Lord teaching Sola Scriptura. The Sadducees are in error because they don't know Scripture, not because they don't know Tradition. But because they promote a belief (no resurrection) that they would not promote if they knew that SCRIPTURE taught the exact opposite. Jesus is using Scripture as the *authority* against which any sect's tradition or doctrine must be judged. Why? Because Scripture is the sole infallible authority. The episcopate is an authority, for sure. Just not the infallible one.
The "pop" arguments you allude to about the 6 minutes mark are widely prevalent in lay circles. There's a limited but predictable (and circular) path Catholic apologists will follow. The conversation on "tradition" is vital here, as the nature of this path they use becomes a bit of a shell game, where terms that ostensibly mean something with which many Protestants would not disagree regarding the Apostolic church, become something very different under the same terms of Rome as it exists now. For anyone interested, Chemnitz' work on Trent is still available at Concordia Publishing House and elsewhere. EDIT: I'll also add that the point made from 6:45 through 7:38 is VITAL. The "development of doctrine", which is a heavily-relied-upon modern Catholic angle on why certain doctrine and dogma of Rome today finds little to no expression in Apostolic times, is NOT the position itself of the historical usage of "tradition" broadly nor the position of Trentine Rome. This point can not be over-stated in confessional Protestant-to-Roman Catholic dialogue.
I see some counterarguments: Number one is basically that to argue against "doctrinal development" is to argue that your particular church does not need or do such things - which I think is very hard to argue for. Any church today differs from an early church, and may be said to have "developed". Besides: Why should one argue against "development" - isn't it quite natural? It is a dogma in itself that ALL knowledge had to be bestowed upon the apostles. It might be that the counterarguments presented to Chemnitz back in the day were not the best, but ultimately the truth is what matters - not when the truth was presented in the best way. Number two: The idea that God preserved, through the Church, the Scriptures perfectly is really at odds with the idea that the Magisterium is not necessary. It was not simply enough to preserve the documents - the Magisterium also had to choose which documents were actually inspired by God. Why was the Sheperd of Hermas not part of NT - many churches used it? Why is the Epistle to the Hebrews included? No one knows for sure the author. This shows that somebody had to actually choose, not simply preserve! Had they chosen other documents - they dogmas and doctrines could easily have changed as well. Number three: Jesus accepted some of the traditions handed down, among them the celebration of Hanukkah. I don't see that Jesus rejected the teaching of the Pharisees, but he called out the hypocrisy. And he "developed" the teaching of the old. So I think the parallel is that indeed Jesus accepted the canon and traditions and teaching handed down, although he deepened/developed it and gave the authority over to the apostles. Therefore I am not so sure this argument about the parallel between Sola Scriptura/Protestant and OT/Jesus is correct. My main objection to any Protestant is: "how is it that you can remain convinced that you've got it right?" The whole Protestant world has shown how many interpretations there can be. The only way to convince yourself about let's say Lutheranism is to somehow be extremely confident in your interpretations of Scripture (if we grant you the Scripture could appear without a Church Magisterium) and at the same time be very sure that those that hold opposing view are simpletons. If you don't believe that those holding opposing views are simpletons, then how can you possibly be so confident in you being right? The whole foundation is shaky as soon as you have some amount of humility or have spent some time investigating other views. Apostolic Succession fixes this problem and is in line with the tradition of the Jews in OT.
The Shepperd of Hermas was never escriture neither considered, there were books who were already considered scripture, and the NT is not tradition but Gods word.
@@shema9172 You are not very well informed. It is common knowledge that the Shepher of Hermas were used in part of some proto-canon (Codex Sinaiticus - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus and in Codex Claromontanus).
@@shema9172 About the Apochrypha (or Deuterocanonical books) there are many things to say. Long debates have been held over the subject and find the Catholic arguments persuasive. The most likely, and perhaps least pleasant for Protestants, is that the OT canon is developing over the years.
Hey Dr. Cooper I am going to help create subtitles for videos in Spanish to reach the Latin American community. If you would like this opportunity, let me know!
Catholic layman poking his head in here in curiosity. I'm only 9 minutes in (writing this as I go...), but I'm pretty disappointed by the shallow engagement with Newman and the idea of development of doctrine, since it simply isn't correct to say it was a giving up to the Reformers on the question of the Fathers even if you think his idea ultimately fails. Newman's Essay focuses the vast majority of its space on examining how the early Church itself came to its later developments like the Trinity and so on, since he notes a surface-level inconsistency among them that needs explaining if recognizable Christianity as a whole is to be defended. Given that the older (and even contemporary among some Orthodox) argument for a sort of one-to-one secret tradition to modern dogma/practice line does not seem consistent with analysis of the Fathers as a whole, it's clear why Newman's theory overtook it, but that change by itself from a Catholic perspective doesn't challenge the validity of the Counter-Reformation, since the reasons *why* the Church taught what it did are something different than *what* it actually taught, and the former is not necessarily protected by God. Nor is it problematic for us that all the theologians of Trent's age (if it was indeed all) falsely believed in this view of how tradition came to us, because matters of fact are not something we look to them for. If Dr. Cooper understood the reasoning and seeds behind development issues like indulgences or papal infallibility I do not think he would throw that out as easy examples of contradiction/innovation compared to the Fathers (the Formula of Pope Hormisdas comes to mind as pretty direct evidence, and it's technically within 500 years, but it's far from the only evidence). And the Assumption/Dormition of Mary having no patristic witness just seems demonstrably false from the examples I have read and seen referenced, but it is probably one of the better challenges. And citing communion in both kinds as a central issue seems an oversimplification when our central concern is the principle of the real presence being full in each kind and thus the effects likewise being full with only one received. Whether it was/is a good idea to limit the laity to one kind is a separate and non-doctrinal concern for us. I'm not aware of Lutherans claiming you can't be saved without partaking of both kinds of the Eucharist, so this comes off as odd, but I imagine much greater detail is given in another video. For a counter-exploration of tradition as a concept, Michael Lofton's Reason and Theology channel has plenty of good videos on it. Notably, he argues against the idea that we can divide tradition into written and unwritten in the sense that those unwritten are not at least present in Scripture implicitly, and thus affirms Scripture's material sufficiency. I agree that the common debate over the meaning of "anathema" is probably not helpful, but not because it's an anachronism, but because it's a question of whether someone is subjectively or formally under said anathema v.s. being materially (i.e. ignorantly and inculpably) so, and I feel like that is the only important thing to get across unless you're studying the precise meaning and development of the use of the term in Church documents. Vatican II affirmation of the brotherhood Catholics and Protestants has more to do with this lack of formal heresy on the part of Protestants, not an undoing of Trent's weight behind anathemas. Concerning the canon of Scripture as valid tradition, the issue is primarily one of epistemology and authority, no? Not whether tradition is all good or bad or proves the whole of the Catholic Church (given that the Orthodox more or less have the same grounding as us, sans Florence and Trent providing a more definitive ruling). By what firm criteria or authority should we accept the Lutheran canon over the Catholic canon or any other? If one accepts the (NT) canon on the grounds of it being relatively settled at synods of Carthage and Rome and thus agreed by later Fathers, then obviously that stands out of as demanding a grounding for the Church's authority to do so, and exposes inconsistency if you also reject the OT canon accepted by said synods and Fathers. If instead one wants to appeal to Scripture to justify tradition and thus the canon then it's just a laughably circular argument, since what we should count as Scripture is in debate, and whether any given debated book contradicts other books in Scripture is itself debated (and in my view such Protestant objections are soundly defeated in similar fashion to the rest of Scripture v.s. non-Christians). Hence the need for the magisterium and its guidance and ruling on what is authentic and consistent with the faith once delivered to the saints. Concerning the argument about the parallel between the Pharisees and Catholicism, the first thing that comes to mind is that the Pharisees did not rule on the canon such that all Jews were obliged to follow them (so far as I have ever heard anyone claim), or at least not until after the Gospel began to be spread and their authority from Moses was supplanted by the Apostles. If they had then I imagine it would have been the case that we'd be obliged to follow it (but don't quote me on that being the teaching of Catholic theologians...), but such was clearly not the case with so many variations on the OT canon at the time and their particular one not being widely used outside Judea. Moreover, if we are to say that Pharisaical thinking on all things binds us because Christ said to obey their teachings...everyone would have serious problems, not just Catholics. With the coming of the Christian era quite a bit of that stuff became obsolete as we all know, so I can't say I think this is a good argument. We claim to follow *Apostolic* teaching, not some unbroken line of Judeo-Christian traditions. I've got to get ready for work, but I made it half way through. I'm glad the fact that we use terms like tradition in different ways is being explored, though I would say Catholic theologians do like to systematize and label each of these parts with their limitations, but challenges to the faith often bring out better understanding and clarity down the line so I imagine our discussions of tradition got better from then on until it gets to the scale it is today.
@@carpediem5526 Our understanding of anything is always in development from earlier seeds of understanding. It's a principle that St. John Henry Newman applied to literally any idea and gives several criteria and many examples of how to determine authentic "developments" from "corruptions", but especially applies it to schools of thought and -isms because of how they will have certain core principles which the application of will not be immediately apparent in all areas. This applies to any given Protestant sect as well as Catholicism, with the difference being that Protestants are often in denial about the process of development and claim that their ideas are straight from Scripture despite the vast differences in understanding of any given crucial passage present across Christian history. Newman was defending against skeptics and theological liberals as well. If you want to better understand his meaning and how it plays out in history, I highly suggest reading his seminal **Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine** (1878 edition) for yourself rather than taking others' word for it. A free audiobook version can be found here: th-cam.com/video/ja7gGOxZbJI/w-d-xo.html Of the Marian dogmas, her perpetual virginity was always believed in and is implied in Scripture. Modern denials of this from Protestants is in fact a really clear novelty that even the "Reformers" rejected. The Assumption/Dormition is likewise a historical claim, though usually coloured with certain elements of later understanding of our Blessed Mother's greatness. Her title of Theotokos or Mother of God was confirmed in response to Nestorianism which denied her having given birth to the Person of the Son, and Mary is called the "Mother of my Lord" by St. Elizabeth in Scripture, so that's an easy one. Her unstained life was not articulated as Catholics would now do so as the Immaculate Conception since that required a prior development of how we talked about original sin, but you see it plenty witnessed where it does come up. Again, going back to what I said with St. Newman's ideas, we would not point to full expressions of the Immaculate Conception or stuff like it in the Fathers or early liturgies or iconography, but where they indicate a principle to do with it, whether explicitly or implicitly. Papal infallibility is one of the easiest things to discuss in this light, since the founding principles are (1) that St. Peter and his successors are the highest authority in the Church by **divine** ordinance, and (2) that the Church cannot fail. Since there cannot be an appeal from the judgment of the highest judge, if the Pope were to bind the faithful to believe something heretical **definitively** , it would be a contradiction of the Church's mission and divine protection, and so is prevented from ever happening. Note that this is different from the Pope merely teaching something in some fashion below a definitive judgment **everyone** is obliged on pain of sin to give the same kind of **faith** we do to the rest of the Gospel (as opposed to mere assent of intellect and will, as we say), which we say COULD be wrong and be reversed later. In the early Church we *do* occasionally see things that satisfy the conditions for an exercise of papal infallibility whether we have examples of people explicitly noting it or not, most especially in the ratification of the teachings of ecumenical councils, and we have multiple Fathers claiming that the Pope can do this (notably Pope St. Leo I and those who endorsed his letters, such as was required of all Greek bishops in 519 by the very explicit Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas). For a discussion of papal authority in light of the complicated history east and west, a great recent book is **The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox** and a shorter discussion by the author here: th-cam.com/users/live2OCGJi7btBQ Indulgences are the most "purely" developmental aspect of the faith of those you list, but they go back to a very early principle of the Apostles being given the authority to bind and loose or to forgive and not forgive sins, as well as the value of prayers for the dead (see e.g. 2 Maccabees 12). The sacrament of Penance or Reconciliation, often today called Confession, was very infrequently allowed more than once in your life until right before death in the early days, and you would be given some very serious penances (often for months or years) to do before being allowed to once again receive communion. This penance was in the hands of the one binding the penitent to it, and could be lessened if he so chose. Eventually this was scaled up to a promise from the Pope that X action done in faith would be equivalent to doing that penance for Y number of days as far as alleviating the (non-eternal) debt of punishment due to sin. This was reformed after Vatican II in the 60s to the modern system of vague "partial" indulgences and complete "plenary" ones which give as much as your heart is willing to give to God.
"Is what Ireneaus proclaims anything other than what is found in Scripture?...No." You are missing two critical points about his interaction with the Gnostics. The first point is that the debate between them consisted partially around the question: "What is Scripture?" The Gnostics wrote their own Gospels. Now Christians are being confronted with two sets of texts. How do they adjudicate between them? How do they know which written Gospels are the true Gospels and which are inauthentic? They were able to do so because of Oral Tradition wherein St. Ireneaus could say that he received his message orally (at the feet of Polycarp) who received his message from St. John who received his message from the Lord Jesus Himself. That message was entirely consistent with the written Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John and it confirmed those Gospels and was opposed to what was found in the Gnostic Gospels. So here you have oral Tradition telling the Church which Gospels are authentic. Second, this oral tradition is credible because it comes from someone in direct sucession with the Apostle John and the Gnostic Churches did not have this Apostolic pedigree. So, Apostolic succession and Oral Tradition worked together to confirm the correct Gospels. Perhaps we might use the same criteria to determine the correct Gospel (singular). That sure would be a revolutionary approach for my Protestant friends..
“Eck clearly admits in his Enchiridion that the Holy Spirit did not teach the invocation of saints by express Scripture, that is, neither by teaching, nor by command, nor by promise, nor by example. He says that in the Old Testament the invocation of the saints was not taught because the people were inclined to idolatry as they were, and the fathers in Limbo had not yet entered into blessedness, because they had, before the suffering of Christ, not yet God's vision. In the New Testament, he says, it is not taught why Gentile Christians might go back to the ancient worship of idols, and lest the apostles should be charged thereby with arrogance, if they taught that saints were to be worshiped and invoked after death, as if they themselves sought this glory after their death.” The first excuse is convenient, the second problematic because the practice has developed exactly in this.
I'm protestant, discerning denominations at this point. I don't, however, believe that all tradition has to be included in scripture to be valid. It seems significantly more plausible that a church guided by the holy spirit (as Jesus told us would exist) would be the living rule, rather than an unchanging scripture. Scripture, by nature of being set, cannot address new questions that inevitably arise. Protestants inevitably have these questions and the best way to address them are trying tangentially to form scripture to a situation that doesn't fit. I've seen it in my own churches personally. The holy spirit through the church should be the rule of faith (supported by the scriptures). This means obviously nothing EXPLICITLY CONTRARY to scripture can be a valid teaching of the church (i.e. the church cannot teach that Jesus is not God). However, the church has to exist as the arbiter in a sense as well, even in protestant denominations. The role as arbiter may just be in selecting an interpretation of scripture, but that is still arbitration on account of the church. The fact that multiple coherent interpretations exist of scripture shows that it's not self-interpreting, and that the church therefore must interpret, meaning the church has authority itself outside of scripture.
Dr Cooper, would you consider engaging with Basil’s On the Holy Spirit? He speaks about the kerygma vs the mysteries and how the latter were not divulged publically (and thus not in writing) but were passed down by the Church.
Do Catholics or Orthodox tell us what this mystery is? Certainly, they don't think that the topics we are arguing about were secretly never shared with the public?
@@OnTheThirdDay After 2000 years much of the content of the mysteries is now public knowledge. However, when a Protestant says "where is that in the Bible or the Church Fathers," it should be kept in mind that a reason why it may not be there is because of the prohibition against communicating certain mysteries in writing (for more info, look up the disciplina arcani).
@@garretschwinghammer115 orthodox Christian gnosticism was a thing (see Clement of Alexandria). It wasn't so much hidden knowledge as knowledge reserved to Christians, especially to Christians of greater maturity - that is why Paul says he fed the Corinthians on milk, not meat, while for others he imparted a secret and hidden wisdom (1 Cor 2:7). You will find talk of not writing down certain teachings in the works of Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures) and Ambrose. A major reason the insistence on reserved knowledge was abandoned by the Church after the first few centuries was that various heretical groups (Cerinthians, Valentinians - there was never a sect called Gnostics, that just proved to be a useful umbrella term) claimed to possess the hidden wisdom Paul speaks about, in order to justify their fanciful doctrines.
@@thecatholictypologist5009 So the Primacy of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, the Cult of the Saints, etc were all part of this oral tradition and never made it into the New Testament?
Dr. Cooper is misrepresenting what Irenaeus said about Tradition and Scripture. When arguing against Heretics Irenaeus is very clear that the Apostolic Tradition can only be found in the Roman Catholic Church. He argues that this Apostolic Tradition was handed down by the Apostles to their successors. He even goes to the extent of naming the Bishops of Rome who inherited this Tradition, starting with Linus all the way to Eleutherius who was the Bishop at Irenaeus’s time. By doing this, Irenaeus was showing the Gnostics that the tradition they claim to have is not from the Apostles, because they are not part of this succession. Below are quotes from Irenaeus's Book III Against Heresies: “Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; Since the apostles, like a rich man (depositing his money) in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers.” “…tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also (by pointing out) the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those (faithful men) who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus is not saying that Apostolic Tradition is passed down only through Scripture as Dr. Cooper claims.
"Apostolic Tradition can only be found in the Roman Catholic Church." That was a funny joke, but only because you ignored and faded out everyone who just doesn't belong to the RCC 😂
@@orthodoxpilgrimofficial I summarized what Irenaeus said. I wanted to stay honest to what he was saying. Irenaeus lived before the split between Catholic and Orthodox. His context is different. I am Catholic, but I believe that Orthodox Churches also have Apostolic Tradition if we are to go by Irenaeus’s argument of the role of Bishops in passing down this tradition. My point was more to negate Dr. Cooper’s argument that Apostolic Tradition is passed down only through Scripture.
@@peterw1177 Right, also Dr. Cooper using Church fathers like Luther did, so this must be a Straw man because. In The Book of Concord, the Early Church fathers are referenced and quoted in every confessional document (except the Small Catechism). Here are all the ones mentioned: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian from the second century Origen, Cyprian, Anthony of Egypt, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Leo I covered the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. Gregory I, Bede, and John of Damascus from the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries
I can agree with the Roman Church _inasmuch_ as the apostolic tradition have been preserved continuously by her. Where is the apostolic tradition found? To what standard should we hold the Roman Church? Ultimately it's scripture. If Rome's adherence to the apostolic tradition is what's called into question, where else can one go but the scriptures?
The place to start is with the undeniable statement that only the word of God can establish binding doctrine. In principle, the word of God can come in many forms: Scripture, oral tradition, etc. The question is: of every book, tradition, or claimed revelation that exists, which are genuine? You need to make a logical argument that anything you claim to be authoritative is truly a divine revelation. I see nothing other than Scripture that satisfies that criterion.
Catholics (and Orthodox, etc.) do not claim to have additional revelation from God in the same kind of way as in Scripture. Of course, Protestants have fewer books of Scripture so we have more in that sense, but putting that aside, there is a strong distinction between tradition, magisterial teaching, and Sacred Scripture, with Scripture being the only "direct" public revelation if that makes sense, and tradition being witnessed in a variety of ways in no necessarily specific words. Scripture on its own begs for a reason I should trust it, and it receives that meaning (and proper interpretation) in the living context of the Church that gave it birth descending from the Apostles, and hence relies upon the Apostolic succession of authority and transmission of tradition. This is why St. Irenaeus v.s. the Gnostics gets trotted out against the Protestant rejection of these pillars, since against those who denied Scripture's true authenticity he appealed to the worldwide teaching tradition of what the Gospel is in churches founded by the Apostles themselves with chosen authoritative successors, chiefly Rome. The trouble for the Protestant here is that if you're going to accept this tradition of the early bishops as authoritative and worthy of belief enough to claim Scripture's infallibility, you have no reason to not keep going and let it bind you on other matters like the authority of bishops and the Church as a whole, or override your personal views of Scripture, and at that point Protestantism makes no sense. Not to mention that Protestants have to support what specific books are in the canon while there are multiple options provided by the Fathers, which leaves no room to claim certainty that, say, 2 Maccabees is not in fact canonical and inspired and thus shows Protestants wrong in rejecting prayers for the dead.
@@sander7989 Most Lutherans don’t realize the Lutheran confessions (book of concord) does not condone prays for the dead. What they strongly rejected was private Mass for the dead, etc. The Orthodox would agree with the Lutherans, on rejecting purgatory, indulgences, private mass for the dead and papal supremacy. But the strongly disagree with them on other points. The Lutheran view of scripture alone opened Pandora’s box that the Lutherans and Luther could not stop. Ironically, the more radical Protestants took that doctrine (scripture alone) and used it against Luther and Lutherans, and it was all downhill from that point on.
U sure the assumption of Mary is that late? If that’s so, I’d love to know how both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox accept it after not being in communion with the West for so long.
The first recorded mention of the assumption is about 5 centuries after Christ. It’s possible, but not likely, that the belief stretches back further than that. The belief spread to both churches because they remained in communication even after schism.
I hope some Catholics watch this video. It has been very frustrating watching the back and forth on icons, when it feels like Catholics can do a 3 hour video that completely misses the point
It's not that there was no Greek word for it, it's that the same Greek word referred to both succession and tradition in anti-gnostic theology. “In Gnosis it [referring to a Greek word I believe is succession/tradition] meant exhaustive doctrines of allegedly apostolic origin. But in the theology of the Church it meant the connection of the living faith with the authority of the Church, embodied in the episcopal succession. The Church did not appeal to [Greek word] in order to assert unwritten apostolic doctrines as a source of revelation parallel to Scripture; but precisely in order to deny the existence of such a secret heritage. For her, [Greek word] meant that in the community of the New Covenant of the "Scriptures” (i.e., the Old Testament) are subordinate to the living interpretation of the faith which has come down from the apostles. To put it still another way, there is in the Church, according to the early anti-gnostic theologians, a tradition insofar as the primary seat of the auctoritas apostolica is the the Church preaching the living word, but not in the sense that the Church has preserved secret communications from the time of the apostles. Thus it emerges that apostolic tradition and apostolic succession define each other. The succession is the external form of the tradition, and the tradition is the content of the succession.” and "“Christians had already formulated the principle of successio-tradition before they yet understood the New Testament as “Scripture”. Therefore they could not formulate this as a biblical principle from the New Testament. Moreover, because of the influence of Marcion, the notion of “Scripture” was influenced by Gnosis to an even greater extent than that of tradition. Let us not be deceived: the existence of writings which concerned the New Covenant and were acknowledged as apostolic, does not yet imply the existence of a New Testament as ‘Scripture.’ From writings to Scripture there is a long way to go. It is well known, and should not be overlooked that the New Testament nowhere shows the consciousness of being Scripture. To it, the Old Testament is Scripture while the gospel of Christ is precisely ‘Spirit’ (G. Shchrenk ThWNT I, pp766), which teaches understanding of the Scripture… Before the idea of New Testament Scripture, as a “canon", was formulated the Church had already worked out another notion of canon. She had her Scripture indeed in the Old Testament, but this Scripture needed a canon, that is, a rule of interpretation, in accordance with the New Christian Covenant. This the Church found in tradition, guaranteed by succession. “Canon”, as von Harnack once drastically formulate it ‘was originally the rule of faith; actually Scripture entered into it only afterwards.’ (A. von Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, vol. II, p.87, note 3). Before the New Testament itself became Scripture, it was faith which interpreted the ‘Scripture,"‘ i.e. the Old Testament.’ ” This is from "Episcopate and the Primacy" by Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger (pre-V2 Rahner). You can see my full summary of the book here as I think it answers what Robert Koons didn't: reasonablediscourse.substack.com/p/summary-of-episcopate-and-the-primacy
I don’t make a lot of money and can’t even pay rent without my wife but I recoiled when he said $60 because that just is not a lot for a book honestly.
So you believe in the Church that gave you confirmed Scripture which you believe was infallible but you reject that same Church that Jesus established? What makes you think that the Church got it right in the first place with the Canon? Seems selective to me and completely separated from the Gospel where it is clear there is ONE INFALLIBE CHURCH. What changed between the canonization of the bible and a tradition you don't accept?
"It's because the Gnostics did not believe the Scriptures are sufficient." That is not the issue. The issue is that the Gnostics had an alternative canon (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc). To read a reformation debate into these texts is sheer anachronism. The Apostles are having to correct them not because they were medieval Catholics who doubted the sufficiency of Scripture; they corrected them because they had alternative Gospels. If you are going to comment publicly on this, anachronism at the service of apologetics should be avoided. Bad history doesn't serve apologetics well in the first place.
Speaking of the sola scriptura idea that so many EO and RC ridicule, when it comes to the canon many EO will appeal to the Septuagint, but it is quite interesting that while the Confession of Dositheus gives one canon, the Longer Catechism of St Philaret gives a shorter OT canon, and the reason given by St Philaret is that it is the canon of the Jews, which is precisely opposite of many EO today, who stick with the Septuagint canon, because some such as David Ehran will ask why would we want a Jewish canon? David Ehran must know more than his saints. Yet Craig Truglia has stated in separate places both the Confession of Dositheus and the Catechism of St. Philaret are both authoritative in the East. Probably they will defend both with a “jurisdictional” argument. Or harmonize them with a both and opinion.
@@P-el4zd here is the text from St Philaret’s canon- look it up yourself to verify, easy to find. This Saint of the Orthodox Church gives a Protestant OT 33. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament? As follows: 1, The book of Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, the book of Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, the book of Jesus the son of Nun; 7, the book of Judges, and with it, as an appendix, the book of Ruth; 8, the first and second books of Kings, as two parts of one book; 9, the third and fourth books of Kings; 10, the first and second books of Paralipomena; 11, the first book of Esdras, and the second, or, as it is entitled in Greek, the book of Nehemiah; 12, the book of Esther; 13, the book of Job; 14, the Psalms; 15, the Proverbs of Solomon; 16, Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon; 17, the Song of Songs, also by Solomon; 18, the book of the Prophet Isaiah; 19, of Jeremiah; 20, of Ezekiel; 21, of Daniel; 22, of the Twelve Prophets. He excludes 3rd and 4th Esdras, he excludes Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch. The canon given by this Saint in an approved Orthodox Catechism is the typical Protestant canon. Oh and notice, he doesn’t give Jerome for his reason bro, he gives Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem. Both of whom say the deuterocanon is good to read but not the true canon, which is exactly what magisterial Protestants also said. So take your “weak” statement up with those saints, Cyril, Athanasius, and Philaret.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness (...)after Esdras first and second, similarly in one. after these the book of Psalms, and next the Proverbs. then Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. besides these is also Job. and then the Prophets, the twelve in one book being counted. then Isaiah, Jeremiah, and with him Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle, and after them Ezekiel, and Daniel. Until these "stand" (reach) the (divinely inspired books) of the Old Testament. (...) But of course, for greater accuracy, I also add this to the writers as an obligation (of necessity), that there are other books besides these, which do not belong to those arranged, but have been approved by the Fathers to be read (from) those who newly come and want to be indoctrinated in the word of piety. Sophia Solomontos. Sophia Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobias, and the so-called Teaching of the Apostles, and Shepherd. (....) St Athanasius Canon. The book of Neemias is a different from Esdras. The Quinisext Council chose from those canons: Synod of Laodicea, Synod of Cartagena, PE' Apostolic Rule, St. Athanasius, Saint Gregory the Theologian, St Amfilochios of Ikonio Keep in mind that the Church, in contrast with Protestantism, divided in different categories all the books of the Bible which means not everything is God-inspired. F.e. the book of Esther, which has no prophecies, we do not know its author, he(St Athanasius) does not say that it is God-inspired, it is not mentioned by other books of the Holy Bible, and yet it is a book of the Holy Bible. Why? Because this is how it was revealed and this is how the God-inspired Church defined it. Others like Sophia Solomontos are quoted in the NT but Protestantism rejected them. What's the deal here?
@@sotiris.a. all I did was give you the canon given by St. Philaret from his catechism. If you don’t like what he said, well, he is an Orthodox Saint and his catechism is an approved Orthodox catechism. I am not really sure what point you are trying to make.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness My bad thought you quoted St Athanasius' Canon. A Saint doesn't make the whole Church nor is he infallible. Sometimes they just state their opinion. Only the Church as a whole through the Holy Spirit accepts/states what is true. The Ecumenical Synods are a very good example.
When Chemitz characterizes his Catholic opponents you seem to take him at face value. Have you taken the time to read the person that Chemitz is characterizing or are you putting childlike faith in his characterization? If the latter, how do you know he is not caricaturing them as Luther caricatured his opponents? Protestants like reading their Protestant heroes, but true inquiry would cause you to see if they are characterizing their opponents accurately. Reading Cajetan firsthand in his response to Luther on justification, gave me a firsthand account of a Catholic response to the reformer while I was Protestant. From reading it without foregone conclusions, it clarified a tradition that I never saw Luther accurately portray. Cajetan pointed out mistakes by Luther calmly without the sort of intemperate invectives and hyperbole so common in Luther. I then read Trent on justification firsthand and found that it is saturated with Scripture and begins with a condemnation of Pelagianism. Who would know this from popular Protestant caricatures of Catholicism? To the Protestant reader: why not read Catholic thinkers firsthand and get both sides of the debate as they themselves would characterize it and then make an informed decision?
At around 7:00 Dr. Cooper implies he has indeed ought out Chemnitz's opponents' original works. It is possible to have a good faith disagreement without insinuating laziness and childlikeness on your opponents' side.
@@LeoRegum The only thing that would entail laziness or child likeness would be taking Chemnitz completely at his word or for the viewers of this video to take both Chemnitz and Cooper at their word without reading the council of Trent itself with some sincere effort at understanding it and sincerely considering its teaching. Childlike faith is wonderful if it is placed in Christ and His Church (e.g. a Church council). It is foolhardy when such faith is placed in some individual theologian as though they are infallible.
@@LeoRegum Concern trolling? I would consider this request if I knew what you meant. Feel free to tell me so that I can give consideration to your suggestion.
"the canon accepted by the Pharisees is the canon the Church accepts today...we could talk about the LXX and Masoretic text...not that straight forward...pretty complicated..another video." To make the first assertion followed by all these caveats is nonsense. The canon accepted by St. Augustine is *NOT* the canon that would be preserved by the Masoretes centuries later. The canon was not closed at the time of the New Testament as you allude to with the debate between the Saducees and the Pharisees. However, the debate was even more complex as the Essenes at Qumran seem to have had an even broader canon. How in the world would the Church sort this out? Oh that's right. A Church Council where she speaks definitively on this point drawing from earlier synods that were contemporaneous with St. Augustine. The earliest codices of the LXX included the deuterocanonicals and St. Augustine's bible was the Catholic bible, not yours. So to make the statement: "the canon accepted by Protestants is the canon the Church accepts today" is nonsense.
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.[1] Basil the Great, The Letters, Letter 189 (To Eustathius the Physician).
"We do affirm that Tradition (about the contents of the bible)" Right and this is entirely ad hoc. You think Tradition can be trusted and infallible and authoritive on this, and yet deny it of any point that does not fit with a Protestant reading of Scripture. So, the new authority is Luther (e.g. when he says that a council is wrong as he did with Eck and that the Hussites are correct), the new group he started, and the individual who is placing supreme confidence in his own judgements over the judgement of the Church. Now councils no longer have the authority to determine heresy and orthodoxy. Pope Luther and his disciples do.
On the one hand, Chemnitz's arguments are always careful, well-documented and rigorous. On the other hand, can a guy with Jim Carrey's haircut from Dumb and Dumber be right about anything?
I am protestant believer from Ethiopia and i have enjoyed your presentation on the Martin Chemnitz's book. All the four arguments of Martin Chemnitz and your supportive explanation against RCC view of tradition is lesson giving. Waiting part two.
Outstanding Brother! Glad to hear of your Faith!
Hey, that's great. Just like Chemnitz Gerhard also has many invaluable works on Sola Scriptura. I'm from Ethiopia too. What's your telegram username?
Lutherans simply make the best arguments against Catholicism, IMO.
Excellent video!
I'm an Orthodox philosopher with a lot of respect for Anglican and Lutheran churches. Your channel is 100% of my favorite of the Christian TH-camrs.
This is a great video, especially the bit about how tradition is used inconsistently. I'm convinced that philosophical argument, not just historical precedent, is key here. You can't just appeal to the fathers, nor can you just appeal to development of doctrine.
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian , I totally agree.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
Please go to a PCA Presbyterian or OPC Presbyterian church, or maybe a Rpcna/Rpc Presbyterian church
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church
@@StPaulscousin🐪
@@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool ?
Thank you so much for these videos Dr. Cooper, as a Baptist I’m learning so much.
EDIT: Well I’m no longer a Baptist, thanks to your videos Dr. Cooper I’ll be starting my catechesis for the LCMS soon!
PLEASE do a series going through Chemnitz's examination of the Council of Trent piece by piece!
Even if it's a million episodes, I'll watch every single one. It would be super edifying to people struggling with Rome's claims.
Hear hear!
Amen
Kinda seems like that would be stealing the authors original work.
@lanesmith1465 he is super duper dead!
I’m a Deacon at our local Baptist church, and would like to say I enjoy your channel. I had no idea who you were until I saw you on Gavin Ortlund’s channel. I grew up until the age of 10 as a Jehovah’s Witness. The JW organization has their own version of the RC idea of “doctrinal development” which is referred to by JW’s as “new light”. Essentially, as RC’s do, JW’s claim to be the one true church and have their own form of the magisterium known as “The Governing Body”. The problem that arises with these sorts of claims is that inevitably the history of the group claiming ultimate authority will be plagued with inconsistency. The only way to solve this is to default to a position of doctrinal development. Mormons have the same issues, and when pressed on them also default to doctrinal development arguments.
Thanks again for your channel, I appreciate the academic and irenic approach you and Gavin have on your pushback on Rome. God bless.
This is the book that convinced me of Lutheranism. You could most definitely spend 20 episodes on this, and I'd watch everyone.
What tradition did you come into Lutheranism from? Im Baptist background but kind of up in the air right now, the only things im sure of is that im a monergist and that the sacraments actually deliver saving grace. Leaning Reformed but looking into lutheranism and anglicanism as well.
@@ninjakn3628 Have you considered Catholicism?
@@ninjakn3628 I was from a more Non-Denom/Reformed view. I really thought I wanted to go East to the EOdox. What I was searching for was a church that really represented the historical.
What Chemnitz is an absolute master at is backing any argument he makes up with multiple Church Fathers. It becomes clear that Lutheran ideas aren't without a historical origin.
Like you, it became more clear that synergism has issues and I found Lutheran gave me the history I wanted with the Scriptural foundation that is necessary.
I hope this helps.
@@asdfasdf3989 No, the claims of Catholicism are pretty clearly false when you look at history. The entirety of Romes claims rests on their preservation of tradition and doctrine, but they just dont have that. Dr. Cooper does a great job of unpacking some of that in this video.
@@mattnxtc1 Thats definitely helpful, thank you. I think im the same right now with wanting a church that is truly historical. Ill definitely check out Chemnitz, thanks again
You quoted Timothy, which reminded me that a lot of higher critics have "strong evidence" that Timothy is a forgery. I think we all would really like you do to do a video responding to the arguments of the higher critics, because most "apologists" are bad at apologetics and have bad theology
I've been waiting a looong time for you to go in-depth on the Marian dogmas. That thing about not making doctrines from typology is so spot-on and applies to at least 75% of Catholicism at this point.
Divisions of Tradition:
16:51
21:40
35:56
49:07
Chemnitz's argument: 32:40
Interpretation of Scripture
54:44
57:18
1:00:11
1:00:57
1:03:00
Thank you! Soo much!
Please make over 20 videos on this.
"I hope you found this helpful..."
You have no idea how much this helped me. Thank you for relieving my anxiety in a moment. I was considering Catholicism before this, but now I see what I suspected in true points and arguments.
Thanks for the presentation Dr. Cooper. I could listen to stuff on Chemnitz all day. Gold standard.
Great video, Doctor. I think it would be worthwhile to continue to explore the big issues that Chemnitz deals with in his Examination of the Council of Trent.
Thank you, Dr. Cooper!! Been waiting for 1.5 years since I first came across you. Like others have noted, I would welcome more videos on Chemnitz’s volumes
Agree
Make this a series! I’d watch more on Chemnitz :)
That's exactly right, when you say essentially Roman apologists will say we Protestants don't match the Fathers but when they don't match they appeal to development of doctrine. Articulated in a slightly different way when engaging with Roman apologists I have noticed when I point out patristic inconsistency they will immediately dismiss those particular Fathers as not speaking for "the magisterium " and only being private theologians but when select Father's are on "their side" they will appeal to them essentially as the gospel or the authority.
What I found very interesting was a video Gavin did on whether Augustine believed in sola scriptura. Gavin showed various writings to show clearly that Augustine indeed held canon scripture above all other writers, above bisphops and all church councils. There were a flurry of replies by Catholic apologists, some of them pretty steamy. Not one would concede that Augustine wrote clearly on this. They would use strawman titles like, "Was Augustine protestant?". No, that wasn't the claim and wasn't at all what Augustine described. He still held to tradition as well, but clearly put scripture above it. Augustine would point to tradition as coming from scripture. He believed in an aprophal bible canon, which was accepted in his day, and the Roman traditions of that day, but still scripture above all. Very interesting.
@saintejeannedarc9460 😆 yes this is a common Catholic apologetic tactic...it's straw man, poisoning the well and diversion tactics.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 fallacy of distraction.
@@Adam-ue2ig The "fallacy of distraction" worked well in the video titled if Augustine was protestant. I was a bit disappointed w/ Pints with Aquinas on that one. He has great dialogue w/ protestants on his channel. But that particular video, of course his followers were indignant that Gavin would suggest that Augustine was protestant. He of course was not, but he did clearly adhere to some level of sola scriptura, well before the term was coined by the official reformers.
I've also noticed that Gavin is of course not the first to notice this in Augustine's writings and there's a number of Catholic sites that respond to and deny it as well. Though none of them do it well, because it seems beyond dispute, as Augustine did not leave any room for doubt on this matter.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 are you Catholic?
Thank you so much Dr Cooper, I have only been taught about the Lutheran tradition very recently and all ready I have been able to convince some people of its merits. Largely this has to do with your amazing videos, please keep doing what you’re doing.
It's not that we don't have tradition, it's just that our tradition is that of the first 500 years of the church, while the tradition of the RCC is that of Vatican 1 and Trent.
You have a intriguing sense of historical revisionism mate
This phrase makes just no sense
Hmmm….so when Ignatius talks about not praying with heretics who DO NOT BELIEVE THE EUCHARIST TO BE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST?
NO Lutheran believes this.
You're not Lutheran?
The rcc starts in 1215 when they made themselves the dispenser of grace along with all the deviant doctrines built up after the 4th century
Thank you, Dr. Cooper for this scholarly approach to Sola Scriptura!
Former Catholic, had both forms of communion many times, usually at weekday Mass or special occasions, Lutheran now. My pastor is very traditional, large Crucifix over altar, and on special days small Icons'.
Welcome home, brother!
@Phlebas very small, the last one was just the holy family for Christmas
@@rodneyroyal3089 he’s making the point that the size of them is absolutely irrelevant.
I really like the statues, stained glass and stations of the cross in Catholic churches. Someone called it a gospel for the eyes, and I'd agree. It's the bowing and praying to that I have to draw solid lines at.
@@saintejeannedarc9460. As an Anglican who belongs to a parish which has the stations of the cross and a few icons in nave, I agree with this.
Excellent teaching again Dr. Cooper. Thank you!
Dr. Cooper, what is the Lutheran interpretation of this verse:
“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.””
(John 20:23 NASB2020)
And what do Lutherans make of the sacramental priesthood in the early church spoken of by John Chrysostom and Augustine and Cyprian and others?
This is one thing I don’t quite understand how to get around since even Anglicans accept the sacramental priesthood.
since you probably wont get a response ill take a crack at it. Im a simple LCMS layperson but I would say that in general you may be conflating Lutheranism with some of the more reformed traditions.
Lutherans would affirm the doctrine of the office of the keys as you mention in John 20 ( it also appears in the other gospels) with the obvious stipulation that that office is not limited the Roman Catholic Church. So Lutherans would say that yes "the church" has the ability to remit or withhold remission of sins. "the church" being a more vague and universal concept of Organized Christianity as opposed to the very specific and visible institution of Rome or Constantinople. This concept of a more universal general church can also be found in other reformed traditions as its the logical place you have to go after you break from a specifically Episcopal structure such as the RCC.
With regards to the Sacramental priesthood, Lutherans would differ substantially from the reformed traditions such as Baptists and be more in line with the EO or RCC. some Nordic Lutheran Bishops in fact claim to have older traceable apostolic succession than the majority of RCC bishops. however this is not as emphasized in the Lutheran church because our claims rest on our doctrines agreement with scripture rather than a chain of succession. with regards to the priesthoods sacramental character, the Lutheran church professes that pastors should be ordained a serve congregations for the good order of the church but they are not a required element of a sacrament. Only the Word and Elements are required for an efficacious sacrament, the Word being either the words of institution for the eucharist or a correct trinitarian formulation for baptism. therefore if some sort of disaster occurred and no ordained ministers could be found the means of grace would not be unable to be received as laypeople could preform the sacrament. the idea being that God does the work in a sacrament not the priest therefore his participation is desired and strongly encouraged but not strictly required.
I have not read any of Chrysostom or Cyprian and only limited of Augustine so I just sort of assumed what you were referring to my apologies if I misunderstood sacramental priesthood.
also i would encourage you to read the book of concord as it lays everything out better and clearer than my probably misremembered catechesis. I hope i did not mischaracterize anything and hope you find the understanding you are looking for.
Grace and peace.
I think what would be very beneficial would be this: to have a good faith conversation (not debate) with a catholic on these issues. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a good lecture, but rather that dialogue can often make things clearer.
Seconding this!!
16:33 As an Anglican, with regard to Lutheran theology as a via media between Roman Catholic and Evangelical theology, among from Evangelical friends who are wary of Anglo-Catholicism, I often point to Lutheran theology when it helps to illustrate points where Evangelicalism and the Reformed have isolated themselves from broader Christian tradition, i.e., concerning the sacraments and the meaning of ‘regeneration’ in first century context.
58:00 Your comment about Baptists coming up with ideas on their views of baptism from passages that have nothing to do with Baptism is spot on. Brian Wolfmueller made a similar observation in one of his videos. Frequently, they will read Romans 10 or other passages to show baptism can't save because it's accepting Jesus into your heart that saves. But Ephesians 5 says Christ washed his Bride, the church, in water and with the word. There are also the other key baptism passages that show baptism saves.
I was a confessional 1689 Baptist and recognized that baptism does *something* to us. Same with the Lord's supper. But a lot of fellow Baptists would talk about how baptism is just a profession of faith and the Lord's supper is just a memorial meal. Even as a Baptist, I felt like I didn't fit in.
But after reading and praying over Scripture, I've come to a confessional Lutheran understanding on most topics. I still struggle with the use of images of Christ, so I'm studying and praying through that.
In regards to the question of Orthodox succession, the Roman Catholic Church fully believes they have valid succession in that they have fully preserved the inner tradition. In "Principles of Catholic Theology", Ratzinger says two things regarding the Orthodox that are really interesting to me:
1) That formulating something so important such as the baptismal symbolum is only possible with the aid of the Orthodox. Meaning it would only have been possible with the full assent of all the successive Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) and that formulating such a thing would not be possible today while in schism.
2) That any reunion with the Orthodox could only ask that Orthodox accept the primacy of Rome as accepted in the first millenium.
He also goes into Augsburg Confession and examines possibility of what ecumenicism with Protestants would look like and what is standing in the way from the Catholic perspective. It's an interesting book for anyone interested in ecumenicsm.
What does number 2 mean exactly?
@@asdfasdf3989 in the book he talks about ecumenism with various Christian groups, and for Orthodox he thinks it would be reasonable to have them accept the primacy of the pope as it was formulated in the first 1000 years, and not strictly adhere to Vatican 1 formulation if that is an impediment for them
Thanks for addressing this. Other topics you could cover alongside this are your thoughts on the Eliakim argument for the Papacy and the Apocryphal books
35:12 With regard to the epistemological contentions, I’d be curious to see some interaction at some point with epistemologies which are neither strictly premodern (though likely descended from premodern thought) nor modernist in the sense of an internalist classical foundationalism or its positivist cousins in the philosophies of science and history. I’m thinking especially of schemes like virtue epistemology or Reformed epistemology, both perhaps filtered through Alasdair MacIntyre’s concepts of tradition and rationality. (If no one beats me (or has beaten me…) to the punch, I’m strongly considering writing my dissertation on considerations along these lines.)
Yes, would enjoy more videos on Chemnitz’s Examination on the council of Trent.
We also did a video on the 8 kinds of tradition not long ago: th-cam.com/video/LmayRUzeHqU/w-d-xo.html
This was such a great listen. Thanks for your research on this.
20 videos? Your terms are acceptable.
Loved the video, thank you for your work! Looking forward to part 2 😄
I hate the argument that the typology of Marry is Eve it doesn't make sense. She's not the bride of Christ nor was she made by His side. Nor is she really any of the Trinitys help mate. If anything the typology would be the ark of the coventant because inside her hold the person who is better then the law and prophets and He Himself will bring fourth the new mana every morning.
If anyone has the typology of Eve it is the church as a whole for we were brought into the kingdom through His side (the piercing of His side), we are His bride and we are His help mate.
Mary is a type of the Church, who is the New Eve. Typology isn't one-to-one, Jesus is New David, but that doesn't mean he's a murderer/adulterer.
Mary is the New Eve because of her status as the Mother of the New Creation (through her Son). Part of the issue is if you fail to see Christ according to His two natures -- from one perspective, Christ is Israel, and thus Mary is symbolic of all of Israel, culminating to this point to produce Him. Israel is the spouse/consort of Yahweh, and thus, the Eve imagery comes in for her/Israel. Looked at from another angle, Christ is Yahweh in the relationship, and thus Adam to the Church/Israel's Eve.
It's complicated, and an oversimplification of typology to say that Mary is Jesus' mother but also bride (in order for "Eve" to work symbolically).
@@vngelicath1580 yes I recognize typology isn't one for one that's why I called her a box of wood overlaid with gold. But creation wasn't brought forth through Eve but God. And also the new birth is attributed in Scripture to the Spirit so it couldn't have any part to do with Mary. Also just because Jesus is the Jew the Israelite, doesn't make Mary one by relation, the only way you can say that is by Jesus being born out of Mary so too salvation comes from Isreal but thats cause shes in isreal while giving birth to the Savior. Yet still the imagery of the Eve is better held by the church then to Mary because it's much more direct and actually taught in scripture that we are to be the help mate of God (not that He needs us) to share the Gospel. While Mary while someone to be honored, isn't doing that still as the everlasting bride of God.
@John Doe Israel (which is the Old Testament Church) is both the mother who brings about the Savior through whom all creation is redeemed (proto-Euangelion, Mary being the personal manifestation of Israel/Church as mother of the Messiah) and simultaneously Yahweh's/the Savior's bride (more expansive). It's not that complicated.
It's a two-natures thing. The Church/Israel is the 'Mother of God' through Mary as much as she is the Bride of Christ.
The Church is most properly the New Eve (mother of the new creation rather than the old -- yes God is the Creator, but He does it through means/people) but Mary is the most intense type for the Church. This is why the woman in Revelation 12 has historically (even by Protestants) been regarded as both Mary AND The Church.
@@vngelicath1580 How can Mary be both the Mother of Christ and the Bride of Christ. That is incest. The RCC doctrine is sinful and disgusting.
Jordan, can you please explain what regulations there about receiving monetary gifts? Who is the regulator in your country controlling the publishing of your financial accounts? Do you publish your accounts?
Great job Dr. Jordan! This old Baptist is learning a lot. 😉 Keep up the good work!
Yes, we do enjoy you going through this! :)
How can you argue that all the traditions of the Pharisees were rejected when there are obvious moments when Christ either agrees with the schools of Hillel or Shammai?
He might mean rejected as a source of authority.
Obviously, Christians are going to agree with Jews, not just because some Jews were Christians.
On the level of apologetics, it really seems like in many ways there are two Roman Catholic Churches - pre-development hypothesis and post-development hypothesis. Their claims about the authority of their teaching are radically different - perhaps even so different as to cause one to question whether or not doctrinal development itself is a valid doctrinal development.
I had discussions with the Orthodox, and of course I was called a heretic. But not one had an answer for this bible verse: 2 Timothy 3:16 says All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. All tradition is taught in the gospel by the apostles. All other traditions are man-made and have absolutely nothing to do with salvation. It really is that simple. The Orthodox will say that the Roman Catholics traditions are corrupt, and the Roman Catholics will say that the Orthodox traditions are in error.
Great work Dr. Jordan B Cooper!
Does anyone know if there are any AALC parishes within an hour driving distance of Mansfield, Ohio? I'd love to visit one.
Some time ago i made a rough translation of all section about tradition on Chemnitz Examination. A shame that this books are hard to get specialy in my country.
Thanks for your work. May I offer a correction.
You state that the Sadducees' canon consists of the Pentateuch alone. This view is based on a misunderstanding of Jerome. They actually accepted a much wider canon.
See FF Bruce, Canon of Scripture, 40-41.
With respect and thanks, cant wait to hear more from Chemnitz.
BornagainRN has argued that actually there isn't evidence that the sadducees had a different canon but it is based on speculating on their disbelief in certain things.
Great video! Thanks for the research. I love Chemnitz more every time I read him.
I think a sticking point to this whole thing is simply the authority of the Church. You rightly point out that the Church, through it’s magisterium, reserves the right to define what Traditions are apostolic and which ones aren’t. To reject that claim isn’t a problem with the veracity of the apolocity of the Tradition in question, rather, the veracity of the authority claimed by the magisterium.
So to reject the Roman magisterium based on what you judge to be authentic Tradition, is to argue in a circle. You have to first disprove the magisterium to argue that the Tradition is not apostolic. You may believe the burden of proof is on the Roman Church to prove its authority, but it is the Protestants that have “protested”, or departed from the historical sequence of events in Church history.
Finally, you can hand-wave away the development of doctrine issue all you want, and if you don’t find it convincing, that’s certainly your prerogative, but that doesn’t make it an invalid explanation for what appears to be a historical silence in the patristics.
The bottom line is, although the Roman Church certainly strongly looks to the patristics for continuity, nevertheless, the Roman Church believes that Christ has established a living authority in every age - not merely an authoritative voice from the past
Amazing video Dr Cooper
When I post about how you need to furnish cheap Chemnitz, I am (mostly) joking. I, too, am a small publishing house. Maybe I should furnish cheap Chemnitz. But if I get the funds, wouldn't that conflict with my brand as a kids' book author?
The issue for me is nuanced. On the one hand, Mormons hand out free books of Mormon, and Christians of all stripes hand out free Bibles. On the other hand, Lutherans charge a premium for their distinctive works. Our not kissing the Pope's ring and submitting to Rome says our distinctives matter a lot, even to a life and death level. Our saying Chemnitz is our top apologist, and then making him hard to access says that our distinctives don't matter at all, go join whatever sect you like.
Further, the current situation where there's a hundred free Bible translations available on my phone arose in my lifetime, and lots of people having a Bible of their own is only about 500 years old. 60 bucks a volume for 4 volumes is steep, but within the grasp of even the poor if we want it badly.
All in all, I wish CPH had both the premium hardcovers for libraries and churches, but also cheap paperbacks to make our arguments more accessible. But even though I would make a different decision in their place, and will frequently, ruefully express that, that's not the same as saying they made a wrong or sinful decision. They made different choices than I would have in a situation where those choices have upsides and downsides. So does everyone. So *must* everyone.
Other than my excessive rejoinder to your aside, excellent vid. Looking forward to the other half. God bless.
Hello Jordan, I have a question that has troubled my mind as I have spoken with my parents who are of LDS (Mormon) faith; when does soul start to exist? Before time or at conception. It is hard to find resources on this. Thank you in advance.
Genesis 2:7
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
From the moment of conception God breaths a new soul to a distinct human being.
That is why we have to abolish abortion and protect women.
@Tony Eriksson - The bigger concern of LDS theology is the working and striving of Mormon men to become a God of their own planet/universe to be worshipped as a God by billions and billions of people. As a Mormon, you are endeavoring to partake in a reality wherein you will be worshipped as Deity.
“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea. He was once a man like us, yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an Earth. Here then is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn to be Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you. I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the elders for 15 years.”
-Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith
“All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions and millions of others. You will see the time when you will have millions of children around you. If you are faithful to your covenants, you will be mothers of nations. You will become Eves to earths like this, and when you have assisted in peopling one earth, there are millions of earths still in the course of creation.”
-Mormon prophet Brigham Young
“This royal path has now been trod, by righteous men each now a God…As now God is, so man may be,-Which doth unfold man’s destiny. As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be. They shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods.”
-Mormon prophet Lorenzo Snow
Highly recommend the YT channels
God Loves Mormons (which I have seen several of their videos on this topic),
aaron shafovaloff,
and
what kind of love is this?
There are also some general resources (e.g. some ivestreams by Mike Winger and also some talks and debates by James White) but these three channels are super focused on Mormonism and have a lot of videos on them that can be easily located and learned from.
For the first human, i believe our soul came when God breathed Holy Spirit into our nostril. But after that, I believe we started since zygote. There is a research publication i just see quickly from its headline, they found interesting experiment, when 2 gonad cells merged, they created a light, like our neurons if it receives an impulse.
My question re: the authority of the church in relation to the canon and tradition is:
Is there an ontological difference between the Pharisees and the church? i.e. is there a difference between God's people in the old covenant period and God's people in the new covenant considering old covenant believers did not have the Holy Spirit in the same way that new covenant believers have? And does this make a difference to the authority of the traditions/teachings of the new covenant church (because the church possesses the HS in a different, more permanent way)?
While I do think we have something that pre-Pentecostal believers did not have (the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit), the Old Testament is filled with testimony of how God directed the priesthood and even leaders and others He chose to use for His purposes…
He did it through prophets, signs and wonders, physical presence (such as the cloud on the mountain, the Angel of the Lord, burning bush, or the pillars of smoke and fire), and even through the use of sacred lots and the holy breast-piece containing the gems of Israel’s tribes.
He also promised Israel He would always be with them and direct them… but that certainly didn’t mean Israel would be free from error, rebellion and discipline - as the Bible and history clearly show.
In the end, God used them to capture and preserve His word despite all of their faults along the way.. and Jesus confirmed the Old Testament scriptures they had compiled and preserved while rebuking their manmade traditions at the same time.
Jesus also promised He would be with us always and send the Holy Spirit to guide us - and that promise was for all believers, not for a physical church institution only.
The parallels between Pharisees of Jesus’s day and some physical church institutions today is uncanny
Please also do a video on the Apocrypha. You‘re always „setting this issue aside“, and Rob Koons made a good point that you can‘t simply separate these issues
I will.
@@DrJordanBCooper when you do please be sure to address these important historical points-
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did?
A question I would ask Roman Catholics, do we accept the Canon because it _is_ tradition? Or do we accept it because _through_ the tradition, we know that the Canon is apostolic?
Yes, bring more Chermnitz
When it comes to the tradition coming from scripture would this include the apocphrya?
Would love to hear your thoughts on the Ortlund/Horn debate on Sola Scriptura.
The movie Dogma was a scurrilous attempt to call a pastor or priest a female dog. Would service times then be the specific heats? Otherwise, they would be latent?
I actually do think that Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture. It's in Matthew 22:23-29, read in a certain tenor:
Matthew 22:23-29
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection [or, INSERT ANY TEACHING OPPOSED TO SCRIPTURE], came to [Jesus] with a question ...
.
.
.
...29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."
+++
That's Jesus our Lord teaching Sola Scriptura. The Sadducees are in error because they don't know Scripture, not because they don't know Tradition. But because they promote a belief (no resurrection) that they would not promote if they knew that SCRIPTURE taught the exact opposite. Jesus is using Scripture as the *authority* against which any sect's tradition or doctrine must be judged. Why? Because Scripture is the sole infallible authority. The episcopate is an authority, for sure. Just not the infallible one.
The "pop" arguments you allude to about the 6 minutes mark are widely prevalent in lay circles. There's a limited but predictable (and circular) path Catholic apologists will follow. The conversation on "tradition" is vital here, as the nature of this path they use becomes a bit of a shell game, where terms that ostensibly mean something with which many Protestants would not disagree regarding the Apostolic church, become something very different under the same terms of Rome as it exists now. For anyone interested, Chemnitz' work on Trent is still available at Concordia Publishing House and elsewhere. EDIT: I'll also add that the point made from 6:45 through 7:38 is VITAL. The "development of doctrine", which is a heavily-relied-upon modern Catholic angle on why certain doctrine and dogma of Rome today finds little to no expression in Apostolic times, is NOT the position itself of the historical usage of "tradition" broadly nor the position of Trentine Rome. This point can not be over-stated in confessional Protestant-to-Roman Catholic dialogue.
I enjoyed this. Thank you.
Thank you for your video; it was well explained.
Where can I get this book?
This is very helpful. Thank you.
I see some counterarguments:
Number one is basically that to argue against "doctrinal development" is to argue that your particular church does not need or do such things - which I think is very hard to argue for. Any church today differs from an early church, and may be said to have "developed". Besides: Why should one argue against "development" - isn't it quite natural? It is a dogma in itself that ALL knowledge had to be bestowed upon the apostles. It might be that the counterarguments presented to Chemnitz back in the day were not the best, but ultimately the truth is what matters - not when the truth was presented in the best way.
Number two: The idea that God preserved, through the Church, the Scriptures perfectly is really at odds with the idea that the Magisterium is not necessary. It was not simply enough to preserve the documents - the Magisterium also had to choose which documents were actually inspired by God. Why was the Sheperd of Hermas not part of NT - many churches used it? Why is the Epistle to the Hebrews included? No one knows for sure the author. This shows that somebody had to actually choose, not simply preserve! Had they chosen other documents - they dogmas and doctrines could easily have changed as well.
Number three: Jesus accepted some of the traditions handed down, among them the celebration of Hanukkah. I don't see that Jesus rejected the teaching of the Pharisees, but he called out the hypocrisy. And he "developed" the teaching of the old. So I think the parallel is that indeed Jesus accepted the canon and traditions and teaching handed down, although he deepened/developed it and gave the authority over to the apostles. Therefore I am not so sure this argument about the parallel between Sola Scriptura/Protestant and OT/Jesus is correct.
My main objection to any Protestant is: "how is it that you can remain convinced that you've got it right?" The whole Protestant world has shown how many interpretations there can be. The only way to convince yourself about let's say Lutheranism is to somehow be extremely confident in your interpretations of Scripture (if we grant you the Scripture could appear without a Church Magisterium) and at the same time be very sure that those that hold opposing view are simpletons. If you don't believe that those holding opposing views are simpletons, then how can you possibly be so confident in you being right? The whole foundation is shaky as soon as you have some amount of humility or have spent some time investigating other views. Apostolic Succession fixes this problem and is in line with the tradition of the Jews in OT.
Not true, Catholics don’t have the same OT as Jews, they added Apocrypha books.
The Shepperd of Hermas was never escriture neither considered, there were books who were already considered scripture, and the NT is not tradition but Gods word.
@@shema9172 You are not very well informed. It is common knowledge that the Shepher of Hermas were used in part of some proto-canon (Codex Sinaiticus - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus and in Codex Claromontanus).
@@shema9172 About the Apochrypha (or Deuterocanonical books) there are many things to say. Long debates have been held over the subject and find the Catholic arguments persuasive. The most likely, and perhaps least pleasant for Protestants, is that the OT canon is developing over the years.
I would so love to see a debate between you and Dyer.
Hey Dr. Cooper I am going to help create subtitles for videos in Spanish to reach the Latin American community. If you would like this opportunity, let me know!
But let us not forget that the phrase, "We condemn the Anabaptists," appears several times in the Augsburg Confession.
Great video!!
Catholic layman poking his head in here in curiosity. I'm only 9 minutes in (writing this as I go...), but I'm pretty disappointed by the shallow engagement with Newman and the idea of development of doctrine, since it simply isn't correct to say it was a giving up to the Reformers on the question of the Fathers even if you think his idea ultimately fails. Newman's Essay focuses the vast majority of its space on examining how the early Church itself came to its later developments like the Trinity and so on, since he notes a surface-level inconsistency among them that needs explaining if recognizable Christianity as a whole is to be defended. Given that the older (and even contemporary among some Orthodox) argument for a sort of one-to-one secret tradition to modern dogma/practice line does not seem consistent with analysis of the Fathers as a whole, it's clear why Newman's theory overtook it, but that change by itself from a Catholic perspective doesn't challenge the validity of the Counter-Reformation, since the reasons *why* the Church taught what it did are something different than *what* it actually taught, and the former is not necessarily protected by God. Nor is it problematic for us that all the theologians of Trent's age (if it was indeed all) falsely believed in this view of how tradition came to us, because matters of fact are not something we look to them for. If Dr. Cooper understood the reasoning and seeds behind development issues like indulgences or papal infallibility I do not think he would throw that out as easy examples of contradiction/innovation compared to the Fathers (the Formula of Pope Hormisdas comes to mind as pretty direct evidence, and it's technically within 500 years, but it's far from the only evidence). And the Assumption/Dormition of Mary having no patristic witness just seems demonstrably false from the examples I have read and seen referenced, but it is probably one of the better challenges.
And citing communion in both kinds as a central issue seems an oversimplification when our central concern is the principle of the real presence being full in each kind and thus the effects likewise being full with only one received. Whether it was/is a good idea to limit the laity to one kind is a separate and non-doctrinal concern for us. I'm not aware of Lutherans claiming you can't be saved without partaking of both kinds of the Eucharist, so this comes off as odd, but I imagine much greater detail is given in another video.
For a counter-exploration of tradition as a concept, Michael Lofton's Reason and Theology channel has plenty of good videos on it. Notably, he argues against the idea that we can divide tradition into written and unwritten in the sense that those unwritten are not at least present in Scripture implicitly, and thus affirms Scripture's material sufficiency.
I agree that the common debate over the meaning of "anathema" is probably not helpful, but not because it's an anachronism, but because it's a question of whether someone is subjectively or formally under said anathema v.s. being materially (i.e. ignorantly and inculpably) so, and I feel like that is the only important thing to get across unless you're studying the precise meaning and development of the use of the term in Church documents. Vatican II affirmation of the brotherhood Catholics and Protestants has more to do with this lack of formal heresy on the part of Protestants, not an undoing of Trent's weight behind anathemas.
Concerning the canon of Scripture as valid tradition, the issue is primarily one of epistemology and authority, no? Not whether tradition is all good or bad or proves the whole of the Catholic Church (given that the Orthodox more or less have the same grounding as us, sans Florence and Trent providing a more definitive ruling). By what firm criteria or authority should we accept the Lutheran canon over the Catholic canon or any other? If one accepts the (NT) canon on the grounds of it being relatively settled at synods of Carthage and Rome and thus agreed by later Fathers, then obviously that stands out of as demanding a grounding for the Church's authority to do so, and exposes inconsistency if you also reject the OT canon accepted by said synods and Fathers. If instead one wants to appeal to Scripture to justify tradition and thus the canon then it's just a laughably circular argument, since what we should count as Scripture is in debate, and whether any given debated book contradicts other books in Scripture is itself debated (and in my view such Protestant objections are soundly defeated in similar fashion to the rest of Scripture v.s. non-Christians). Hence the need for the magisterium and its guidance and ruling on what is authentic and consistent with the faith once delivered to the saints.
Concerning the argument about the parallel between the Pharisees and Catholicism, the first thing that comes to mind is that the Pharisees did not rule on the canon such that all Jews were obliged to follow them (so far as I have ever heard anyone claim), or at least not until after the Gospel began to be spread and their authority from Moses was supplanted by the Apostles. If they had then I imagine it would have been the case that we'd be obliged to follow it (but don't quote me on that being the teaching of Catholic theologians...), but such was clearly not the case with so many variations on the OT canon at the time and their particular one not being widely used outside Judea. Moreover, if we are to say that Pharisaical thinking on all things binds us because Christ said to obey their teachings...everyone would have serious problems, not just Catholics. With the coming of the Christian era quite a bit of that stuff became obsolete as we all know, so I can't say I think this is a good argument. We claim to follow *Apostolic* teaching, not some unbroken line of Judeo-Christian traditions.
I've got to get ready for work, but I made it half way through. I'm glad the fact that we use terms like tradition in different ways is being explored, though I would say Catholic theologians do like to systematize and label each of these parts with their limitations, but challenges to the faith often bring out better understanding and clarity down the line so I imagine our discussions of tradition got better from then on until it gets to the scale it is today.
Were the Marian Dogmas, Indulgences, Papal infallibility all part of the deposit of faith from the apostles? Or developments that were not there?
@@carpediem5526 Our understanding of anything is always in development from earlier seeds of understanding. It's a principle that St. John Henry Newman applied to literally any idea and gives several criteria and many examples of how to determine authentic "developments" from "corruptions", but especially applies it to schools of thought and -isms because of how they will have certain core principles which the application of will not be immediately apparent in all areas. This applies to any given Protestant sect as well as Catholicism, with the difference being that Protestants are often in denial about the process of development and claim that their ideas are straight from Scripture despite the vast differences in understanding of any given crucial passage present across Christian history. Newman was defending against skeptics and theological liberals as well. If you want to better understand his meaning and how it plays out in history, I highly suggest reading his seminal **Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine** (1878 edition) for yourself rather than taking others' word for it. A free audiobook version can be found here: th-cam.com/video/ja7gGOxZbJI/w-d-xo.html
Of the Marian dogmas, her perpetual virginity was always believed in and is implied in Scripture. Modern denials of this from Protestants is in fact a really clear novelty that even the "Reformers" rejected. The Assumption/Dormition is likewise a historical claim, though usually coloured with certain elements of later understanding of our Blessed Mother's greatness. Her title of Theotokos or Mother of God was confirmed in response to Nestorianism which denied her having given birth to the Person of the Son, and Mary is called the "Mother of my Lord" by St. Elizabeth in Scripture, so that's an easy one. Her unstained life was not articulated as Catholics would now do so as the Immaculate Conception since that required a prior development of how we talked about original sin, but you see it plenty witnessed where it does come up. Again, going back to what I said with St. Newman's ideas, we would not point to full expressions of the Immaculate Conception or stuff like it in the Fathers or early liturgies or iconography, but where they indicate a principle to do with it, whether explicitly or implicitly.
Papal infallibility is one of the easiest things to discuss in this light, since the founding principles are (1) that St. Peter and his successors are the highest authority in the Church by **divine** ordinance, and (2) that the Church cannot fail. Since there cannot be an appeal from the judgment of the highest judge, if the Pope were to bind the faithful to believe something heretical **definitively** , it would be a contradiction of the Church's mission and divine protection, and so is prevented from ever happening. Note that this is different from the Pope merely teaching something in some fashion below a definitive judgment **everyone** is obliged on pain of sin to give the same kind of **faith** we do to the rest of the Gospel (as opposed to mere assent of intellect and will, as we say), which we say COULD be wrong and be reversed later. In the early Church we *do* occasionally see things that satisfy the conditions for an exercise of papal infallibility whether we have examples of people explicitly noting it or not, most especially in the ratification of the teachings of ecumenical councils, and we have multiple Fathers claiming that the Pope can do this (notably Pope St. Leo I and those who endorsed his letters, such as was required of all Greek bishops in 519 by the very explicit Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas). For a discussion of papal authority in light of the complicated history east and west, a great recent book is **The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox** and a shorter discussion by the author here: th-cam.com/users/live2OCGJi7btBQ
Indulgences are the most "purely" developmental aspect of the faith of those you list, but they go back to a very early principle of the Apostles being given the authority to bind and loose or to forgive and not forgive sins, as well as the value of prayers for the dead (see e.g. 2 Maccabees 12). The sacrament of Penance or Reconciliation, often today called Confession, was very infrequently allowed more than once in your life until right before death in the early days, and you would be given some very serious penances (often for months or years) to do before being allowed to once again receive communion. This penance was in the hands of the one binding the penitent to it, and could be lessened if he so chose. Eventually this was scaled up to a promise from the Pope that X action done in faith would be equivalent to doing that penance for Y number of days as far as alleviating the (non-eternal) debt of punishment due to sin. This was reformed after Vatican II in the 60s to the modern system of vague "partial" indulgences and complete "plenary" ones which give as much as your heart is willing to give to God.
How about the video on radical rationalism in France as counter-reformation device?
I haven't forgotten.
"Is what Ireneaus proclaims anything other than what is found in Scripture?...No." You are missing two critical points about his interaction with the Gnostics. The first point is that the debate between them consisted partially around the question: "What is Scripture?" The Gnostics wrote their own Gospels. Now Christians are being confronted with two sets of texts. How do they adjudicate between them? How do they know which written Gospels are the true Gospels and which are inauthentic? They were able to do so because of Oral Tradition wherein St. Ireneaus could say that he received his message orally (at the feet of Polycarp) who received his message from St. John who received his message from the Lord Jesus Himself. That message was entirely consistent with the written Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John and it confirmed those Gospels and was opposed to what was found in the Gnostic Gospels. So here you have oral Tradition telling the Church which Gospels are authentic. Second, this oral tradition is credible because it comes from someone in direct sucession with the Apostle John and the Gnostic Churches did not have this Apostolic pedigree. So, Apostolic succession and Oral Tradition worked together to confirm the correct Gospels. Perhaps we might use the same criteria to determine the correct Gospel (singular). That sure would be a revolutionary approach for my Protestant friends..
Then there's "Do UB, Tim." They always threaten me with lawyers. My enemies make me more than I do.
“Eck clearly admits in his Enchiridion that the Holy Spirit did not teach the invocation of saints by express Scripture, that is, neither by teaching, nor by command, nor by promise, nor by example. He says that in the Old Testament the invocation of the saints was not taught because the people were inclined to idolatry as they were, and the fathers in Limbo had not yet entered into blessedness, because they had, before the suffering of Christ, not yet God's vision. In the New Testament, he says, it is not taught why Gentile Christians might go back to the ancient worship of idols, and lest the apostles should be charged thereby with arrogance, if they taught that saints were to be worshiped and invoked after death, as if they themselves sought this glory after their death.”
The first excuse is convenient, the second problematic because the practice has developed exactly in this.
Thanks so much for this because I always have wanted to read this Chemniz's work but can't because it is too expensive
It’s a good thing to hear proper doctrine on the sabbath. Thank you Dr. for your steadfast fight for the true Church of Christ. Amen 🙏
I'm protestant, discerning denominations at this point. I don't, however, believe that all tradition has to be included in scripture to be valid. It seems significantly more plausible that a church guided by the holy spirit (as Jesus told us would exist) would be the living rule, rather than an unchanging scripture. Scripture, by nature of being set, cannot address new questions that inevitably arise. Protestants inevitably have these questions and the best way to address them are trying tangentially to form scripture to a situation that doesn't fit. I've seen it in my own churches personally. The holy spirit through the church should be the rule of faith (supported by the scriptures). This means obviously nothing EXPLICITLY CONTRARY to scripture can be a valid teaching of the church (i.e. the church cannot teach that Jesus is not God). However, the church has to exist as the arbiter in a sense as well, even in protestant denominations. The role as arbiter may just be in selecting an interpretation of scripture, but that is still arbitration on account of the church. The fact that multiple coherent interpretations exist of scripture shows that it's not self-interpreting, and that the church therefore must interpret, meaning the church has authority itself outside of scripture.
Brother you're on the right track. I pray the Holy Spirit guides you to the Orthodox Church.
Dr Cooper, would you consider engaging with Basil’s On the Holy Spirit? He speaks about the kerygma vs the mysteries and how the latter were not divulged publically (and thus not in writing) but were passed down by the Church.
Do Catholics or Orthodox tell us what this mystery is?
Certainly, they don't think that the topics we are arguing about were secretly never shared with the public?
@@OnTheThirdDay After 2000 years much of the content of the mysteries is now public knowledge. However, when a Protestant says "where is that in the Bible or the Church Fathers," it should be kept in mind that a reason why it may not be there is because of the prohibition against communicating certain mysteries in writing (for more info, look up the disciplina arcani).
@@thecatholictypologist5009 So hidden knowledge forbidden from being written down? And that is not Gnosticism?
@@garretschwinghammer115 orthodox Christian gnosticism was a thing (see Clement of Alexandria). It wasn't so much hidden knowledge as knowledge reserved to Christians, especially to Christians of greater maturity - that is why Paul says he fed the Corinthians on milk, not meat, while for others he imparted a secret and hidden wisdom (1 Cor 2:7). You will find talk of not writing down certain teachings in the works of Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures) and Ambrose.
A major reason the insistence on reserved knowledge was abandoned by the Church after the first few centuries was that various heretical groups (Cerinthians, Valentinians - there was never a sect called Gnostics, that just proved to be a useful umbrella term) claimed to possess the hidden wisdom Paul speaks about, in order to justify their fanciful doctrines.
@@thecatholictypologist5009 So the Primacy of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, the Cult of the Saints, etc were all part of this oral tradition and never made it into the New Testament?
Dr. Cooper is misrepresenting what Irenaeus said about Tradition and Scripture. When arguing against Heretics Irenaeus is very clear that the Apostolic Tradition can only be found in the Roman Catholic Church. He argues that this Apostolic Tradition was handed down by the Apostles to their successors. He even goes to the extent of naming the Bishops of Rome who inherited this Tradition, starting with Linus all the way to Eleutherius who was the Bishop at Irenaeus’s time. By doing this, Irenaeus was showing the Gnostics that the tradition they claim to have is not from the Apostles, because they are not part of this succession.
Below are quotes from Irenaeus's Book III Against Heresies:
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; Since the apostles, like a rich man (depositing his money) in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers.”
“…tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also (by pointing out) the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those (faithful men) who exist everywhere.”
Irenaeus is not saying that Apostolic Tradition is passed down only through Scripture as Dr. Cooper claims.
"Apostolic Tradition can only be found in the Roman Catholic Church." That was a funny joke, but only because you ignored and faded out everyone who just doesn't belong to the RCC 😂
@Phlebas Ecumenic Councils confirm not Rome.
@@orthodoxpilgrimofficial I summarized what Irenaeus said. I wanted to stay honest to what he was saying. Irenaeus lived before the split between Catholic and Orthodox. His context is different. I am Catholic, but I believe that Orthodox Churches also have Apostolic Tradition if we are to go by Irenaeus’s argument of the role of Bishops in passing down this tradition.
My point was more to negate Dr. Cooper’s argument that Apostolic Tradition is passed down only through Scripture.
@@peterw1177 Right, also Dr. Cooper using Church fathers like Luther did, so this must be a Straw man because. In The Book of Concord, the Early Church fathers are referenced and quoted in every confessional document (except the Small Catechism). Here are all the ones mentioned: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian from the second century
Origen, Cyprian, Anthony of Egypt, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Leo I covered the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.
Gregory I, Bede, and John of Damascus from the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries
I can agree with the Roman Church _inasmuch_ as the apostolic tradition have been preserved continuously by her. Where is the apostolic tradition found? To what standard should we hold the Roman Church? Ultimately it's scripture. If Rome's adherence to the apostolic tradition is what's called into question, where else can one go but the scriptures?
The place to start is with the undeniable statement that only the word of God can establish binding doctrine. In principle, the word of God can come in many forms: Scripture, oral tradition, etc. The question is: of every book, tradition, or claimed revelation that exists, which are genuine? You need to make a logical argument that anything you claim to be authoritative is truly a divine revelation. I see nothing other than Scripture that satisfies that criterion.
Catholics (and Orthodox, etc.) do not claim to have additional revelation from God in the same kind of way as in Scripture. Of course, Protestants have fewer books of Scripture so we have more in that sense, but putting that aside, there is a strong distinction between tradition, magisterial teaching, and Sacred Scripture, with Scripture being the only "direct" public revelation if that makes sense, and tradition being witnessed in a variety of ways in no necessarily specific words. Scripture on its own begs for a reason I should trust it, and it receives that meaning (and proper interpretation) in the living context of the Church that gave it birth descending from the Apostles, and hence relies upon the Apostolic succession of authority and transmission of tradition. This is why St. Irenaeus v.s. the Gnostics gets trotted out against the Protestant rejection of these pillars, since against those who denied Scripture's true authenticity he appealed to the worldwide teaching tradition of what the Gospel is in churches founded by the Apostles themselves with chosen authoritative successors, chiefly Rome. The trouble for the Protestant here is that if you're going to accept this tradition of the early bishops as authoritative and worthy of belief enough to claim Scripture's infallibility, you have no reason to not keep going and let it bind you on other matters like the authority of bishops and the Church as a whole, or override your personal views of Scripture, and at that point Protestantism makes no sense. Not to mention that Protestants have to support what specific books are in the canon while there are multiple options provided by the Fathers, which leaves no room to claim certainty that, say, 2 Maccabees is not in fact canonical and inspired and thus shows Protestants wrong in rejecting prayers for the dead.
@@sander7989 Most Lutherans don’t realize the Lutheran confessions (book of concord) does not condone prays for the dead. What they strongly rejected was private Mass for the dead, etc.
The Orthodox would agree with the Lutherans, on rejecting purgatory, indulgences, private mass for the dead and papal supremacy. But the strongly disagree with them on other points.
The Lutheran view of scripture alone opened Pandora’s box that the Lutherans and Luther could not stop. Ironically, the more radical Protestants took that doctrine (scripture alone) and used it against Luther and Lutherans, and it was all downhill from that point on.
U sure the assumption of Mary is that late? If that’s so, I’d love to know how both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox accept it after not being in communion with the West for so long.
The first recorded mention of the assumption is about 5 centuries after Christ. It’s possible, but not likely, that the belief stretches back further than that.
The belief spread to both churches because they remained in communication even after schism.
I hope some Catholics watch this video. It has been very frustrating watching the back and forth on icons, when it feels like Catholics can do a 3 hour video that completely misses the point
That's what their "arguments" rely on. They rely on you not paying attention to what they say.
Dr. Cooper should get on Lofton’s show to answer the “one question Protestants can’t answer.”
I'm REALLY looking forward for that Jesuit video.
It's not that there was no Greek word for it, it's that the same Greek word referred to both succession and tradition in anti-gnostic theology.
“In Gnosis it [referring to a Greek word I believe is succession/tradition] meant exhaustive doctrines of allegedly apostolic origin. But in the theology of the Church it meant the connection of the living faith with the authority of the Church, embodied in the episcopal succession. The Church did not appeal to [Greek word] in order to assert unwritten apostolic doctrines as a source of revelation parallel to Scripture; but precisely in order to deny the existence of such a secret heritage. For her, [Greek word] meant that in the community of the New Covenant of the "Scriptures” (i.e., the Old Testament) are subordinate to the living interpretation of the faith which has come down from the apostles. To put it still another way, there is in the Church, according to the early anti-gnostic theologians, a tradition insofar as the primary seat of the auctoritas apostolica is the the Church preaching the living word, but not in the sense that the Church has preserved secret communications from the time of the apostles. Thus it emerges that apostolic tradition and apostolic succession define each other. The succession is the external form of the tradition, and the tradition is the content of the succession.”
and
"“Christians had already formulated the principle of successio-tradition before they yet understood the New Testament as “Scripture”. Therefore they could not formulate this as a biblical principle from the New Testament. Moreover, because of the influence of Marcion, the notion of “Scripture” was influenced by Gnosis to an even greater extent than that of tradition.
Let us not be deceived: the existence of writings which concerned the New Covenant and were acknowledged as apostolic, does not yet imply the existence of a New Testament as ‘Scripture.’ From writings to Scripture there is a long way to go. It is well known, and should not be overlooked that the New Testament nowhere shows the consciousness of being Scripture. To it, the Old Testament is Scripture while the gospel of Christ is precisely ‘Spirit’ (G. Shchrenk ThWNT I, pp766), which teaches understanding of the Scripture… Before the idea of New Testament Scripture, as a “canon", was formulated the Church had already worked out another notion of canon. She had her Scripture indeed in the Old Testament, but this Scripture needed a canon, that is, a rule of interpretation, in accordance with the New Christian Covenant. This the Church found in tradition, guaranteed by succession. “Canon”, as von Harnack once drastically formulate it ‘was originally the rule of faith; actually Scripture entered into it only afterwards.’ (A. von Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, vol. II, p.87, note 3). Before the New Testament itself became Scripture, it was faith which interpreted the ‘Scripture,"‘ i.e. the Old Testament.’ ”
This is from "Episcopate and the Primacy" by Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger (pre-V2 Rahner). You can see my full summary of the book here as I think it answers what Robert Koons didn't: reasonablediscourse.substack.com/p/summary-of-episcopate-and-the-primacy
this is good stuff
18:25 wow pretty bold statement. Sounds like he is speaking for god. What a guy
1 Tim 3:15...The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth....see also all Acts 15, and Acts 16.4....
I don’t make a lot of money and can’t even pay rent without my wife but I recoiled when he said $60 because that just is not a lot for a book honestly.
So you believe in the Church that gave you confirmed Scripture which you believe was infallible but you reject that same Church that Jesus established? What makes you think that the Church got it right in the first place with the Canon? Seems selective to me and completely separated from the Gospel where it is clear there is ONE INFALLIBE CHURCH. What changed between the canonization of the bible and a tradition you don't accept?
I'm a somewhat of a Baptist, and I believe in ordaining women. Still, I really liked the video 😉
You should interact with the Catholic Brothers
"It's because the Gnostics did not believe the Scriptures are sufficient." That is not the issue. The issue is that the Gnostics had an alternative canon (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc). To read a reformation debate into these texts is sheer anachronism. The Apostles are having to correct them not because they were medieval Catholics who doubted the sufficiency of Scripture; they corrected them because they had alternative Gospels. If you are going to comment publicly on this, anachronism at the service of apologetics should be avoided. Bad history doesn't serve apologetics well in the first place.
Speaking of the sola scriptura idea that so many EO and RC ridicule, when it comes to the canon many EO will appeal to the Septuagint, but it is quite interesting that while the Confession of Dositheus gives one canon, the Longer Catechism of St Philaret gives a shorter OT canon, and the reason given by St Philaret is that it is the canon of the Jews, which is precisely opposite of many EO today, who stick with the Septuagint canon, because some such as David Ehran will ask why would we want a Jewish canon? David Ehran must know more than his saints. Yet Craig Truglia has stated in separate places both the Confession of Dositheus and the Catechism of St. Philaret are both authoritative in the East. Probably they will defend both with a “jurisdictional” argument. Or harmonize them with a both and opinion.
The Protest Bible canon argument can be summarized with one word - Jerome. Weak.
@@P-el4zd here is the text from St Philaret’s canon- look it up yourself to verify, easy to find. This Saint of the Orthodox Church gives a Protestant OT
33. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament?
As follows: 1, The book of Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, the book of Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, the book of Jesus the son of Nun; 7, the book of Judges, and with it, as an appendix, the book of Ruth; 8, the first and second books of Kings, as two parts of one book; 9, the third and fourth books of Kings; 10, the first and second books of Paralipomena; 11, the first book of Esdras, and the second, or, as it is entitled in Greek, the book of Nehemiah; 12, the book of Esther; 13, the book of Job; 14, the Psalms; 15, the Proverbs of Solomon; 16, Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon; 17, the Song of Songs, also by Solomon; 18, the book of the Prophet Isaiah; 19, of Jeremiah; 20, of Ezekiel; 21, of Daniel; 22, of the Twelve Prophets.
He excludes 3rd and 4th Esdras, he excludes Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch. The canon given by this Saint in an approved Orthodox Catechism is the typical Protestant canon. Oh and notice, he doesn’t give Jerome for his reason bro, he gives Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem. Both of whom say the deuterocanon is good to read but not the true canon, which is exactly what magisterial Protestants also said. So take your “weak” statement up with those saints, Cyril, Athanasius, and Philaret.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness (...)after Esdras first and second, similarly in one. after these the book of Psalms, and next the Proverbs. then Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. besides these is also Job. and then the Prophets, the twelve in one book being counted. then Isaiah, Jeremiah, and with him Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle, and after them Ezekiel, and Daniel. Until these "stand" (reach) the (divinely inspired books) of the Old Testament.
(...)
But of course, for greater accuracy, I also add this to the writers as an obligation (of necessity), that there are other books besides these, which do not belong to those arranged, but have been approved by the Fathers to be read (from) those who newly come and want to be indoctrinated in the word of piety. Sophia Solomontos. Sophia Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobias, and the so-called Teaching of the Apostles, and Shepherd.
(....)
St Athanasius Canon.
The book of Neemias is a different from Esdras.
The Quinisext Council chose from those canons:
Synod of Laodicea, Synod of Cartagena, PE' Apostolic Rule, St. Athanasius, Saint Gregory the Theologian, St Amfilochios of Ikonio
Keep in mind that the Church, in contrast with Protestantism, divided in different categories all the books of the Bible which means not everything is God-inspired. F.e. the book of Esther, which has no prophecies, we do not know its author, he(St Athanasius) does not say that it is God-inspired, it is not mentioned by other books of the Holy Bible, and yet it is a book of the Holy Bible. Why? Because this is how it was revealed and this is how the God-inspired Church defined it. Others like Sophia Solomontos are quoted in the NT but Protestantism rejected them. What's the deal here?
@@sotiris.a. all I did was give you the canon given by St. Philaret from his catechism. If you don’t like what he said, well, he is an Orthodox Saint and his catechism is an approved Orthodox catechism. I am not really sure what point you are trying to make.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness My bad thought you quoted St Athanasius' Canon. A Saint doesn't make the whole Church nor is he infallible. Sometimes they just state their opinion. Only the Church as a whole through the Holy Spirit accepts/states what is true. The Ecumenical Synods are a very good example.
I’m going orthodox but I get why others are going Lutheran. True Lutheranism anyway. Enjoy his presentation.
When Chemitz characterizes his Catholic opponents you seem to take him at face value. Have you taken the time to read the person that Chemitz is characterizing or are you putting childlike faith in his characterization? If the latter, how do you know he is not caricaturing them as Luther caricatured his opponents? Protestants like reading their Protestant heroes, but true inquiry would cause you to see if they are characterizing their opponents accurately. Reading Cajetan firsthand in his response to Luther on justification, gave me a firsthand account of a Catholic response to the reformer while I was Protestant. From reading it without foregone conclusions, it clarified a tradition that I never saw Luther accurately portray. Cajetan pointed out mistakes by Luther calmly without the sort of intemperate invectives and hyperbole so common in Luther. I then read Trent on justification firsthand and found that it is saturated with Scripture and begins with a condemnation of Pelagianism. Who would know this from popular Protestant caricatures of Catholicism? To the Protestant reader: why not read Catholic thinkers firsthand and get both sides of the debate as they themselves would characterize it and then make an informed decision?
And now much of Bellarmine’s responses to the reformers is available in English . Slowly but surely all of it will be available
At around 7:00 Dr. Cooper implies he has indeed ought out Chemnitz's opponents' original works. It is possible to have a good faith disagreement without insinuating laziness and childlikeness on your opponents' side.
@@LeoRegum The only thing that would entail laziness or child likeness would be taking Chemnitz completely at his word or for the viewers of this video to take both Chemnitz and Cooper at their word without reading the council of Trent itself with some sincere effort at understanding it and sincerely considering its teaching. Childlike faith is wonderful if it is placed in Christ and His Church (e.g. a Church council). It is foolhardy when such faith is placed in some individual theologian as though they are infallible.
@@AnselmInstitute And Dr. Cooper himself implied he did not do so, stop concern trolling.
@@LeoRegum Concern trolling? I would consider this request if I knew what you meant. Feel free to tell me so that I can give consideration to your suggestion.
"the canon accepted by the Pharisees is the canon the Church accepts today...we could talk about the LXX and Masoretic text...not that straight forward...pretty complicated..another video." To make the first assertion followed by all these caveats is nonsense. The canon accepted by St. Augustine is *NOT* the canon that would be preserved by the Masoretes centuries later. The canon was not closed at the time of the New Testament as you allude to with the debate between the Saducees and the Pharisees. However, the debate was even more complex as the Essenes at Qumran seem to have had an even broader canon. How in the world would the Church sort this out? Oh that's right. A Church Council where she speaks definitively on this point drawing from earlier synods that were contemporaneous with St. Augustine. The earliest codices of the LXX included the deuterocanonicals and St. Augustine's bible was the Catholic bible, not yours. So to make the statement: "the canon accepted by Protestants is the canon the Church accepts today" is nonsense.
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.[1] Basil the Great, The Letters, Letter 189 (To Eustathius the Physician).
"We do affirm that Tradition (about the contents of the bible)" Right and this is entirely ad hoc. You think Tradition can be trusted and infallible and authoritive on this, and yet deny it of any point that does not fit with a Protestant reading of Scripture. So, the new authority is Luther (e.g. when he says that a council is wrong as he did with Eck and that the Hussites are correct), the new group he started, and the individual who is placing supreme confidence in his own judgements over the judgement of the Church. Now councils no longer have the authority to determine heresy and orthodoxy. Pope Luther and his disciples do.
On the one hand, Chemnitz's arguments are always careful, well-documented and rigorous. On the other hand, can a guy with Jim Carrey's haircut from Dumb and Dumber be right about anything?
show de bola