It should be noted that we are not intending to respond to Reformed theology here as much as we’re trying to explicate what it is about Lutheran soteriology that the Reformed dislike.
As a member of a dutch reformed church thats pretty sacramental I really don't struggle to affirm the role of the Sacraments in the gospel as stated by the augsburg confession. Which I suppose makes sense because Horton did help found my church.
As a Presbyterian I don't agree with Federal Vision, but I understand the motivations behind it. We Presbyterians need higher sacramental theology, as well as a more collective understanding of the faith. I think better Kingdom theology, as NT Wright might say, is what Presbyterianism needs, not Federal Vision. I consider myself and anti-Zwingli Presbyterian as I question the Regulative Principle, believe in sacramental efficacy, and am very High-Church overall.
I am very curious on the differences and similarities between FV and Lutheranism, specifically as it relates to justification, faith, and baptism. This is a helpful starting point!
I’ve been studying this topic and it’s so dang confusing. Im Presbyterian but not sure where I stand on federal vision. Might have to study lutheran views of baptism now
Wow, this discussion was just so good! The way you talked about baptism as having stamp and seal of the king, just believe the promise, just gave me so much comfort thinking of my own baptism. 😊 Also the comment about that the new testament authors might use the same word for different “parts” of salvation, gotta remember that. And lastly what Matthew said at the end about Law and Gospel, obedience to the law is not a means of grace. I feel so blessed by this video. 😃 Cooper you’ve earned another subscriber, would love to see more talks with you and Matthew.
He has an Introduction to Systematic Theology book coming out maybe you could chat about that and your common ground with regards to the doctrine of God.
It's amazing how different the modern Lutheran understanding is different from Lutheran orthodoxy. It's going to be interesting when the correlating Gerhard volume is released.
@@DrJordanBCooper all of it nearly. People make such a big deal of baptism. Put it in the center. Tell people to look to their baptism for assurance of salvation. I'm expecting to see it placed an a lesser means of Grace for those too young for the word, and an act of obedience for those older, after they have come to faith. We shall see!!!
They don’t understand because even the Reformed today back away from Calvin on Baptism: That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine. From the Antidote to the Council of Trent, on Original Sin by Jean Calvin Chemnitz on the same part of Trent concerning Baptism and the Baptized: “For he includes the remission, which is perfect, and the mortification of the flesh, which has begun and ought to grow daily.”
I think you may have misunderstood James White’s comments about there being nothing to grab onto in a person’s baptism. It’s my understanding that what Dr. White was referring to was back to his and Doug’s debate over Roman Catholics being our brothers and sisters in Christ. I think Dr. White was saying that there is nothing to grab in a Roman Catholic’s baptism because there was no accompanying gospel at the administration of that baptism. Does that change anything you’ve said here or do your comments remain the same in regards to RC baptism?
Jordan Cooper has stated in his past articles and podcasts that the hypothetical interpretation regarding the apostasy passages doesn’t make sense bc the warnings would not be real. I can throw this right back on the Lutherans though. Lutherans believe that the elect cannot fall away. So let me ask Jordan a simple question, what is the point then of The warnings in the Bible in regards to falling away for the elect since the elect cannot fall away? Since the elect cannot fall away the warning passages for them are hypothetical according to Lutheranism even though they will not admit it because it would then defeat their own argument against the reformed understanding of the apostasy passages.
I think his point is that people who fall away are actually a part of the covenant. They are actually united to Christ and yet they can still fall away. If you deny that, it seems that you can't have believe in apostasy the way the scriptures describe it.
What makes the reformed nervous about baptismal regeneration Is that it goes against the new covenant. In Jeremiah 31 it explicitly states that the defining difference between the old and new covenant is the fact that all those in the new covenant will know the Lord and will persevere until the end. Also in Jeremiah chapter 32 it states in regards to the new covenant, that God will put the fear of him in their hearts so that they will not turn away from him. So if one affirms that every child who is baptized is regenerate and placed in the new covenant then it would be impossible for them to fall away because of God‘s promise. I don’t know how the Lutherans reconcile this. I guess they will have to say that the new covenant is only made with the elect. Am I correct Mr. Cooper?
the prophecy also states that those of the new covenant will not teach each other, yet here we are teaching and learning God. I think the understanding would be that like many of God's promises there's a shadow of the fulfillment in the OT (the renewed faithfulness to God's Word of the returned exiles, examples of the Maccabees and the Essenes), then the beginning of the fulfillment in Christ Jesus earthly ministry, and finally the end of the fulfillment in the end of all things in Jesus. If one rejects the Biblical teachings on baptism, and instead insists on salvation by choice (Armenian?) taken in the 'black and white' they look for salvation from within themselves, not to God's work and promises; if relying on testing election by fruits, again ultimately this relies on self; looking to our own decision, our own works, the change in us, is looking within ourselves and not looking to Jesus for salvation. As opposed to this uncertainty (for my decisions are never certain, nor are my good works) relying on God's promise of forgiveness, adoption, renewal, gift of the Holy Spirit and all the rest through His Word and the water, this gives Christians a certainty to rely on. Did God promise forgiveness in the washing of regeneration in baptism? yes. Was I baptised? yes. Thank Jesus Christ for His mercies and promises that He would give even me such wonderful gifts by His living and active Word with plain water.
Christian Curcio Calvin wasn’t nervous about baptismal regeneration: That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine. From the Antidote to the Council of Trent, on Original Sin by Jean Calvin Chemnitz on the same part of Trent concerning Baptism and the Baptized: “For he includes the remission, which is perfect, and the mortification of the flesh, which has begun and ought to grow daily.”
Charles Lime Baptismal regeneration wasn’t a problem for Calvin because he believed that only the elect were in the new covenant and hence they could not fall away. So all those who did fall away according to Calvin we’re not elect and therefore we’re not in the new covenant
@@bop-ya-good baptism of the Holy Spirit is regeneration, aka the quickening, when you are made alive in Christ. The Holy Spirit indwells you, and you have faith. That is the gospel that saves.
@@pewburrito nope, baptism is not required in salvation. Faith alone mate gets you the grace you need to be saved. Ephesians 2:8 KJV - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
@@bop-ya-good nothing I said contradicts that, I hold to Sola Fide. All those things happen w/ the Holy Spirit when you have faith in Christ, which is a gift of God, not by your own works
Cooper ends up contradicting himself at times because he seems to be more interested in slamming the Reformed than understanding them. He should read Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism on baptism, not to mention Ursinus' Commentary on the HC. He could also read A A Hodge on baptism and the Form for baptism of the typical Dutch Reformed church. But I'm not sure he is really interested in being thorough or fair. There is also an oblique sneer at theonomy that occurs in the discussion which is interesting (and sad) because if Cooper and Fenn hold to the modern 2 Kingdom view of Harrison they, like Harrison, are only displaying their own intellectual and biblical shallowness and a willingness to hand the culture over to Satan.
I have sensed a light disdain for the Reformed in some of your talks Jordan. I consider you a brother in Christ. Maybe I'm wrong then let your conscience be clear but if I'm not wrong then maybe just do a double take. Again, a light disdain I will say. You are very polite and well presented overall. ✌
"Somewhere in the confessions" "Article of the confessions"... Bible, Bible, Bible and Bible is the only way. You can hold to a confession but it can't be your central point.
@@emberina9987654321 The Lutheran Confessions do not get messy because anyone contradicting them finds herself contradicting Scripture. No one can contradiction the Nicene or Athanasian Creed and remain Christian. No one can contradict the Augsburg Confession or Catechism and remain a straight teacher of the Bible.
@@emberina9987654321 _Why do Christians baptize?_ [Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16 _Why do Christians baptize infants?_ Infants are included in “the whole creation.” _But we are only to baptize “whoever believes”! Can infants believe?_ Indeed, they can. John the Baptist had and demonstrated faith from his mother’s womb.“And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ... And it happened that as [Elizabeth] heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb.” Luke 1:15, 41. A psalmist had faith from birth. “For You are my hope, O Lord GOD; You are my trust from my youth. I have *relied upon you from my birth;* You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb.” Psalm 71:5-6. Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy. “From infancy you have known the holy writings.” 2 Timothy 3:15. David had faith from birth. “You have made me to trust while on the breasts of my mother. I have relied on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Psalm 22:9. David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith. “And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of babies and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16. _But surely those infants were special cases. How can infants believe today?_ Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant with [the disciples]. Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13-15; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:13-16 _But Jesus did not baptize the children. He put his hands on them and held them. Is that the same?_ “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” 1 Corinthians 12:15. There is noway to be closer to Jesus than this! _But in addition to faith, the Bible nearly always connects baptism to repentance. Can children repent?_ No one can repent without the Holy Spirit. No one can have the Holy Spirit without repentance. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38. No one can enter the Kingdom without repentance. "The Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15. Yet children certainly can receive the Holy Spirit and enter the Kingdom, as shown above.
It should be noted that we are not intending to respond to Reformed theology here as much as we’re trying to explicate what it is about Lutheran soteriology that the Reformed dislike.
As a member of a dutch reformed church thats pretty sacramental I really don't struggle to affirm the role of the Sacraments in the gospel as stated by the augsburg confession. Which I suppose makes sense because Horton did help found my church.
What's a "Horton?" Aren't you pentecostal?
@@paulfine5602 don't you have some reading to do for Med-Ref?
@@JRMusic933 already finished it. Haha
@@paulfine5602 more time for Bitner's assignments then.
As a Presbyterian I don't agree with Federal Vision, but I understand the motivations behind it. We Presbyterians need higher sacramental theology, as well as a more collective understanding of the faith. I think better Kingdom theology, as NT Wright might say, is what Presbyterianism needs, not Federal Vision. I consider myself and anti-Zwingli Presbyterian as I question the Regulative Principle, believe in sacramental efficacy, and am very High-Church overall.
I am very curious on the differences and similarities between FV and Lutheranism, specifically as it relates to justification, faith, and baptism. This is a helpful starting point!
I’ve been studying this topic and it’s so dang confusing. Im Presbyterian but not sure where I stand on federal vision. Might have to study lutheran views of baptism now
Wow, this discussion was just so good! The way you talked about baptism as having stamp and seal of the king, just believe the promise, just gave me so much comfort thinking of my own baptism. 😊 Also the comment about that the new testament authors might use the same word for different “parts” of salvation, gotta remember that. And lastly what Matthew said at the end about Law and Gospel, obedience to the law is not a means of grace. I feel so blessed by this video. 😃
Cooper you’ve earned another subscriber, would love to see more talks with you and Matthew.
He'll be back!
Concerning your last comment, please do more discussions! And thanks for what you do!
Really enjoyed this, it would be great if you could have a conversation with Mark Jones or Doug Wilson on Reformed Lutheran distinctions.
Mark Jones isn't my biggest fan, but I would certainly be happy to do that kind of thing.
@@DrJordanBCooper Why is Mark Jones not a fan of yours?
He has an Introduction to Systematic Theology book coming out maybe you could chat about that and your common ground with regards to the doctrine of God.
It's amazing how different the modern Lutheran understanding is different from Lutheran orthodoxy. It's going to be interesting when the correlating Gerhard volume is released.
On which issue?
@@DrJordanBCooper all of it nearly. People make such a big deal of baptism. Put it in the center. Tell people to look to their baptism for assurance of salvation. I'm expecting to see it placed an a lesser means of Grace for those too young for the word, and an act of obedience for those older, after they have come to faith. We shall see!!!
Could you do a program defining "justification"?
They don’t understand because even the Reformed today back away from Calvin on Baptism: That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation.
Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.
From the Antidote to the Council of Trent, on Original Sin by Jean Calvin
Chemnitz on the same part of Trent concerning Baptism and the Baptized:
“For he includes the remission, which is perfect, and the mortification of the flesh, which has begun and ought to grow daily.”
I think you may have misunderstood James White’s comments about there being nothing to grab onto in a person’s baptism.
It’s my understanding that what Dr. White was referring to was back to his and Doug’s debate over Roman Catholics being our brothers and sisters in Christ. I think Dr. White was saying that there is nothing to grab in a Roman Catholic’s baptism because there was no accompanying gospel at the administration of that baptism.
Does that change anything you’ve said here or do your comments remain the same in regards to RC baptism?
We don't differentiate between baptisms done in the Triune name.
Gotcha. Thank you for the clarity. I don’t know very much regarding Lutheran theology, so that helps.
Jordan Cooper has stated in his past articles and podcasts that the hypothetical interpretation regarding the apostasy passages doesn’t make sense bc the warnings would not be real. I can throw this right back on the Lutherans though. Lutherans believe that the elect cannot fall away. So let me ask Jordan a simple question, what is the point then of The warnings in the Bible in regards to falling away for the elect since the elect cannot fall away? Since the elect cannot fall away the warning passages for them are hypothetical according to Lutheranism even though they will not admit it because it would then defeat their own argument against the reformed understanding of the apostasy passages.
Real, justified Christians can fall away from the faith- hence the apostasy passages are real warnings.
Eli K But according to the Lutheran position they are hypothetical for the elect
@@christiancurcio2576 Are you elect?
I think his point is that people who fall away are actually a part of the covenant. They are actually united to Christ and yet they can still fall away. If you deny that, it seems that you can't have believe in apostasy the way the scriptures describe it.
Now, could you please explain exactly what "Federal Vision" means here? Obviously not the politics of the U.S. founders!
What makes the reformed nervous about baptismal regeneration Is that it goes against the new covenant. In Jeremiah 31 it explicitly states that the defining difference between the old and new covenant is the fact that all those in the new covenant will know the Lord and will persevere until the end. Also in Jeremiah chapter 32 it states in regards to the new covenant, that God will put the fear of him in their hearts so that they will not turn away from him. So if one affirms that every child who is baptized is regenerate and placed in the new covenant then it would be impossible for them to fall away because of God‘s promise. I don’t know how the Lutherans reconcile this. I guess they will have to say that the new covenant is only made with the elect. Am I correct Mr. Cooper?
the prophecy also states that those of the new covenant will not teach each other, yet here we are teaching and learning God.
I think the understanding would be that like many of God's promises there's a shadow of the fulfillment in the OT (the renewed faithfulness to God's Word of the returned exiles, examples of the Maccabees and the Essenes), then the beginning of the fulfillment in Christ Jesus earthly ministry, and finally the end of the fulfillment in the end of all things in Jesus.
If one rejects the Biblical teachings on baptism, and instead insists on salvation by choice (Armenian?) taken in the 'black and white' they look for salvation from within themselves, not to God's work and promises; if relying on testing election by fruits, again ultimately this relies on self; looking to our own decision, our own works, the change in us, is looking within ourselves and not looking to Jesus for salvation.
As opposed to this uncertainty (for my decisions are never certain, nor are my good works) relying on God's promise of forgiveness, adoption, renewal, gift of the Holy Spirit and all the rest through His Word and the water, this gives Christians a certainty to rely on. Did God promise forgiveness in the washing of regeneration in baptism? yes. Was I baptised? yes. Thank Jesus Christ for His mercies and promises that He would give even me such wonderful gifts by His living and active Word with plain water.
Christian Curcio Calvin wasn’t nervous about baptismal regeneration: That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation.
Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.
From the Antidote to the Council of Trent, on Original Sin by Jean Calvin
Chemnitz on the same part of Trent concerning Baptism and the Baptized:
“For he includes the remission, which is perfect, and the mortification of the flesh, which has begun and ought to grow daily.”
Charles Lime Baptismal regeneration wasn’t a problem for Calvin because he believed that only the elect were in the new covenant and hence they could not fall away. So all those who did fall away according to Calvin we’re not elect and therefore we’re not in the new covenant
Joseph Graham According to Jeremiah 31 and 32 can those who are in the new covenant fall away?
@@christiancurcio2576 I would like to see your proof for that statement.
What baptism is required for salvation?
the baptism of spirit
@@vojislavbelic896 no mate, that is not the gospel that saves.
@@bop-ya-good baptism of the Holy Spirit is regeneration, aka the quickening, when you are made alive in Christ. The Holy Spirit indwells you, and you have faith. That is the gospel that saves.
@@pewburrito nope, baptism is not required in salvation. Faith alone mate gets you the grace you need to be saved.
Ephesians 2:8 KJV - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
@@bop-ya-good nothing I said contradicts that, I hold to Sola Fide. All those things happen w/ the Holy Spirit when you have faith in Christ, which is a gift of God, not by your own works
Cooper ends up contradicting himself at times because he seems to be more interested in slamming the Reformed than understanding them. He should read Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism on baptism, not to mention Ursinus' Commentary on the HC. He could also read A A Hodge on baptism and the Form for baptism of the typical Dutch Reformed church. But I'm not sure he is really interested in being thorough or fair. There is also an oblique sneer at theonomy that occurs in the discussion which is interesting (and sad) because if Cooper and Fenn hold to the modern 2 Kingdom view of Harrison they, like Harrison, are only displaying their own intellectual and biblical shallowness and a willingness to hand the culture over to Satan.
I don't hold to the Escondido 2K view, if that's what you are implying. I have a lecture on this channel which critiques that approach.
If you do have any interest, here is the video: th-cam.com/video/oV3fWC29hdI/w-d-xo.html
And I don’t hold two Two Kingdoms at all. It isn’t in the confessions. Instead we have the Three Estates.
@@MatthewFenn1517 Half of the most popular Lutheran distinctions used today aren't in our Confessions.
I have sensed a light disdain for the Reformed in some of your talks Jordan. I consider you a brother in Christ. Maybe I'm wrong then let your conscience be clear but if I'm not wrong then maybe just do a double take. Again, a light disdain I will say. You are very polite and well presented overall. ✌
Seemed pretty antagonistic toward theonomy there bud. So you think following secular law is good, but God's law bad? Gotcha!
Not a very accurate discussion of the FV or Calvinism.
"Somewhere in the confessions" "Article of the confessions"... Bible, Bible, Bible and Bible is the only way. You can hold to a confession but it can't be your central point.
The Confessions ensure that our pastors do not teach contrary to indisputable Scripture passages.
@@Mygoalwogel Right, Sola Scriptura should be your point that you always run back to. Dogmas can get messy.
@@emberina9987654321 The Lutheran Confessions do not get messy because anyone contradicting them finds herself contradicting Scripture.
No one can contradiction the Nicene or Athanasian Creed and remain Christian. No one can contradict the Augsburg Confession or Catechism and remain a straight teacher of the Bible.
@@Mygoalwogel Then how can Salvation be "acquired" outside the Gospel? Which verse describes child baptism as Salvation or a part of Salvation?
@@emberina9987654321
_Why do Christians baptize?_
[Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16
_Why do Christians baptize infants?_
Infants are included in “the whole creation.”
_But we are only to baptize “whoever believes”! Can infants believe?_
Indeed, they can. John the Baptist had and demonstrated faith from his mother’s womb.“And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ... And it happened that as [Elizabeth] heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb.” Luke 1:15, 41.
A psalmist had faith from birth. “For You are my hope, O Lord GOD; You are my trust from my youth. I have *relied upon you from my birth;* You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb.” Psalm 71:5-6.
Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy. “From infancy you have known the holy writings.” 2 Timothy 3:15.
David had faith from birth. “You have made me to trust while on the breasts of my mother. I have relied on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Psalm 22:9.
David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith. “And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of babies and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16.
_But surely those infants were special cases. How can infants believe today?_
Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant with [the disciples]. Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13-15; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:13-16
_But Jesus did not baptize the children. He put his hands on them and held them. Is that the same?_
“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” 1 Corinthians 12:15. There is noway to be closer to Jesus than this!
_But in addition to faith, the Bible nearly always connects baptism to repentance. Can children repent?_
No one can repent without the Holy Spirit. No one can have the Holy Spirit without repentance. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38. No one can enter the Kingdom without repentance. "The Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15. Yet children certainly can receive the Holy Spirit and enter the Kingdom, as shown above.
First comment!
Three heretics.
Third comment