Видео

Better question...was Luther a prophet of God? Was Luther on equal footing as the scriptures? If he was just a man like the rest of us, his opinion on the matter is as important as any other person who reads the Bible.

This is quite interesting! I was initially interested because of the picture of Foucault on the thumbnail, since he has been my primary figure of study recently. I would like to clarify something: I did extensive research on the claims that Foucault abused young boys, and this claim (to my knowledge) is bunk. It was falsified. To clarify, I am not trying to defend Foucault as a person (as a Christian, I can’t defend his personal actions of homosexuality). However, I find some of his ideas very helpful in understanding history, and I don’t want people to be misled by a false claim.

1. Reformed affirm limited atonement and Christ's sacrifice is more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. (Canon of Dort Article 3) 2. Reformed affirms the well-meant offer of the gospel. How can Reformed theology affirm both the well-meant offer of the gospel and limited atonement? Lutheranism finds this difficult to understand. If you affirm limited atonement, then logically, the gospel cannot be sincerely offered to all (universally), and vice versa. Well, The simplest way to understand confessional Reformed is like this: we DO NOT answer questions or draw logical conclusions which the Scripture does not clearly answer or conclude. If the Scripture teaches two things that seem to oppose one another, we say, "so what" and chalk it up to human minds limited by sin and the fact that we are not God and don't know everything. We do not go beyond what is written. If, on one page, the Scripture says that Christ died for all sufficiently, and then on the next page it says that not all people are saved, we say, "what of it? Who are we to tell God He doesn't know what He's doing?" Let paradox remain paradox and unanswerable questions remain unanswerable. Otherwise, the limited and broken understanding of human beings is injected into the perfect and holy Word of God, and this is bad, bad mojo. Both Lutherans don't understand and really want to knock it off. You are doing the Lord no favors by telling Him how He saves, who He saves, when He saves, or why He saves. Look instead to Jesus and His cross and repent of using your own understanding to find the truth. …

Thanks!

Thanks for sharing some insight. Also, echoes some of my personal struggles.

American Protestantism is overwhelmingly a vile "prosperity" cult. Mainline denominations are basically dead. The future is the non-religious, Mormons and Evangelicals that worship in buildings that look a Best Buy (which they may have originally actually been). It's incredibly bleak.

Joseph Seiss

Key question: when the human being makes the table, ie becomes the efficient cause, how do you think he knows how to make it? Yes, he uses his intellect to access a FORM of the table in his head, ie he accesses Plato’s realm of forms and then builds the table. Aristotle is a POS plagiarist. He’s disgusting. He’s stolen his teachers ideas and then tried to make an apparently new philosophy but it’s just re packaged Platonism. This person is pathetic as it comes. Aristotle literally wouldn’t get through university today cause he’s obviously never had an original idea. Sad.

Yes, however, those Reformed who see Scripture through the Law/Gospel paradigm will say the promises of the Gospel apply to those who are burdened by sin. So it isn't necessarily all about looking within for fruit.

This is probably why I appreciate the Anglican approach. The Anglicans have dogma without crossing as many T's or dotting as many I's. Far less than the Catholic, orthodox, and Lutheran, and probably notably less than even modern angelical denominations and groups. There are many things that are taught from scripture with irritating phrases like: it is clear that; it is obviousp that; Anyone can see that. These are insulting phrases. More often than not, That claimed to be clear is not stated in scripture clearly at all. If we stick with what is clear, our systematic Theologies would be booklets, not textbooks.

The problem with documents like this is that they are, in essence, systematic theologies. And a systematic theology becomes THE hermeneutic to supposedly understand the Bible correctly. What can make this more problematic is how dogmatic such systematic theologies become. The R. Catholic Church dogmatizes their entire system. It seems that most, if not all, denominations more or less dogmatize their systematic theology, that is, they dogmatize their hermeneutic.

Thank you for this important insight.

Hey, is there a good lutheran bible commentary for all books of the bible?

Did you buy your "Doctor's" title, or you just doctored it? Do you really understand what you read because the Bible clearly says in more than 50 verses that the earth is IMMOVABLE. Also says that it was made by God as a CIRCLE with a compass. You should believe what the CREATOR of the earth says about it instead of trying to adapt what he said to the "science" falsely so called. I have an advice to you. Bend you knees again and call upon His name, maybe this time will work for you. Blessings

Jordan is at a great disadvantage here. He desperately wants to justify his faith tradition’s view of baptism, but it wasn’t derived from scripture. It was derived from man-made tradition within the RCC. Luther went about creating a new church, but its traditions couldn’t be wildly different from those generally accepted at the time. His view of salvation was different, but he kept many of the same traditions: infant baptism, pastors who are able to forgive sins, some version of transubstantiation. These were critical religious touchstones for the populace he was trying to draw into his church. If he didn’t baptize babies, his new religion would have been sunk before it even got started. Much of the tradition he kept was based on pragmatism … the need to entice people in. Poor Jordan has to come up with something to justify Luther’s pragmatism. Unfortunately, there’s no real biblical way to do that. It’s all twisting scriptures and logical inferences that take passages out of context. Acts 2:38 as a proof text for infant baptism! Lol.

I’m not Lutheran but the theology seems so biblically balanced.

He was a man of his time! Like Calvin,Zwingli,Henry the VIII,Cranmer and the Roman churchmen they tussled with.

Limited atonement isn't for everyone, thank God that he is more than powerful enough to accomplish salvation without the counsel of his creation.

This was so disappointing. I had heard so many glowing reviews of Jordan and his brilliance. Instead, I found this guy … twisting scripture and logic to try to prove his faith tradition correct when there’s no biblical evidence that we should baptize little infants. A few thoughts: 1- Acts 2:38. Great verse, but has nothing to do with infants. Jordan suggested that this verse meant that little infants could have original sin forgiven if they are baptized in Jesus’ name. FIRST, nowhere does it mention original sin here. Peter is specifically addressing the men who demanded that Jesus be crucified. He convinces them from scripture that Jesus was the Messiah. Then they ask, “What shall we (the men who demanded the Messiah be crucified) do?” And Peter tells them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and they will receive the Holy Ghost. He says nothing about original sin or infants. How exactly is an infant supposed to hear a message, understand it, believe it, repent, and THEN get baptized? Just nonsense. SECOND, Luke is not trying to set out a specific order in salvation. Here in Acts 2 we have repentance, then baptism, then forgiveness, then Holy Spirit. But in Acts 8, there is baptism but no Holy Spirit, maybe for months. And in Acts 10, Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit before getting baptized. Luke is simply summarizing stories that he’s heard from the Apostles. I don’t think he was concerned with trying to create a doctrine of the saving efficacy of baptism. Acts 2:38 was a specific message to a specific group in a specific situation. Notice that it is never repeated to any other group in the book of Acts or in any of the epistles. THIRD, original sin can never be forgiven. We are all under the curse of original sin. Read Romans 5. What do we inherit from Adam? Death. We will all die because of the condemnation we inherit from Adam. We do not inherit hell or eternal damnation from Adam and his sin. We receive eternal damnation based on our own sin and our own actions. No one will be in hell because they are being punished for Adam’s sin. That’s just basic doctrine, folks. 2 - Acts 2:39. Jordan was convinced that this verse alone proves infant baptism. “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The point of this verse can be found in two other passages: Matthew 27:24-25 KJV When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. [25] Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Luke 23:28-30 KJV But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. [29] For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. [30] Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. Peter is here speaking to the men who demanded that Jesus be crucified and insisted that His blood be upon them and their CHILDREN. And Jesus proclaimed a prophecy against them and their CHILDREN. Peter is specifically offering mercy and forgiveness to these men and THEIR CHILDREN. 3 - Household Baptism - There are 2 accounts of household baptism in the NT. They are both found in Acts. The first is in Acts 16 and the household of the Philippian jailer. Acts 16:30-34 KJV And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? [31] And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. [32] And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. [33] And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. [34] And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. Paul preached to everyone in the house. And they all believed the message. There is nothing there about infants. They were all old enough to hear a message and believe it. No one was baptized that did not first believe. It specifically says so. The second instance is in Acts 18 in Corinth, which is also referred to in 1 Corinthians. Acts 18:8 KJV And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Once again, everyone in his house heard a message and believed on the Lord. No one was baptized that did not first believe. There is no mention of infants whatsoever. Household baptism is not a thing. In both instances that it’s mentioned, everyone heard a message and believed before getting baptized. I won’t continue with a point by point refutation of this nonsense. If anyone is interested I’ll be glad to chat about the types of baptism he mentioned, as well as his understanding of John 3.

One time I called into question Heiser’s lack of Christocentric interpretation of a passage and he came after me saying that we shouldn’t interpret the OT through a Christological perspective. He seemed to be arguing for a Christotelic approach instead of a Christocentric. I tried to push him on both as necessary but he was adamant that a Christocentric approach was unnecessary.

Foucault is a really insightful thinker if you give him half a chance. But I look forward to your lecture.

This philosophy is stupid for a number of reasons. 1) Plato talked of essential and accidental qualities in The Republic, so that's not his idea. 2) His idea of FORMS doesn't relate at all to concepts like justice, beauty, courage, virtue etc. These things require a FORM or an absolute definition. 3) His idea that you can just change matter around and it becomes another FORM is easily refuted. Try taking parts of a human being and altering it somehow to be in the shape of a DOG? Does that mean you've created a DOG? no. Seriously, hard to listen to. Long story short, Plato had it right the first time and Aristotle has plagiarized his teacher and worse, completely botched his attempt to do so because in changing Plato's ideas he's created a philosophical system that is incoherent and easily refuted.

Always the french.

An elegant lie he told there. Learn your history and discover for yourself his slight of hand

Dr Jordan B Cooper nowhere does the Biblical Greek say water baptism saves, remits sins, washes sins away, regenerates, puts people into the body of Christ or is needed for salvation. You twist the scriptures. I can give you the Biblical Greek meaning (for those scriptures that you twist for water baptism), and prove you wrong. Saved people know that water baptism doesn't save, because we were saved way before we were baptised in water. Unsaved people believe water baptism is needed for salvation. You aren't saved, and that's a Biblical fact.

The idea that its dangerous to judge people of the past according to todays sensibilities is dangerous. Most people have never needed help with baseline morality principles. We know what is right and wrong. Now are we too cowardly or too greedy or too comfortable to be honest with ourselves about whats wrong and how we are all perpetuating to it? Sure. But i dont think history needs to hold a special place for the go-alongs.

ANTINOMIANISM HAS ITS ROOT IN UNREPENTED IDOLATRY THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YEHOVAH WORSHIP AND IDOL WORSHIP Be sure it is the true God Yehovah based Godliness and not deceptive false vain erroneous idolatry you are practicing Hebrew true God Yehovah and the Greek idol God Zeus are not the same Hebrew God Yehovah based Godliness and Greek idolatrous beliefs, philosophy, tradition and worship are not the same Hebrew godly Davar (word) that is not a person and Greek idolatrous logos (word) that can be a person are not the same Hebrew godly Messiah (anointed) of God Yehovah and Greek idolatrous Christ (anointed) are not the same Hebrew godly banim (sons) of the most high God Yehovah as gods that must not be acknowledge, feared, worshipped and served as God besides Yehovah alone is different from greeco-roman son of god as god that the people worship as god being idolaters Hebrew godly Immanuel (God with us) and Greek idol God (Zeus) Epiphanes (god manifest) are not the same. Hebrew godly law keeping, covenantkeeping and submission to and followership, fear, sacrifice to, worship and service to Yehovah the true God is different from Greek idolatrous antilawism, anticovenantism, anticircumcision, antiworship of Yehovah the true God, anti non eating of unclean meat, desecration of the temple by bring in idols into the temple, worshiping idols in the temple, sacrificing unclean animals in the temple and bringing of uncircumcised people into the temple, being against the mashiach (anointed) people of God Yehovah, the land of the mashiach (anointed) people of God Yehovah and Yehovah the true God of the anointed people of God Yehovah with persecutions of those trustful (faithful) to Yehovah the true God as championed by Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (god manifest) and continued syncretically by the antillaw, anticovenant, anticircumcision, antiuncleanmeat abstention, anti set apart (anti sanctification), antiyehovah, antimashiach (antianointed) people [antijewish] and temple desecrating christians that aggravated the antillaw tendencies of helenised jews Leviticus 18:1-3,24-26,28-30 ASV And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, [2] Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am Jehovah your God. [3] After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes. [24] Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you; [25] and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants. [26] Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you [28] that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. [29] For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people. [30] Therefore shall ye keep my charge, that ye practise not any of these abominable customs, which were practised before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am Jehovah your God. Leviticus 20:22-24,26 ASV Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all mine ordinances, and do them; that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out. [23] And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. [24] But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey: I am Jehovah your God, who hath separated you from the peoples. [26] And ye shall be holy unto me: for I, Jehovah, am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples, that ye should be mine. Leviticus 22:31-33 ASV Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them: I am Jehovah. [32] And ye shall not profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am Jehovah who halloweth you, [33] who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am Jehovah. Deuteronomy 12:4,8,16,23-25,28-32 ASV Ye shall not do so unto Jehovah your God. [8] Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes; [16] Only ye shall not eat the blood; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water. [23] Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh. [24] Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water. [25] Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah. [28] Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the eyes of Jehovah thy God. [29] When Jehovah thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest in to dispossess them, and thou dispossessest them, and dwellest in their land; [30] take heed to thyself that thou be not ensnared to follow them, after that they are destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How do these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. [31] Thou shalt not do so unto Jehovah thy God: for every abomination to Jehovah, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods. [32] What thing soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Deuteronomy 13:1-5,18 ASV If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder, [2] and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; [3] thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams: for Jehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul. [4] Ye shall walk after Jehovah your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. [5] And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken rebellion against Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which Jehovah thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. [18] when thou shalt hearken to the voice of Jehovah thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah thy God. Deuteronomy 5:29,32-33 ASV Oh that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! [32] Ye shall observe to do therefore as Jehovah your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. [33] Ye shall walk in all the way which Jehovah your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess. Leviticus 18:4-5 ASV Mine ordinances shall ye do, and my statutes shall ye keep, to walk therein: I am Jehovah your God. [5] Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and mine ordinances; which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am Jehovah. Deuteronomy 6:4,18,25 ASV Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah: [18] And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of Jehovah; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which Jehovah sware unto thy fathers, [25] And it shall be righteousness unto us, if we observe to do all this commandment before Jehovah our God, as he hath commanded us. Isaiah 48:17-18 ASV Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am Jehovah thy God, who teacheth thee to profit, who leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. [18] Oh that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:

So far, both of these have been master classes in Special Pleading.

Also, watching this and having watched part 3 already, both arguments; the one that we can't actually communicate anything about reality, and the other that we can't make any actual judgments about reality, are completely self-defeating and should have never been taken seriously by anybody in the first place.

So, the Jesuit literally started all of this by forgetting the clear teaching of Scripture (in this case, Proverbs). I am shocked. Truly.

This is really just a bunch of nonsense. Doesn’t prove anything. John the Baptist is normative? Just nonsense.

What is conor mcgregor doing teaching lutheranism

Lutherans are good people. Growing up, most of my neighbors were Lutheran, some Missouri Synod, some LCA. But it was just that they were not Catholic.

Mormon theosis isn't much different than Eastern Orthodox theosis, they are actually very close. Mormons absolutely do not believe that they will be gods of their own planet's. That is a goofy Anti-Mormon charichature of them. It was actually Jews who believed in becoming gods of their own planet's, not the Mormons. Get it right!

Excellent lecture! Dr Cooper, you have a profound skill at addressing philosophy in a way that reaches the common believer. Thank you.

Finally someone says it..

Sad,people believe in insane people. Just like the saying, " Build it and they will come".

Wow … it’s as though metaphors are something unknown to God. Do you also - daily - take up a cross and carry it around?

Great video, Dr. Cooper. As a Wesleyan, I am a bit sensitive to "antinomianism" and a hesitation I have had about Lutheranism (from what very little I know about it) is that, while I do indeed tend to follow a more-or-less "law-gospel" progression in how I preach Grace, if I talk about "law" and "Gospel" as if they are simply opposed to one another (and consider any moral imperative in the Bible to fall under the heading of "law"), that I can end up thinking Gospel is the "solution" to help me "escape" from the Law, and this will necessarily lead to antinomianism. Of course Wesleyans and Holiness types have to guard against legalism, or elevating human effort in a way that obscures the truth that my salvation is "all of Grace." I love your suggestion that actually, "Union with Christ" is the proper way to "reframe" all of this in a more Biblical way.

If everything is a "societal construct", then is societal construct also a societal construct?

How can you follow Christ and NOT believe in the Rapture?

I don't see how you can hold the doctrine of salvation by faith alone and the doctrine of purgatory in the same theology. They are at odds with one another. It is interesting to hear how modern catholic apologists like Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn have "protestantized" Catholicism in recent years to attempt to blur these long standing lines of division. Jimmy Akin will flat tell you that there is virtually no difference between the Catholic interpretation of James 2 and the Calvinist interpretation of James 2. (faith + works vs faith demonstrated in works) While these type of academic comparisons are interesting, let's face it, walk up to most any Catholic on the street, and they will STRUGGLE to tell you how and if they are justified. There will be some references to the physical act of water baptism when they were an infant, some sacraments, and good works, but ultimately tell you that they can really never know for sure if they are even saved. How can they be brothers in Christ when most of them don't even know what the Gospel is? To Catholics the church is their savior, not Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

This is helpful

@25:25 it feels to me as you speak that your discussions are primarily amongst those who are scholorly for I have yet to hear a sermon or teachings in church on this topic.@34:30 According to the Jew we do not follow Yeshua's teaching and Paul has lied too much.@36:50 if this is true why is the new testament littered with references to the old along with some from the new.@38:50 To be fair he has said the Father's have done well with the info they had before discovery of the dead sea scrolls and other texts.@57:15 Heiser believes scipture makes a distinction between the eloyihm who are demons and those over the nations. Also in our scripture eloyihm is often translated gods which are real and do exist for the 1st commandment to Israel is thou shall have no others gods before me. He is the eloyihm who is unique,uncreated and the most high.@1:00:03 You are not crazy. I believe you to be my brother in Christ and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I simply am a man of many questons it is primarily how I learn. Blessings.

Good explanation!

Trinity doctrine was invented in the late second century. Modern Trinity doctrine is very different than the original form. Jesus is a part of the Father and the Spirit is the spirit of Jesus Christ and the Father. "I and my Father are ONE." "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

I also had a bad experience of the charismatic movement in the 1970s, and it almost destroyed my church. I saw so many people claiming authority because of personal revelation. It was often contrary to scripture, and sometimes contradictory between the people who were claiming the authority of the Holy Spirit.

I love Benedict XVI although I am not Roman Catholic. In some ways I was trending towards Catholicism while he was pope. Now that Francis is Pope the fracture lines are becoming much clearer. I simply could not submit to his authority. I belong to the Anglican church in North America, because I love liturgical worship, but we have our own fragility I fear.

What’s interesting is that we Lutherans have a theological tradition of a doctrine called Theosis! We really need to bring this back, as a matter of a fact we need to retrieve historical Lutheranism back!

I’m glad I was always preached from the pulpit growing up about the almighty and guiding grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because we are saved, we are brought to do good things. Because God loves us and sacrificed himself on the cross for us, we can live anew in the Lord. We are freed to be in union with Christ by our baptism.