A Lutheran Approach to Theosis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This is a talk that I delivered at Cross and Crown Lutheran Church in Tucson, AZ. You can find the church's website at: www.crossandcro...
The topic is the doctrine of theosis from a Lutheran perspective.
Crucial point around 32:00. If people were to actually read the Book of Concord they would realize the decay of tradition, majesty, and virtue within Lutheranism since the reformation. Luther's intent was to keep all the doctrine of the Roman church that was true to scripture and get rid of what wasn't. A historic Lutheran church would look very similar to a Roman Catholic or eastern church. Lutheran's watering down tradition is modern phenomena. As a Lutheran myself, I think this wrong in a multitude of ways and is hurting the church and its members.
Fortunately, I'm starting to sense a revival of classical Lutheranism, ironically by younger generations (e.g. Millennials.)
I have to say, I completely agree. What drew me to Lutheranism is how Catholic it is in nature in its Divine Service. I even told an elder I met at the Lutheran church I just started attending that I have the 2006 BoC and I had so far read the Small Catechism, Power and Primacy of the Pope and the Augsburg Confession and he replied “wow, that is theologically dense. You’re actually doing more than most of our elders.” Whats going to bring more young people into the church is going to be MORE traditional services and more historic practice, not less. Young folks want something that feels difference from an Arcade Fire concert.
This is desperately needed in the church today. I’ve been concerned about this for a while. Living within a theosis mystical union reality has changed my spiritual life completely. Keep on going! Thanks Dr. Cooper.
^^^ he’s right.
Interesting to hear this from a Lutheran point of view. From my perspective as a Catholic, the doctrine of theosis has pretty profound implications regarding merit, works, Solus Christus, and soli Deo Gloria. Would love to see a dialogue between our two communions on this point from the starting point of theosis.
I feel that the filioque helps with this. The filioque is why sanctification and justification shouldn't be too divided. Because the holy Spirit can be called the Spirit of the Son this means that sanctification is tied to the infused righteousness of Christ.
Extremely helpful to even this Reformed person. Reformed share the Biblicist vs philosophy issue, and the distrust of mystery and what the phrases “union with” or “partaking of” or “sharing in” Christ mean.
I resonate with your beginning statements. I took an English class in High school where we read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and was one of the few students who opposed its legalism. I resonated much more with the church fathers and enjoyed them far more.
Excellent lecture! Also Bengt R. Hoffman criticizes the way in which Lutheranism has become too rationalistic by throwing out the mystical side ("Luther and the Mystics", 1976; "Theology of the Heart: The Role of Mysticism in the Theology of Martin Luther", 1998).
@dr jorden Cooper amzing absolutely amazing presentation God bless you ✝️🛐
Fantastic presentation!
Wonderful and super important lecture! Thank you!
This is such a helpful presentation! Thank you!
Great talk, Dr Cooper!
Thank you Dr. Cooper!
Without theosis as the very goal of salvation, Christianity is but an empty shell. The recovery of such an essential aspect of the economy of salvation is urgently needed! Many thanks for the great presentation!
Yet, the proper recovery, not the dishonesty that is being presented here.
Amen.
It seems to me that the noumena/phenomena distinction is similar to the essence/energies distinction in the theology of Palamas, for example. The noumena, like the essence of God, is unknowble, while it is through the phenomena that we gain knowledge of the world and it is through God's energies that we gain knowledge of Him.
Very good! I think I like your presentation style better when you are before an audience.
more of this please
Excellent!
There is a Professor at CTSFW, that is precisely described by this discussion. Each element that you have identified I have seen in his words. I don’t think that he even knows.
@@anthonyhilton4168 He knows.
@@DrJordanBCooper my Church is outstanding, as far as I know my District is as well, I cannot fathom a person walking into my Church and thinking that Radical Lutheranism is ok, because of our Pastor’s teaching, preaching, and catechisis, but large swaths of the LCMS is under the sway of these men. I mentioned my belief that even Good LCMS Pastors don’t know how to win in this matter, more than that, beyond the last pew in their church, they don’t know how fight.
We can’t be the Church Militant if we will not learn how to fight and the beginning of those lessons are in the realization that Christ is in you, as you’ve expertly pointed out, the language is unmistakable, God wants us to know that He resides IN US, He wants to be known by us so badly that He took up residence in us.
I know of one LCMS Pastor that comprehends the gravity of the mystical union, (Will Weedon), exactly one pastor in the LCMS…..
Agree with losing the music. Would really have liked to hear the engine.
Dr. Cooper: Who was the author of that magnificent prayer at the beginning of your lecture? I’ve been trying to find it online but with no success. Thanks in advance. - M. T. Fitzpatrick
As a person who was raised in the Lutheran organization, I can honestly say that in practical terms, there is absolutely no real understanding of Theosis within the Lutheran tradition. As Martin Luther refered to humanity "He is a bad tree and cannot produce good fruit; a dunghill, and can only exhale foul odors. " Modern Lutherans don't even bother with a general confession of sin that was part of my youth Lutheran experience. Any idea of spiritual growth, let alone Theosis, without a life of repentance, asceticism and struggle is delusional.
Yes - all you say is true. Why is this not better known? Why is it not taught?
Dr. Cooper, great talk. Do you have a podcast on Protestant Liberalism?
Thanks brother.
I had the impression that idealism is the position that mind and meaning is the fundamental reality, and the stuff we see is embedded in that. But here you say that it is the idea that we can think ourselves to knowledge about fundamental reality. Is there a difference between these two things? What would you call them to distinguish?
Idealism can refer to many different things in philosophy. Typically, however, it is the claim that reality is in some sense fundamentally mental or mind-dependent. I think the way Cooper is using the term here is rather confused. For example, framing the early modern debate as between Idealists and Empiricists is strange because an empiricist like Berkeley is also an idealist, and a non-empiricist like Descartes is not an idealist but a dualist. Rather, the debate is usually framed as being between British Empiricists and Continental Rationalists over the acquisition and justification of knowledge (and there are arguably idealists in both camps).
30 minutes in and wondering where the theosis is?
It certainly is a mystery how the Uncreated can dwell in a created being. How does the Unknowable permeate us and make Itself "known" by the things It has created? I'm guessing this is why the Eastern Orthodox speaks of God's essence vs His energies. His essence is unknowable but His energies, which like the sun's rays, automatically pour out into His creation and fill it.
Partaker in the divine nature: We were (Genesis 1) made "in the image of God". We are to be His image, His representative on this planet, perhaps in this universe. This implies a great deal of power and authority, and thinking about what we are to be judged on at the final Judgement, He wants those who wield that authority to be people that He can trust absolutely. C.S. Lewis, in his Ransom Trilogy book "Perelandra" suggests as much. The Adam and Eve of that world also had a test, and having passed it (as our Adam and Eve did not) received their authority.
The fact alone that you guys know who Macrina the Younger is tells me you’re alright people.
It is a lie to say that no Christian theologian teaches the transformation of the being of the born-again of God believer in Christ Jesus.
Biblical scripture is absolutely clear... Being born-again of God is to be born of the Spirit of God which is to have the life and nature - not headship - of God... And this is why we read in biblical scripture...
2 Corinthians 5:17... "So then if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away; behold, they have become new."
Here, the apostle Paul is telling us that the apostles would no longer know anyone according to the flesh (2 Cor. 5:16) because anyone who is in Christ is a new creation; the old things of the flesh have passed away through the death of Christ (1 Cor, 15:22), and all has become new in Christ's resurrection (Eph. 2:6, 1 Pet. 1:3).
Unfortunately for this very educated person... He is stuck in the vanity of his natural man mind and his love of folly denominational religion... As it only serves to blind him to the full reality that is found in Christ Jesus.
He references Moses as an example of what happens to Christian believers... And yet, ignorantly, ignores that Moses never entered into the good land, which is something that every born-again of God believer in Christ Jesus has realized... That is, in Christ Jesus, we who have been born-again of God have entered into the good land... And further... In doing so, according to the author of Hebrews... We who have been born-again of God "...God has provided something better for us so that apart from us they would not be made perfect."
That "...they..." who "...would not be made perfect...", includes Moses.
On the one hand, it is amazing to me how such an educated person who is speaking in this video can make such a basic blunder in his exegesis... But then, understanding as I do, the hindrance that both vanity of claimed attained knowledge and holding to religion become to a person, it is not so amazing, but rather just common.
"...For the Son of God became man so that we might become God..." is what Athanasius said... Ae was correct... And nothing more needs to be added.
God eternal desire in and through His creation has always been that He would have an eternal dwelling place in Hos creation... And God created man to be His eternal dwelling place in His creation... Man, born-again of God in Christ Jesus man... Is the desired Zion of God.
And in this, God makes man God, in His life and nature, but not in His headship, as there is only one head to a body of many members.
This is possibly where the presenter in this video struggles with the reality of theosis... He has not yet become clear regarding the reality of God's relationship with man being expressed as a Head that has a body.
Is a hand the head? No.
Is a leg the head? No.
But both the hand and the leg are most certainly the person to whom they belong.
Is the child of a parent the parent? No... But the child most certainly is human as the parent is human.
So are the many children of God, who were born of the Spirit, not divine as the Spirit is divine?
And if so... Is the being of divine not the being of God?
You don't need to try and justify God's clear speaking, Dr. Jordan B Cooper... God doesn't need you to.
And when you come to properly understand this, then you will be able to receive the reality of God... Who He is, and what He is doing.
Until that happens, all you are doing is trying to give us your natural human view of what you think about God... Which is just useless natural human vanity... Nothingness.
May the Lord bring you out of the error you love and hold to, into the deepness of Himself.
Amen.
Union with Christ, Divinization, Theosis
Each one of these come from the church traditions Protestant, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. I think an emphasis on these ideas would bring more unity to the church.
is this supposed to be a sermon
no, it is a lecture
What you are calling Christofication is most commonly called Sanctification in Lutheran churches. Lutherans teach that you are saved through faith, not works, but that saving faith gives you the ability to do good works and become "better" Christians via the Holy Spirit who lives within us. You mention that Eastern Orthodox do not believe that theosis can make men become God-like. I strongly beg to differ. My wife's family members are devout Eastern Orthodox Christians and they absolutely believe that some men, usually found in monasteries, have been transformed via theosis to have God-like power to perform healing miracles, impart exceptional wisdom, know intimate secrets, etc. These God-like men are sought out by Orthodox faithful to physically heal their sicknesses and to provide guidance to them in both religious and secular affairs.
Close, but you’re missing one very key and important point.
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, we believe that through theosis all Christians (not just monks) draw nearer to Christ in likeness but not in kind. We have a very important doctrine of Gods essence and Gods energies. Gods energies are the working out of Gods will on earth and these we participate in and can become more attuned towards through many years spent in the piece as of God. But Gods essence is his being and this is not something that we can ever attain no matter how much time you spend in a monastery.
With respect to your comments concerning The Bondage of the Will it's plain to anyone who reads it without preconceptions that Luther fully endorsed absolute and double predestination. He defends this from Scripture on the basis that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and he understands Paul in Romans 9 as teaching double predestination. It's understandable therefore why Calvinists approve of this book. It shows that Luther wasn't in agreement with the teaching of predestination in the Formula of Concord. Confessional Lutherans if they're going to be named after anyone should be named after Chemnitz not Luther. It's ridiculous that some Lutherans claim that Luther denied double predestination when it's patently obvious from reading this book that he fully endorsed it.
Well buddy boy, whatever he said about predestination (I assume you’re referring specifically to his comments at the end of part 1) in the Bondage of the Will he later qualified in his Genesis lectures about 5-7 years later so if you want to say it’s the Lutherans against Luther you ought realize it’s in some sense more so Luther against himself.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness There's nothing Luther said in his Genesis lectures which in any way alters what he stated in The Bondage of the Will. I've got Volume 5 of Luther's Works and read his comments on pages 42 - 50 which is what you're referring to, and he confirmed there that he held that all things are predestined by God - he said (page 50) that he'd written that everything is "absolute and unavoidable". Lutherans unfortunately have misunderstood him on predestination and have drawn conclusions which are based on nothing at all. Luther was entirely consistent in holding to absolute predestination. He writes at the end of The Bondage of the Will:
I will here bring this little book to an end, though I am prepared if need be to carry the debate farther. However, I think quite enough has been done here to satisfy the godly and anyone who is willing to admit the truth without being obstinate. For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature. (p. 293)
Luther never deviated from this and towards the end of his life stated that what he'd written against Erasmus was the absolute truth.
@@Edward-ng8oo is predestination compulsory, in your mind? Does it exclude contingent actions?
@@AnUnhappyBusiness It would depend upon to what extent God foreknows the future. If He foreknows every single thing that occurs then that would exclude anything happening by chance. Perhaps in God's grand design there's a possibility of accidental things occurring which don't impinge upon what He has predestined to happen. But then again Luther seems to exclude all free will when he said that God has predestined everything. Did he mean literally everything? I'm undecided. One can make the argument from what Christ said concerning the hairs of our head being all numbered that nothing happens by chance and that God has predestined even insignificant things.
@@Edward-ng8oo you should read the very first part of “the necessity of knowing God and His power” very carefully. Luther clearly affirms we are not under any compulsion. He says that specifically, then says there is no good word for how our will interacts with God’s foreknowledge and that the reader must make up the difference.
Snow covered dunghills and alien righteousness contradicts theosis
as does a failure to check sources and definitions
@@j.g.4942
That's seems like a completely baseless accusation to me.
Is an alien righteousness of your own? Can you increase in justification/righteousness with such an alien righteousness?
@@MrDLiver Hopefully as confused as yours.
For Lutherans alien righteousness is Christ (for we are not born with glorified humanity, nor can we receive it outside of Christ, who is the standard), and we would say one lives out that righteousness (that being united/conformed to Christ).
We also can grow in righteousness before men, and holiness too, by the strength and work of the Holy Spirit, who is the living breath of God.
@@j.g.4942
Grow in righteousness before men?
Can you increase in justification?
How does this increase before men fit with the idea of snow covered dunghills?
@@MrDLiver it doesn't, snow covered dunghills is not Lutheran teaching; it's also a conflation of quotes removed from their original context.