Professor John Vervaeke Responds to Criticism by Dr. Jordan B. Cooper Regarding Martin Luther
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- @DrJordanBCooper recently put out a video titled: "A Critique of John Vervaeke's Interpretation of Martin Luther" - The video you are currently watching is my response. Dr. Cooper has put together an incredible and respectful critique. His points are presented well and with a level of respect that is so valuable in order for us to continue these ever-evolving dialogues.
Dr. Cooper's video: • A Critique of John Ver...
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](/img/tr.png)
This is exactly what I'd expect from John. Sensitive, loving, honest, fair. He models in 4P living what he teaches. We are blessed to have him in our midst.
Thank you my friend. Your comment touched me deeply.
This was really good. More of these intelligent and respectful discussions!
You guys operating with such grace class and decorum always shines so brightly. The love of victory is not the love of wisdom!
Can't watch now, gotta make my own video. I WILL watch this though. Very much looking forward to it.
Looking forward to your video as well Paul ❤️
the protestant chickens are coming back home to protest
“All institutions are inherently demonic.”
- Tillich
And me.
Honestly, I googled that EXACT sentence looking for resonance, and I came across the quote. My first exposure to Tillich.
@@the-chris-show 🤣
@@WhiteStoneName But what does this say for the Church? (I.e. the body of Christ) as an institution? I suppose Tillich's view would be to not conceive of the Church purely as 'institution'?
Not a comment on this specific video but I wanted to tell you John that I had a dream about you the other night. In it I (shamefully) wanted to brag that I watched your buddhism + cog sci lectures years ago, but you rightfully cut me off and gave me a plate of chocolate cake to enjoy and exhorted me to concentrate on the phenomenology of eating it. I was quite nervous to speak with you, but you were extremely attentive and genuinely pleased to talk with me. Thanks.
This is so random. Did you end up getting an insight?
This video is, in content and form, an exemplification of what it is about you, John, and the manner your work engages the world which drew me out of egoism and into participation with Being. The fundamental humility of posture, and a dropping out of narrative and content analysis as primary goals of reason is a return to Reason oriented toward the Good. As always, thank you for modeling argumentation and commitment to following the Logos.
Yes! John is modeling a different way of reasoning. Not debate but the dialogos way. I do not know Dr. Coopers argument or what je would say to John's presentation of it, yet, what is clear to me is that here we have a solid practical enactement of how to create common ground. We know that common ground is that sustains community and this is an example of how to do it.
Former Lutheran now Catholic here. Dr. Cooper (and others) often try to downplay Luther's effect on intellectual thought in the Western world by denying he was a nominalist and saying he was a realist. They think this invalidates the argument that Luther's thought help lay the groundwork for the modern world's move away from Aristotelian-Thomistic thought (or classical theism, generally).
I completely agree with Dr. Cooper on this point: Luther was **not a full blown nominalist**. This is not the heart of the problem.
The real problem is Luther was brought up in the nominalist tradition and had some particular ideas that come from that tradition that lead to erosion of Aristotelian-Thomistic ideas and the rise of the secular mind. This is what I see most modern Lutherans fail to acknowledge (though, not all as I will show below).
Luther's biggest maleffect on Western thought was his anthropology (depravity of the will and intellect) and his voluntaristic view of God (influenced by nominalism). These ideas lead to the slow erosion of classical theistic tenants (e.g. rational faculties aimed at truth, essentialism, and teleology) from much Protestant thought today and set the preconditions for the directions that the Western intellectual tradition moved in.
Here are a couple examples from Luther.
Voluntarism:
"He is God, and for his will there is no cause or reason that can be laid down as a rule or measure of it, since there is nothing superior to it, but it is itself the rule of all things. For if there were any rule or standard for it, either as cause or reason, it could no longer be the will of God. For it is not because he is or was obliged so to will that what he wills is right, but on the contrary, because himself so wills, therefore, what happens must be right. Cause and reason can be assigned for a creature’s will, but not for the will of the Creator, unless you set up over him another creator." (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)
Depravity of intellect:
"When the sophists speak of original sin, they are speaking only of wretched and hideous lust or concupiscence. But original sin really means that human nature has completely fallen; that the intellect has become darkened, so that we no longer know God and His will and no longer perceive the works of God." (Luther’s Works, vol. 1: 114).
After Luther, the standard Protestant theology no longer sees truth as the natural end that our human intellect is aimed at. No longer is God the apex of all rationality to which our natural faculties and all the world (through teleology) is directed towards. Instead, man's intellect is so corrupted by sin, we can't trust we know anything about God apart from revelation. We also cannot trust that God wills things as good simply because He is acting in accord with His nature. Instead, Luther thinks we can't know what God's will is by our natural faculties as, instead, God could arbitrarily will anything to be good/true (divine command theory).
The secular world would just keep pushing these ideas and forget/reject the core ideas of classical theism that make the world rational (especially essentialism and teleology). This is Luther's legacy. This is what we desperately need to recover to combat the chaos of thought in the modern world.
Luther also famously spoke out against Aristotle many times and even was successful in getting his material removed from the Wittenberg school he taught at for a few years.
Some examples:
"my advice would be that Aristotle’s Physics, Metaphysics, Concerning the Soul, and Ethica, which hitherto have been thought to be his best books should be completely discarded along with all the rest of his books that boast about nature, although nothing can be learned from them either about nature or the spirit … I dare say that any potter has more knowledge of nature than is written in these books. It grieves me to the quick that this damned, conceited, rascally heathen has deluded and made fools of so many of the best Christians with his misleading writings. God has sent him as a plague upon us on account of our sins." (Kusukawa. (1995). The Transformation of Natural Philosophy. p. 42)
Again, his book on Ethics is the worst of all books. It flatly opposes divine grace and all Christian virtues, and yet it is considered one of his best works. Away with such books! Keep them away from all Christians! Let no one accuse me of exaggeration, or of condemning what I do not understand! My dear friend, I know well whereof I speak. I know my Aristotle as well as you or the likes of you. I have lectured on him and heard lectures on him, and I understand him better than do St. Thomas or Scotus. This I can say without pride, and if necessary I can prove it. (Luther, Martin. An Open Letter to The Christian Nobility)
43) It is an error to say that no man can become a theologian without Aristotle. This is in opposition to common opinion.
44) Indeed, no one can become a theologian unless he becomes one without Aristotle.
45) To state that a theologian who is not a logician is a monstrous heretic - this is a monstrous and heretical statement. This in opposition to common opinion.
50) Briefly, the whole Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light. This in opposition to the scholastics. (Martin Luther’s 1517 Disputation Against Scholastic Theology.)
This is not just an outsider reading Luther, either. Many Lutheran theologians have seen the same thing and lament the loss of natural law.
Lutheran theologian Carl E. Braaten observed these similar ideas about Luther's philosophical impact back in 1992 in the pages of First Things:
"In much of modern Protestant theology, doubt prevails as to the viability of such an appeal to reason and natural law in the construction of Christian social ethics. The bridge between church and world has been shattered. Thus what the churches have to say on social issues has no way of reaching the other side, and the churches end up in dangerous isolation from society, speaking only to themselves."
"The modern representatives of the two branches of the Reformation, Lutherans and Calvinists, have not so clearly retained a firm foothold in natural law theory. In fact, they swing erratically between a position of utter rejection of natural law and one of conditional acceptance. Almost never do they concede as much to natural law as we find in modern Catholic social teaching." (PROTESTANTS AND NATURAL LAW by Carl E. Braaten January 1992)
And so does Lutheran Theologian Thomas D. Pearson :
Ultimately, Luther creates a new account of natural law morality: instinctive, not rational; provisional, not ontologically secured; pragmatic, not divinely commanded; chastened by sin, not robust with natural human possibilities. When he invokes natural law, it is with a different insight than that supplied him by the classical natural law tradition. (Luther on Natural Law)
Further Resources:
See book Kusukawa. "The Transformation of Natural Philosophy", for more on how Luther rejected Aristotle and fought to have his ideas removed from Wittenberg where he taught at and became the birthplace of Lutheransim.
See book Janz, D. "Luther and late medieval Thomism: A study in theological anthropology", for how Luther misunderstood Aquinas.
See Reilly, R. R., & Arnn, L. P. "America on trial: A defense of the founding" (p. 138-140), for a great synopsis of this argument of Luther's influence on the removing Aristotelian-Thomistic ideas from the Western Intellectual tradition.
I'm nowhere at the same level of analysis as you, but let me ask; the total depravity of man and original sin, I thought was a good thing? In that man is total depended on God. Believer or non believer, God is influencing each person by His spirit. A hypothetical world without God, the thought or even the notion of Him, I imagine would fall to pieces. Every man being created in the image of God does however imply to me, that even the natural man who does not believe are still able to be far more virtuous and perhaps good than any good Christian man. John in this video is showing an exemplatory way of humbleness aiming towards building bridges. But I think the spirit of God is doing far more work to him and any of us than we even realise. Sure we are able to do good things, but I think it's all or by the most part because of direct and indirect influences from God, through His spirit, culture, the example of other people (who themselves are influenced first-hand) and so on.
@@MathiasMNielsen Hi Mathias. You said many beautiful things above and I would say most all are things that the Catholic Tradition would agree with. It mainly comes down to how you specify what "total depravity of man" means. When you read Luther, he is specifically reacting against the Classical Theistic (mainly Thomistic) lines of thought that say even though our natures have the stain of original sin and the resulting effect of concupiscence of our will, the natural end of our intellects is still truth and we have the ability to obtain it. In other words, they would say it is possible to know God and even love God is some sense with our natural intellect. That all being said, Catholic Tradition also teaches how dependent we are on the Grace of God for all things, and without it, we would certainly fail to follow God's will perfectly as we are called to do. Natural man needs sanctifying grace to be able to attain beatitude with God. Without it, we could never be elevated to a state that is infinitely higher than the natural state of our being man.
On the other hand, Luther, and other proponents of Total Depravity, argued that original sin has so corrupted our natures that we cannot know God or love God apart from God making us know and love Him by changing our wills. This is where Luther's famous line about our bound wills comes into play:
"The human will stand like a saddle horse between the two. If God mounts into the saddle, man wills and goes forward as God wills. . . . But if the devil is the horseman, then man wills and acts as the devil wills. He has no power to run to one or the other of the two riders and offer himself to him, but the riders fight to obtain possession of the animal (Luther, Bondage of the Will)."
Where the rubber meets the road with these ideas is whether man, qua his natural abilities, has any part in cooperating with God's grace to attaining his final salvation. Luther (though the Lutheran tradition qualifies his thinking on this) and other proponents of double predestination argue that man cannot even cooperate with God. Either God chooses to save you and you will be completely apart from your own works and abilities, or God chooses not to save you and you will be damned. Once I started to learn more about the Catholic Tradition's teaching on grace and how man can both cooperate with it but yet be completely dependent on it for achieving union with God, I realized that the ways the Protestant Traditions presented Catholic Teaching to me on salvation (works vs faith) were simply misunderstandings of what the Catholic Tradition actually teaches.
I highly recommend the book "Luther and late medieval Thomism: A study in theological anthropology" by D. Janz to see how much Luther misunderstood Aquinas and how much he probably would have agreed with Aquinas on topics like this if he simply had been taught the correct things about Thomism. There were some very bad interpretations of Aquinas's thought going around in Luther's area at his time. I wonder how different the world may be today if these aberrant strains of Thomism weren't in circulation.
God bless!
This was great. Just finished this, John. Thanks for engaging this. All these questions and conversations are very close to my heart. ❤
Your discussion of participation and synergism from 38 min mark forward is outstanding, shared it with Jordan Daniel Wood.
At about 14:00, John says 'Luther' a couple of times, but it seems like he intended to say 'Tillich'.
Noticed this too haha
Hey John, at 15:01 you mention a part of your story that I've never heard you discuss before. I'd love to hear more about this attempted re-entry into a Christian community and why you ultimately decided not to stay in that context.
Yes, that struck me too.
Thank you for this incredibly relevent, informed and respectful response. It helped immensely in fleshing out and more deeply unpacking the complex figure of Luther.
Here are what I think are three of the core ideas of Luther that lead to the chaos of the modern world and the loss of meaning:
1. Voluntarism - God is not bound to act according to his nature, instead whatever God wills is good.
2. Depravity of intellect - original sin corrupts our nature and intellect so much that we can't trust our intellect is naturally aimed at truth and that we can know things about God apart from revelation.
3. Sola Scriptura - Luther clearly didn't intend for this, but a consequence of His ideas and actions are that any individual can and should test their understanding of things against their interpretation of the Bible and reject anything they don't agree with.
What this gave us is a Protestant world that is fragmented and continues to fragment more. It decoupled Protestant philosophical thought from classical theism and especially the ideas of essentialism and teleology. It opened the way for secular ideas to simply dismiss the ancient traditions of realism and classical theism, and instead build philosophies that are based on individualism and subjectivity.
I am thankful there are Protestants out there, like Dr. Cooper, that have a great affinity for classical theism and try to help recover its ideas. I do fear, however, that until they accept and acknowledge that they are recovering ideas that the Reformation were reacting against, it will remain a selective recovery within large swaths of modern Christianity.
Perhaps another thing is his advocacy for all children to learn at schools.
It's also interesting the heavy yet often quiet influence of Calvin towards the glorification of reason and Zwingli in his clear division between spiritual and physical. And I wonder on the saying of the German Lutherans "without the second Martin the first would have hardly stood" referring to Martin Chemnitz and the Formula of Concord.
Do you know about the University of Paris condemnations of 1277? This is arguably the precursor to Luther's cleaving of the natural and supernatural, of reason and faith. Indeed, many of the artista (faculty of the arts) teachers' theses were condemned by the catholic bishop Tempier for allegedly holding that reason was to be completely autonomous from any faith-based constraint and faith completely autonomous from reasoning and argumentation, as only received through miraculous revelation. It is a key moment in the historical progression of the idea.
That’s how you do it. Respectful, honest, cogent and polite but firm. Great to watch John
I completely agree
I have come to John's work out of a need. The same need that he is trying to address in the world at large. It is helping me, and more importantly, it is helping me help those in my life. For that I am grateful. This video demonstrates how best to engage with those who challenge us. There is a shift in tone from John's other videos which expresses humility, yet is firm in its conviction and reasoned arguments. I only hope I can begin to approach the dedication to the good, the true, and the beautiful which John so clearly shows here. Thank you.
All I really know about Luther is that JS Bach was into him and some of the greatest music ever written was inspired within that context….. so he can’t have been all bad. ❤️🎻🎶
And Papa Bach wasn’t so opposed to the flesh, he had 20 children.
Spot on. The direction of this argument remains the great challenge for reformists as well as Catholics the more time has passed and what has led to the watering down of the deeper wisdom of Jesus that aspired upon embodying genuine, sincere effect and affect of the true, the good, and the beautiful, which the 2nd schism unwittingly unleashed upon humanity, and thus, imho, provides humble opportunity for Orthodoxy, Catholic, and Reformed traditions to not only reset and re-engage dialogue amongst each other, but with all of the world's wisdom traditions in an effort to bypass the evolved claim of legitimizing the destructive practices of 'we/I do what we/I want', AKA The Meaning Crisis.
The problem here is that what Orthodox and reformers and almost everyone has at the heart of their issues is the supremacy of human heirarchy ( the pope ) over the word of God.
While its a worthwhile excercise, to try to determine meaning from the implication or define the meaning by ultimately its effect ( i would disagree with this in general ) it doesnt properly deal with the problem, which is the meaning itself, which has to come down yo "what does the book say and mean".
When you do that there will indoubtedly be a right and wrong answer. And if one person, or group, or multiple settle on the right answer, and because the other doesnt, the whole world goes to shit, what are we supposed to do some hundreds of years later, tell everyone to figure it out?
What would they do if they got into a room again, and worked it out again, and came to the same conclusions..... again....?
Protestantism, is fractured by its nature due very much to a watering down of scripture, and lazy use, and lazy religiosity.
But if you put everyone all on the same room again to hash this out, the conclusions will be very similar.
Everyone except the papists are going to reject papal supremacy and the notion behind the institutional hierarchy running the Catholic church.
My point being is these analys arent useless, but they arent that useful either. We can say they taise great questions but the answers would likely be the same, and wed still, hundreds of years now, instead of judging whether Luther or the Orthodox or Catholic church was "correct" on a point, be using various techniques to judge the meaning of their positions by the subsequent impact be they taken out of context or not?
At some point people have to put their money where their mouth is and say "that line is correct, that line is not"
I just watched the episode of Awakening from the Meaning Crisis about Martin Luther yesterday, and now this video appears. Fortuitous timing!
Is it not a little odd that this is the only video out of the total of, was it fifty, that there was any push back about? The truth is always a little difficult when were are faced with it. John is a giant !!
With regards to the absurdity of the distinction between the two estates, or the spiritual and worldly realms, I believe one vital point for me as a Lutheran, is that Christ himself is both God and human. In his Vom Abendmahl Christi Luther writes: »Where you can say, "here is God", there you must also say, "then Christ the man is also there"«. Christology is really at the heart of lutheran theology, and thus the cosmic perspective in lutheran theology is in some sense a simultenaety of divine and human. So the distinction between cosmic and local as a distinction between divine and human doesn't really fit in my opinion. The two estates shouldn't be viewed as two opposites, with one being the lesser, but rather the world of simultenaety that we live in as Christians, being simul justus et peccator.
The self-loathing piece is legit. It’s a very real thing.
I’d love to hear more about where you see it in St. Paul. I definitely see it in Augustine and Luther and the stream of Original Sin-PoS Theology-(not universalist) Calvinism
Have I mentioned that I deeply respect this man?
In total agreement
This was great John. I think it serves as a great summary of your position in this area even beyond a response to Dr Cooper.
Looking forward to further discussions!
St. Paul warned the Corinthian church off of fracturing... in a nativistic sense it seems nearly inevitable without itterative healthy communal dialogue (and rigorous debate) as evidenced in the Jerusalem Council.
Why does Luther being theologically anti-Jewish make you not like him? We have to like Judaism or it leads to Nazism? That seems exceedingly cautious.
Hey John, maybe link this video and Dr Cooper's in the description of the Luther episode in the MC series.
Shout out to your Thumbnail Lobstamonkees, they've done very solid work
I must say that I agree with Vervaeke's analysis of Luther's concept of dignity. Of what ultimate value is human "value and dignity" if it is ultimately insufficient for those not arbitrarily chosen for salvation to avoid damnation?
JBC clearly goes through JV's use of 'arbitrary' and makes it evident that there is nothing arbitrary about salvation from a Christian perspective in general, let alone a Lutheran perspective more precisely.
Also your use of 'chosen for salvation' already implies Calvinism rather than Lutherism, and you cannot conflate the two.
Luther's so called "non synergism" I take as just the recognition that what ever you do have in you, has also been given, as pure gift. Of course our sanctification and union with God is a journey, where we have to participate. But it's all a gift, and we should thank God for everything, including our own being.
Regarding monergism vs synergism, I think it's important to mention that the Lutheran confessions argue that initial justification (God declaring man righteous) is monergistic, that God justifies man through his grace which is merely received by man, passively, through faith. But before this justification man can seek God by his own as even the fallen will is said to be able to do this (by reading Scripture, going to church, etc). In the Formula of Concord (a Lutheran confessional text) they write: "This Word man can externally hear and read, even though he is not yet converted to God and regenerate; for in these external things, as said above, man even since the Fall has to a certain extent a free will, so that he can go to church and hear or not hear the sermon."
And after man has become regenerate through God's grace in initial justification, man - if his faith is living and true - cooperates with God in good works and in the process of sanctification, becoming more like God, in the mystical union between God and man.
So in the way you are describing synergism here, I don't really think that it is opposed to Lutheran theology. What they would say, though, is that the initial justification of man, before the process of sanctification and the true cooperation with God can begin, is received by man as a free gift from God. That God declares you righteous by his grace, through the atonement of Christ, and that you add nothing of your own to this declaration or to God's grace, but simply receive it in faith. You may search for this justification before you receive it, and you must willingly cooperate with God after you have received it (or your faith is dead and can not receive God's justifying grace); but in the moment of initial justification itself, it is God who works in man to regenerate him. So this should not be taken as if man's cooperation with God is not also necessary following initial justification. In the Formula of Concord they write: "after such conversion in the daily exercise of repentance the regenerate will of man is not idle, but also cooperates in all the works of the Holy Ghost, which He performs through us."
This then has more to do with cause and effect - man doesn't cause his own justification, but God alone does. The effect of this work of God in man then is that the regenerate man is able to cooperate with God.
Wow, editing! Still on the couch but with a window! :)
I’m hear a lot of things that could be better placed at the feet of Calvin instead of Luther, good and bad.
Why can’t faith be the means of participation and synchronization with God? Under this framework: the human state is entirely deprived, but with faith-and a turning towards God-humans are able to participate in God’s divinity (and thus find salvation).
There’s no Meno’s paradox because God is also actively (and synchronistically) involved in the process of pulling us towards him. And without God reaching out, we wouldn’t be able to participate in Him at all. This isn’t arbitrary because, again, we have a synchronistic role in moving towards God through faith.
This is where I keep ending up as well. Thank you for asking that question and for doing it as articulately as you did.
I’m a Protestant who has come to this conclusion after years dealing with the circular reasoning that is “faith alone”. I am so thankful i happened upon this video as I was SURE if what I thought were actually true, I couldn’t be the only one - but since I didn’t know anyone else who with this conclusion, I thought I should keep quiet. Once I realized what Luther ACTUALLY meant by “faith”, my Protestantism was shook. I come from a synergistic Protestantism but now knowing what this whole mess was based on, I’m heading into the ancient Christian faith. Thanks for showing me that I’m not crazy and that my reason CAN direct me toward knowing God.
40:30 Amen. You can’t see what you don’t love, what you have no eyes to see.
What little I read of Luther, I got the impression that what happened was that he precisely escaped self loathing and something of his own meaning crisis, and instead of a simply writing "you shouldn't do it", he tries to identify the key to deal with it, which includes identifying the actual rational reasons for self loathing. I feel Jordan Peterson often does much the same. I think self loathing is a natural consequence of the stage our consciousness has gone through, where we do experience ourselves as these islands of consciousness, to be weighed and measured. It's natural to then think oneself worthless if that is the whole truth. The solution is to trust that you are actually fine. He is not positing that those who do not trust actually are worthless, he is saying that their experience would be expected, if they could even exist apart from God.
Excited for this. Really enjoyed both AFTMC and JBC's response. Only sad that PVK somehow beat me to the comments section.
I graduated with a degree in philosophy in 1979. One of my professors, an Oxford scholar, often said that the Protestant Reformation was/is the greatest tragedy in Western history. This (the implications of Luther’s, not to mention Calvin’s, views) is what he was talking about.
I stumbled across this conversation between both of you, and despite I am an agnostic who comes from Islamic background, I enjoyed the exchange. I truly appreciate the respectful engagement that are missing on larger scale of conversations between different people, if not the opposite, these days you have to be very disagreeable, very masculine oriented, and a flow of worshipers would applause and follow very blindly I would argue.
Thank you for being who you are, for constantly striving to be better and for sharing the process. I don't really have even the knowledge to have a horse in this race, but nonetheless I find the example you are setting with this video to be of utmost importance.
On the theme of self-loathing (at 28:26): Does it not obscure things a little to sum up as 'self loathing' what Augustine (and Paul in Rom 7) finds loathsome in himself? We could say that would be a mistake because the whole is not the part (the hateful thing in the self is not the whole self). But the mistake is surely larger (in a way that bears on the issue of 'meaning'), in that the identity of the self is somewhat hidden. Part of what Augustine says he is "not yet fit to see" (Confessions 7.10) is going to be the identity he has if he is "changed into [Christ's] likeness." That transformation (of state, not nature) brings along with it, in the process, hatred of the truly hateful, insight into what is hateful. (There is always a basic a risk of objecting from a place of lesser insight ... and drifting toward the charge that To 'hate' such 'human things' is antihuman, which is an old chestnut of the age of meaning crisis itself.)
Have a conversation!!!! I’ll watch it… edit “Dr John really have a conversation with Dr Copper, he has a book called “Union with Christ: Salvation as Participation”
Thank you for the video. 👍🏼. There's always something new to learn from the "meaning crisis" series.
I always learn new stuff from your videos. And on the theme of 'implicature', this was more personal and illuminating upon your own journey than you may have intended but it's definitely cleared up any doubt I had whether the main thrust of your argument was simply an ad hominin response to your own suffering instead of the symbolic interpretation, which you subsequently flushed out, that you've had insight into. Thanks, as per usual.
Can't wait for the book. Only went up to about episode 30 and have not since completed the series. I must do so
Thank you for sharing in such a probably manner. Recognizing the difficulty in addressing these in any non emotional environment is appreciated. Based on my theology I have a difficulty in endorsing all your views, but I am understanding of your logic somewhat.
I'll let the theologians provide a more cogent response to your views.
It is interesting to note the various models of transference (influence) of ideas across centuries, "from head to head".
Model #1 (direct transfer): Ideas are like coal loaded onto a wagon in one place, shipped to another place and unloaded. The sender loaded coal, the receiver gets the (same) coal.
Model #2 (hermeneutical/ecological): Ideas are like seeds. One flower sheds them and the ground receives them and yields in accordance with its ability and circumstances (not enough water, sunshine etc.) The vegetation and environment co-create one another.
I think John is much closer to Model #2.
Brilliant analysis John ! I always learn so much listening to your talks. I totally agree with you. Augustine may have done some good, but in my mind the bad outweighs it, both in Catholic and Protestant theology. Luther the same. He opened things up but multiplied the mistakes of Augustine, setting the stage for what we have now in modernity: narcissism, nihilism, the meaning crisis & forms of Christianity that are upside down in relation to Truth, Beauty and Goodness. These forms are the biggest impediment to cultivating wisdom, because folks go there for meaning & receive a hollow facsimile.
The “Teachings of Jesus” and his Way on the other hand are TB&Goodness, if one makes the effort to seek the Truth. Original Blessing, the Light in all humanity affording synergy, the Sacred expressions in All cultures, Universal Salvation of Souls & Cosmos.
Very excited for the release of your Awakening to the Meaning Crisis book!! Thanks for everything, Professor.
Paul Tillich's correlation principle, i.e., theological answers have to address the questions people are asking in culture, has the tendency as Von Balthasar pointed out to reduce the Gospel to the Zeitgeist.
Another fantastic video, an extension of the most impactful episode of the meaning crisis series for me.
I appreciated both videos.
So looking forward to your response. Thank you so much for doing this. Ive grappled with your Luther episodes for a year in the back of my mind
This video really touched me.
Propositions aside as it will take some more digesting,
I think you were absolutely and brilliantly correct in your disposition.
The fact that nominalist argumentation was used arrive at the conclusion that "free will exists in name only" is totally overlooked is the real tragedy of misunderstood Martin Luther.
As a Roman Catholic who studied the religion's history it is obvious how it evolved with the monarchy's of Europe. It was a religion originally adopted by Constantine for the Roman State.
Having listened to Dr Cooper's video; Luther's position as a theology professor gave him the authority to criticize the church which was the center of the European social system.
5:13 DBH calls secularism “late-stage modernity” which is all derivative from Christianity.
Yes, I agree.
First! :)
Brilliant response, I’m really looking forward to see you both in dialogue over this!
Yes please! We need a Vervaeke/Cooper dialogos! That would be excellent
1:02:30 Vervaeke should probably read Levinas, especially the short essay from his Talmudic Readings on Shabbat 89. There is not about acceptance, rejection, and in between. When one appears to the other it IS non-consensual BUT it is not necessarily arbitrary, and then the question precisely centers on voluntary participation.
It's not about acceptance/rejection/between, that's a propositional framework being applied to the perspectival and participatory. It's the wrong framing
23:05 Me too, John. I feel you.
John I'm so greatful you've been busy the past few months, because it allowed me some time to dwelve into PV channel which is amazing too.
Thank you for being an examplar of participation with the true, good and beautiful. I'm learning so much.
Thank you!
Really appreciate the belief example, I’ve been trying to communicate that for a long time.
This is what it looks like to model "dialogos"!
So what comes to mind (part way through this) is that every time we are in opposition to anything we are contributing in some way to bringing about a state of greater chaos.
I'm from Brazil! I was always curious about "Lutero" ... I'be been watching all the videos about "Meaning crisis" because it's looks like all about my fellings ....(sorry for any mistake on the writing, I'm a little turtle hiding from the world)
I agree.... I feel like if Luthers doctrine in today's context drew emotion from you... It is obvious that it will draw strong emotion and anger from children and young adults. And let's just remember... We should not be provoking our kids to anger... Especially when it's a dirivitive non - inspired work in addition to the complete and inspired Bible.
John, you are a truly excellent role model. My respect for you grows and my heart ❤️ goes out to you! This grammer is still so very beautiful.
Didn’t have time to watch the whole video, so apologize if some of this was covered.
Luther believed we have no free will for justification (I.e theologically), but have free will with respect to temporal matters. Scripture teaches the same; Old and New Testament alike. God is the source of all.
Ultimately, from what I can deduce, the synergism vs monergism debate then boils down to the place of scripture in doctrine. Lutherans would hold it norms all doctrine and tradition, where others place scripture equal to tradition. Orthodox Lutherans don’t try to reason with scripture-when there isn’t a clear answer they simply say, I don’t know. Whereas other denoms rely on human reason to fill in the blanks. Problem is, human reason is tainted by original sin, as far as scripture is concerned.
Also, fragmentation occurs within the EO and RC church. Not coincidentally, fragmentation always moves away from scripture, Protestant, Lutheran (not all are orthodox), RC, EO, it doesn’t matter.
Finally, Lutherans don’t believe or agree with everything Luther said or did. The Lutheran Confessions were largely authored by other people.
What is important? What is meaning? What benchmark to you use to determine something meaningful? Without God and scripture you have nothing but human subjective opinion.
Can you put a glossary of terms at the beginning of each chapter of your book?
Thanks John.
I like this idea, I wanted to suggest a John Vervaeke dictionary
Is "self-deprecation" (kenoisis) accomplished from the dianoia or from cardia?
Can I start a GoFundMe to get John a kick ass home studio?
I don't know, many of us have become fond of the sofa, and the horses' heinies 😁
@@sunrhyze 😂 i just think that JV is so great that he deserves the best. Visual communication is important and how you appear matters.
Yes. Eager for this. Thanks, Dr. Vervaeke. Our mutual friend Sam from Transfigured just told me to watch this. He said that you were "trashing PoS theology" a lot, which is right up my alley.
*PoS Theology is a Luke-ism. You can probably figure it out. It's a double entendre.
You totally convinced me, I'm a big fan of the arguments you've made
So so spot on.
One of the most concise implicit critiques of modern Christianity I’ve heard
Thanks John!
1:11:00 This all begs the question of who is in and who is out and why.
Is a Lutheran one who self-identifies as one?
What is a Christian
What is a woman?
What is anything?
Assumptions about ontology.
So deep and profound!
Probably a dumb question, but will the AFtMC book talk about RR etc (all the many strands you wove in the yt series), as well as the theological aspect u mentioned around 24:45
Does the God shaped hole metaphor hold up if we consider the death of the ego or the death of the self or at least a life directed elsewhere besides the self? Perhaps the experience of surrender, including the "blowing out" of nirvana, destroys the boundary of the hole in the metaphor. There is no hole any longer because there is no circumference. There is no horizon, just the underlying ground of being that we will never understand. We can only sense its effects, which is what Taoism describes. The way is formed by the interplay of heaven and earth.
Two intelligent gentlemen engaged in a knife fight, thank you both very much Dr. Cooper, and John, looking forward to your response and interpretation Paul, Dr. VanderKlay
💓Love is the point 😍
45:15 how about belief vs thought.
I think belief IS an action. Thinking isn’t. This is JBP’s big point (and Rilke and St. Gregory of Nyssa). Being vs having.
I would propose that you are what you believe. You are not (yet) what you think.
How do you action believing in something? I don't think it's us that can action a change of belief. I think when someone's beliefs change it's because of an observed change in ones environment, and one's posture towards that change .
I think that thinking is demonstrably an action. You may ask me to think about what a sunflower looks like, and I can do that.
Are you equating being/believing and having/thinking? I think it's a bit of an awkward translation because I don't think you can be belief, maybe your beliefs can orient your being. But I do think you can have thoughts, yeah.
I'd be eager to hear what you think of this 🙂.
Thought as all the ideas we have in the realm of possibilities vs. Belief as when we become convinced of one of those ideas and so it becomes part of what we are...
I wonder if we aren't being infected by our scientific epistemology here. The practice of breaking things down into their constituent parts is really useful for understanding how they work. But it necessarily obscures the dynamic/systemic nature of existence itself. Dissecting a frog can tell you a great deal, but it cannot tell you what a living frog is. Breaking thought, belief, knowledge, and action apart gives genuine insight but unless we put them back together we delude ourselves into thinking we comprehend them.
20:11 you almost said this like Brad Pitt in Inglorious Bastards.
Let us remember what secularism is. Secularism is not just segregating religious life into the private sphere. It is rather the determination of the state of what religion is and is not, where and how it can be exercised. In terms of political theology, secularism is the murder of God by the State. The state can delimit, limit, exclude or curtail any religious practice, and thus has the power to determine the quality and quantity of the religious sphere as it sees fit. This is because the state is the ultimate sovereign, with its own reason for existence - what we call reason of state or raison d’etat, a relatively new concept in the long stretch of human history.
It cannot be seriously proposed that someone's ideas can only be discussed on their own terms and conditions...
A model disagreement, that you for showing us how to do it docs.
King Solomon was given by God "a wise and discerning heart." So, he was able to recognize the true, the good, and the beautiful (my inference). Yet later on he turned away from God. So, perhaps at one point he ceased to participate in what he recognized to be true, good, and beautiful because he participated in love of "many foreign women" even though God had given the command not to intermarry with these women "because they would cause the Israelites to give their loyalty to other gods."
Long before Solomon, when Eve looked at the forbidden fruit tree, she saw that "the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise." So, again I infer, she recognized the good, the beautiful, and the true. Yet, it was exactly that recognition that pushed her into participation with the devil.
I see that both stories demonstrate that the recognition of the true, the good, and the beautiful and participation are somehow not enough to bring humans out of chaos/meaning crisis.
Something else is required.
Can you do a deep dive of the 7 letters to the 7 churches in the book of Revelation?
Distinct variation between them and an outline of Church history.
Each church representing an era from the early Church to modern times.
That's not really JV's discipline. He's not a theologian. This would be like asking Pope Francis about his thoughts on Quantum Mechanics, I doubt he has much to say on the topic.
This was brilliant. I'd personally put it in terms of the mistake of abandoning of the Natural Law as a guiding concept, but no matter, I think the basic idea is the same. The Euthryphro argument is also in play (it's just another way of making the case for a Natural Law).
Catholicism-->Protestantism -->Science-->American Revolution-->....Meaning Crisis?
Maybe none of these at all?
But the growth of new languages and institutions.
The very essence of the mystery of consciousness and meaning.
The point may be that Luther was about institutionalism in the Western World?
Dare I say that yes the self loathing is there but no it doesnt distort the view, or position, but rather that its a feature of the view or position?
Christ implies the importance of receptivity when he tells his disciples not to cast pearls to swine
A fool’s wrath is instant (hmm) our prudent brothers come back to mind together; always/later.
and so, we may expect the appropriate receptivity of The One, by respecting (resurrecting the archetypes - of the “old g*ds”) the gaps in the overall hole in the hearts; for g*d, Christ, spirit.
🔺
in other the words the hole is filled with
🔻
(Actually) everything and gnothing
23:48 - from a lovable truth
Being moved by most of your sentences I feel you are a person to listen to.
Coming from the intent to share details about living that I feel important
to the topic (and with some hope for reply).
I take the approach of distinguishing the enemy from the person.
There are 2 categories of enemies in my opinion:
1. Systems that ignore important use cases
2. Adopted behavior on understanding to any person's mind, which is not
used properly in some situations.
Once those are your enemies, people become both carriers and the tools for
clearing themselves and other of those elements. So, the attitude to criticism must be to consider both you and the critic a team combating the same enemies.
All disagreements are not related to the criticized subject, and only related to
the communication abilities of the team.
It's a bit more precises than finding the lovable truth about the person, though
I feel a person reveals or exposes you to lovable truths once cooperation takes an effect.
Luther unleashed the genie of secular liberalism and democracy. The unity of Christians were fractured and everyone became a priest, lost of hierarchy. The church was no longer the head, secular liberal democracy became the head. Secularism became the foundational ground from which theological discourse is generated. Law and morality were separated, secular liberal democratic government became the sovereign Lord and the law giver, ethics and morality were excommunicated and expelled into the domain of the private practice of the individual. Secular liberalism is essentially assimilationist in the public domain, it's not a neutral ground.
Somebody didn't watch JBC's initial response video... 'Secular Liberal Democracy became the head'. Where did Luther say anything of the sort.
1:01:20 “Forced, deceived, or persuaded” what about woos us, or attracts us to taste and see that the LORD is good!”
That’s suasion in persuasion.
But the fragmentation you think you are identifying is just based on propositional differences. If the church is a participatory thing, then the fragmentations are less now in my opinion, as people are willing to talk, cooperate in what they can, love each other, etc. You seem to assume that Rome is the church. Luther didn't undermine the authority of the church, he undermined the Roman hegemony over the church. People didn't love each other more before Luther, nor did they immediately start to, but I'd say the love is greater today, among Christians.
Luther has generated zombies that now wakes up as "new" pagans...
The real meat comes after min. 52ish in the True, Good and the Beautiful discussion. It’s happening with V.