Sola Gratia: Grace Alone (Five Solas)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 бер 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
This video is part of a series of talks I delivered in the five solas of the Reformation. In this lecture, I discuss the sufficiency of grace in conversion.
Loving these sola series!
A very edifying lecture Dr. Cooper! Someone already responded in another comment asking if you could talk a little more in depth about the rewards in heaven for our works. I join that request, if you have the time I would be very grateful.
I've listened to almost every video on your channel and I think this is the first time I've heard you speak about being rewarded in heaven for you good works. I'd love to hear more about that as it's something often brought up by Roman Catholics in defense of work's based salvation.
Exactly. De Servo Arbitrio and Luther's charge/compliment to Erasmus about alone identifying the core is essential.
This was helpful. Thank you Dr. Cooper.
I'd love an exploration of Semi-Pelagianism vs. Neo-Pelagianism (if there be such a thing)
And you make an interesting point about the EO position. You're right: they won't say that they're Semi-Pelagian, but they "tend towards it." Would love to hear an elaboration on this. I think you're right. But I found it hard to explain why Orthodoxy felt both "hard and gentle" and had me focusing more on sins.
I also appreciated the distinction between "Monergistic Justification" vs. "Monergistic Sanctification."
I think you're right that historically the Church has held to "Synergistic Sanctification." But there is a newer movement that comes out of Reformed Baptist soteriology that is pushing for Monergistic Sanctification. Even Monergistic Glorification. They are smaller pockets within non-denominational (and sometimes Restorationist) Christianity. But they exist.
They are people like John Lynch, Matt McMillen, Ralph Harris, Andrew Farley. These guys were influenced by people like Dan Stone and Greg Smith, who wrote "The Rest of the Gospel" and were Dallas Baptist Theological Seminarians.
Would be great to hear your thoughts on this movement.
Unfortunately Dr. Cooper confuses synergism with semi-pelagianism. In semi-pelagianism grace and free-will are two mutually exclusive and independent agents that work together - God provides grace but it is up to us to freely work together with it or not. In Synergism, on the other hand, our freedom depends on grace. Augustine wrote:
“The human will does not obtain grace through its freedom, but RATHER FREEDOM THROUGH GRACE”. (Augustine: Rebuke and Grace 8.17, in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, page 478)
The fact that Augustine taught synergism is shown in what he wrote (Emphasis in capital is mine):
“But God made you without you. You didn’t, after all, give any consent to God making you. How were you to consent, if you didn’t yet exist? So while he made you without you, he doesn’t justify you without you. So he made you without your knowing it, HE JUSTIFIES YOU WITH YOUR WILLING CONSENT TO IT.” (Augustine: Sermon 169.13, The Works of Saint Augustine: sermons III/5 (148-183), page 231)
Love your lectures Dr. Cooper, keep them up!
Thank you Dr Cooper!
That was just a great historical analysis. God bless JC!
Could you make a video on the salvation of heretics?
I am curious about Rev 3:20, where Jesus is saying he's knocking at the door. Doesn't this imply that we have to choose to open the door or not? Thank you to anyone who can help
@DrJordanBCooper , seems to me, Prosper of Aquitaine picks up on horse and rider metaphor to discuss the will from Plato's use of charioteer imagery in Phaedrus to discuss faculties of the soul, etc.
🐣have you heard about or seen ,laid eyes on this ,A New RicCommunity Lutheran Church "Reconciling works Lutheran for full Participation." Brother get a grip ,I fell to the floor. Ok I got up again..
2nd View!
Luther wrote (emphasis in capital is mine):
On the other hand in relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, A MAN HAS NO FREE CHOICE, BUT IS A CAPTIVE, SUBJECT AND SLAVE EITHER OF THE WILL OF GOD OR THE WILL OF SATAN. (Luther: The Bondage of the Will, 1525, Luther’s Works, Vol. 33, page 70)
We are not masters of our actions, from beginning to end, but servants (Thesis 39 of Luther: Disputation Against Scholastic Theology, 1517, Luther’s Works Vol. 31, page 11)
Thus the human will is placed between the two like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it wills and goes where God wills, as the psalm says: “I am become as a beast [before thee] and I am always with thee” [Psalms 73:22]. If Satan rides it, it wills and goes where Satan wills; NOR CAN IT CHOOSE TO RUN TO EITHER OF THE TWO RIDERS OR TO SEEK HIM OUT, BUT THE RIDERS THEMSELVES CONTEND FOR THE POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF IT.
(Luther: The Bondage of the Will, 1525, Luther’s Works, Vol. 33 pp. 65 - 66).
For if God is in us, Satan is absent, and only a good-will is present; if God is absent, Satan is present, and only an
evil-will is in us. (Luther: The Bondage of the Will, 1525, Luther’s Works, Vol. 33 page 112).
I don't think what he wrote above are in agreement with what Augustine taught. Dr. Cooper said that the Book of Concord says there is synergism in (Lutheran) sanctification. In contrast Luther wrote (emphasis in capital is mine)
In just the same way (our answer continues), before man is changed into a new creature of the Kingdom of the Spirit, HE DOES NOTHING AND ATTEMPTS NOTHING TO PREPARE HIMSELF for this renewal and this Kingdom, and WHEN HE HAS BEEN RECREATED HE DOES NOTHING AND ATTEMPTS NOTHING TOWARD REMAINING IN THIS KINGDOM, BUT THE SPIRIT ALONE DOES BOTH OF THESE THINGS IN US, recreating us without us and preserving us without our help in our recreated state, as also James says: “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of his power, that we might be a beginning of his creature” [James 1:18]-speaking of the renewed creature.
(Luther: The Bondage of the Will, 1525, Luther’s Works, Vol. 33 , page 243)
It seems to me Luther taught monergism from start to end. Any comment, Dr. Cooper?
Okay look at it like this. How can there be a 'Faith Alone', if there is also 'Grace Alone'? They ultimately require each other and are therefore not alone.
Come on. Really? It's salvation *by* grace alone *through* faith alone. It's grace alone because it's only *by* faith. It's faith alone because it's only *through* faith. (That is to say it's only *through* faith that we are given access to God's grace)
@@4jgarner You just gave *two Alones* though. There's no way the original Sola's had in mind what we have turned them into in our modern times and translations. ie: maybe Sola in their context translates to something like 'in Simple terms'.
@@AlphaOmega888it’s a paradox!
It's a catchy slogan, not a theological essay
"Through" and "by" are largely interchangeable prepositions as well, making the solas even more incoherent. Nothing but word games from the Lutherans.@@AlphaOmega888
The problem with sola gratia is that when its taken to its furthest logical conclusion it destroys freewill and replaces it with one will, the divine will.
And once there is only a singular will that will becomes the source of evil in the universe.
Scripture teaches God is indeed sovereign, yet mankind has free will. There is no contradiction there. Genesis: Evil men using their free will threw Joseph in a pit. But the text says God willed it for good i.e. bring about his purposes. What are you going on about?
@@dionsanchez2775 Can man use free will to choose the good?
Does man ever decide that he will seek God?
I think I see your point, but I also think you might be confusing "sola gratia" with "sola fide." We can only "decide" to seek God by the grace of the Holy Spirit.
@@drewpanyko5424 That's the whole Premise of Luther's bondage of the Will.
The effect theologically is that the righteous are better likened to random survivors of a general slaughter than as Paul's analogy of those who ran their race well.
@@Catholic-Perennialist interesting analogy! Regardless, I think the fact that Lutheran soteriology refutes "once saved always saved" makes any perceived dilemma less problematic (at least for me). That salvation may be lost through our own sinfulness makes it less fatalistic, and more biblical, than what I think you are asserting.
LUTHER'S TEACHING VS THE FORMULA OF CONCORD'S TEACHING
Luther's teaching in The Bondage of the Will:
God foreknows everything that's going to happen.
God wills everything to happen that He foreknows.
God's foreknowledge necessitates what happens.
God has predestined everything that happens.
God has predestined everybody to be either saved or damned.
Christ's atonement is universal but the Holy Spirit doesn't operate universally through the Word.
God irresistibly regenerates by the Holy Spirit through the Word those who are predestined to be saved, and He withholds the Holy Spirit from those who are predestined to be damned.
God has determined everyone's eternal destiny in either heaven or hell and people can't determine their own destiny.
Conclusion: God causes and wills everything and He's therefore omnipotent.
The Formula of Concord's teaching:
God foreknows everything that's going to happen.
God doesn't will to happen everything He foreknows will happen.
God doesn't will evil to happen.
God's foreknowledge doesn't necessitate what happens.
God hasn't predestined everything to happen.
God has predestined that some people are to be saved but hasn't predestined anyone to be damned.
Christ's atonement is universal and God tries to regenerate everyone by the Holy Spirit working through the Word.
Those who are damned have resisted being regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
God has only determined the destiny of those who are saved in heaven as those who are damned have determined their own destiny in hell.
Conclusion: God doesn't cause everything and some things happen against His will and therefore He isn't omnipotent.
Question: Which position is true and Scriptural?
Answer: What Luther teaches in The Bondage of the Will is true and Scriptural, and what the Formula of Concord teaches isn't.
So you affirm universal atonement, yes?
@@SeanusAurelius Yes I hold that Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world and that the Gospel offers forgiveness to all. However not all can respond in faith because the Father doesn't draw everyone to Christ by the Holy Spirit (John 6:44), and those that the Holy Spirit doesn't irresistibly convert are predestined to be damned.
God appears unjust in not electing to save everyone by His hidden will, but Scripture teaches that only the elect will be saved and the rest will be damned, and such damnation can't happen without God’s will as He’s omnipotent and determines what happens. His desire to save everyone through the Gospel by His revealed will doesn't detract from the truth that some are predestined by Him to be damned. We'll only be able to see how He is acting justly in the next life.
The Five Solas are a contradiction because, if each of the tenets are alone, then it doesn't needs any other Sola.
That is a terrible understanding of the five solas
@@Chulama-qk9foI fully understand each Sola. I used to be Reformed. What is contradictory is using the term Sola (which means alone) and grouping 5 of them together. It makes no sense. Each individual Sola can be quite thoroughly debunked. But it requires an open mind.
@@N1IA-4 even the Catholics hold to two of them. Please tell me your understanding of them.
And I suppose it's impossible to have only one dad, only one mum, only one spouse and only one son?
Or on snakes and ladders, the snakes alone bringing one down and the ladders alone bringing them up?
Or that the Eucharist alone in the sacramental meal, Jesus alone the Father's begotten son, His cross alone the true cross?
Besides the fact that the solas were first collated last century, it's easily possible to have multiple things 'alone' together if they are of different categories.
With respect, the solas each concern themselves with and speak to unique soteriological "spheres", not to the exclusion of any others in their own. Sola scriptura for example as the sole means of authoritative revelation, does not speak against that alone which propitiates the wrath of God against sin, ie sola Christus. Similarly, God's sovereign and monergistic disposition to effect human salvation in sola gratia through Christ, does not speak against the means alone through which He accomplishes this in or towards us, ie sola fide. Etc.