@JeP-lz4ti oh my, yes. The number of critques I see by Catholics of Martin Luther as a person, let alone any of his teachings, used against all Protestants, not only just Lutherins, is astonishing. It's like a lot of them actually think he's the 1st Pope of Protestantism or something. Which of course means they don't even understand that one of the main reasons Protestants broke away in the first place was precisely because they believed there was no such thing as a "Pope," at least not in the way Catholics understood.
@@JustAskingQuestions8571 The most common one I see is “Martin Luther removed books from the Bible.” Others are taking him out of context such as “sin boldly.”
We only follow Luther or any man as he sincerely followed Christ. We recognize wholeheartedly Luther was far from perfect and had a fallen corrupt human nature to battle as we all do.
Hand-waiving the objection with a general and unspecific "well we are all sinners" does not move the conversation forward. Any group can say the same thing (ie Methodists can say the same thing about John Wesley, he was imperfect, etc).
@@N1IA-4 it is simple: Christ died for us, Wesley, Luther, Calvin,____(fill in the blank) did not. They were not crucified for us. . The apostle Paul said to follow him only as he followed Christ. Luther would say the same.
@@mmtas1995 You miss the main point that a faith tradition named after any man certainly makes it appear less than the original faith. And many times in life, Occam's Razor is true (the simplest answer is usually the best and truest).
Dr. Luther is to be regarded as the chief teacher of the churches that confess the Augsburg Confession. His entire doctrine in sum and substance is embraced in the articles of the frequently mentioned Augsburg Confession, which was presented to Emperor Charles V. Therefore, the proper meaning and sense of the oft-mentioned Augsburg Confession can and should be derived from no other source more properly and correctly than from the doctrinal and polemical writings of Dr. Luther. Formula: SD, art. vii, par. 41
It'll be something Lutherans have to deal with as long as the title exists. The Catholics have the same issue with the Pope and the Reformed traditions with Calvin. When the first believers were called Christians it's because they claimed to follow the way of Jesus Christ and thus would have to "defend" anything that Christ said. Id rather have the problem of being ridiculed by what Christ said than what was said by those other leaders of the faith.
@@N1IA-4The Catholics are the ones who named their opponents “Lutherans” and “Calvinists”, so they can’t really use the name as a talking point. That’s like if I could somehow convince everyone else to refer to you as Dummie Dumb Dumb, and then I start refuting everything you say by arguing, “Well, with a name like that, he can’t possibly be smart.”
They don't. Luther did not believe in the "no physical death before the fall" business. "Luther's Works" American edition vol 1, p 47 "On Page 92 he posits that the Tree of Life was put in the garden to keep Adam and Eve in “full bodily vigor, free from diseases and free from weariness”. Freedom from physical death was not baked into the cake of the world before the fall, it was something available due to access to the Tree of Life. " There is more but that should get folks thinking.
Dr. Cooper said that the name "Lutheran" was given by opponents within Rome. Then why would he take the name given by the opponents? If he detaches yourself from what Luther taught or he cherry picks what he can agree from his teaching, then he should adopt different name.
I will let two of our theologians answer this question: "We do not call ourselves Lutherans, but are so styled by our enemies, and we permit it as a token of our consent with the pure teaching of the word which Luther set forth. We suffer ourselves to bear his name, not as of one who has invented a new faith, but of one who has restored the old, and purified the Church [emphasis original]." - Johann Gerhard Charles Krauth also states: "In Poland and Hungary, the official title of our communion is ‘CHURCH OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION,’ and this is the name which, on the title-page of the Form [sic] of Concord, and repeatedly within it, is given to our churches."
@@fernandoduranmanzano Excellent answer but as pointed out by Dr. Cooper those who refer themselves as Lutheran may not follow what Charles Kraut referred as his pure teaching of the word.
@@fernandoduranmanzano I found the following statement made by Luther: In the first place, I ask that men make no reference to my name; let them call themselves Christians, not Lutherans. Source: Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 45 : The Christian in Society II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 45 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 70. True, by any consideration of body or soul you should never say: I am Lutheran, or Papist. For neither of them died for you, or is your master. Christ alone died for you, he alone is your master, and you should confess yourself a Christian. But if you are convinced that Luther’s teaching is in accord with the gospel and that the pope’s is not, then you should not discard Luther so completely, lest with him you discard also his teaching, which you nevertheless recognize as Christ’s teaching. You should rather say: Whether Luther is a rascal or a saint I do not care; his teaching is not his, but Christ’s. Source: Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 36: Word and Sacrament II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 36 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 265.
@@justfromcatholic Yes, I believe it is one of Luther's best known quotes. As Dr Cooper commented and the theologians I quoted in my answer, the term "Lutheran" took root as a way of differentiating themselves, not only from Roman Catholicism, but also from other movements that emerged from the Protestant Reformation. Rather than looking at it from a pejorative perspective, for Lutherans, the term itself has become synonymous with "orthodoxy" and "catholicity", not belonging to a particular group or following a particular person. In the years of the struggle against the Arian heresy, those who held the catholic and orthodox faith were called "Athanasians", in fact the Creed that confesses this faith is still called the "Athanasian Creed". In the Lutheran confessions, they do not speak of a "Lutheran" church, but refer to it as the "true and genuine Catholic Church", they speak of a church that is "evangelical" and "catholic".
@@justfromcatholic Yes, I believe it is one of Luther's best known quotes. As Dr Cooper commented and the theologians I quoted in my answer, the term "Lutheran" took root as a way of differentiating themselves, not only from Roman Catholicism, but also from other movements that emerged from the Protestant Reformation. Rather than looking at it from a pejorative perspective, for Lutherans, the term itself has become synonymous with "orthodoxy" and "catholicity", not belonging to a particular group or following a particular person. In the years of the struggle against the Arian heresy, those who held the catholic and orthodox faith were called "Athanasians", in fact the Creed that confesses this faith is still called the "Athanasian Creed". In the Lutheran confessions, they do not speak of a "Lutheran" church, but refer to it as the "true and genuine Catholic church", they speak of a church that is "evangelical" and "catholic".
Well, I don't know if Lutherans have to agree with Luther, but I do know that Luther didn't agree with Lutherans. When people started calling themselves that, he rebuked them for doing so, and wrote, "I beg of you, leave my name alone!" "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? " (1Cor 1:12-13)
Dr. Cooper speaking at 0:47 - 0:52 "... instead we are bound to the Lutheran Confessions as found in the Book of Concord." Response: 1. Martin Luther's 1537 Smalcald Articles were added to the Book of Concord in 1580, which is authoritative in Lutheranism. From the Smalcald Articles, Part Two, Article 2 - Of The Mass: "That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious." [From the Gutenberg webpage /files/273/273-h/273-h.htm#link2H_4_0004] 2. From the authoritative Lutheran Book of Concord's Smalcald Articles, Part Two, Article 4 - Of The Papacy: "This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2, 4." [From the Gutenberg webpage /files/273/273-h/273-h.htm#link2H_4_0004] 3. I assume, Dr. Cooper, that you are bound to the original 1530 Augsburg Confession penned by Philipp Melancthon and not his Altered Augsburg Confession (Lat. Confessio Augustana Variata) that John Calvin signed in 1540. It was further revised in 1542. Quoting Wikipedia: The most important difference between the Variata and the Augsburg Confession is in the theology of Real Presence. The Unaltered Augsburg Confession states: "Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed (communicated) to those that eat in the Lord's Supper. And they disapprove of those that teach otherwise." Altered Augsburg Confession states: "Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that 'WITH' BREAD AND WINE are truly exhibited the body and blood of Christ to those that eat in the Lord's Supper." 4. Since I have a great respect for Philipp Melancthon who is honored as Praeceptor Germaniae (first national educator), I've always been curious: Did he (A) actually abandon Martin Luther's teaching on the Last Supper, or was he (B) simply attempting a reconciliation with the Swiss Reformers by altering the Augsburg Confession while Luther was still alive?
As a Lutheran 1. yes the Mass in the Papacy, which was used as a tool to gain merit and often described as the Priest re-sacrificing Christ to the Father, is an abomination (the first was addressed at Trent, and talking to Roman Catholics now, the second seems to have been addressed somewhen too). Not sure why you mentioned this? 2. yes the pope is the antichrist (one who puts himself before/against Christ), there is argument that today's popes have changed in nature and so might not be antichrist. 3 & 4. the Variata was intended to compromise teaching for the sake of unity; the general understanding is that Philipp may not have moved in conviction but was happy to compromise with Calvin (and so the term philippist generally refers to one who compromises the truth for the sake of unity; like the union churches in Europe). Also not sure why you didn't highlight the big change in that "the body and blood are only exhibited in those that eat", a shift away from the Lutheran "is means is".
Thanks. 1. What compounds this puzzling Altered and Unaltered Augsburg Confession question is that previously, in 1529, Philipp Melancthon with Martin Luther attended the Marburg Colloquy and they both signed its 15 Articles. 2. The Marbury Colloquy was conducted at the behest of ruling Philip I of Hessen who desired Protestant unity and he drew together all available continental Reformers. 3. All were able to reach complete agreement on 14 of the articles but not the 15th, On the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, that contains the following 'agree to disagree' clause: "Fifteenth, regarding the Last Supper of our dear Lord Jesus Christ ... AND ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO AGREE AT THIS TIME, WHETHER THE TRUE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST ARE CORPORALLY PRESENT IN THE BREAD AND WINE [OF COMMUNION] each party should display towards the other Christian love, as far as each respective conscience allows, and both should persistently ask God the Almighty for guidance so that through his Spirit he might bring us to a proper understanding. Amen." Martin Luther Justus Jonas Philipp Melanchthon Andreas Osiander Stephan Agricola Johannes Brenz Johannes Oecolampadius Huldrich Zwingli Martin Bucer Caspar Hedio Source: D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Band 30, Teil 3. Weimar, 1910, pp. 160-71. Translation: Ellen Yutzy Glebe [ The Marburg Colloquy - The Marburg Articles (1529), page 2 of 2; germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org /docpage.cfm?docpage_id=5245 ] 4. It was Luther's corporeal view versus Zwingli's symbolist view that could not be reconciled and this disagreement produced the first major rupture in Protestantism between the Lutheran and Reformed movements that never healed. The Swiss symbolist view penetrated Church of England Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles of Religion and it subsequently predominated in all of the other English speaking Protestant movements. 5. I have no reason to doubt that all of the ten signers of the 1529 Marburg Articles including Philipp Melancthon "persistently ask(ed) God the Almighty for guidance so that through his Spirit he might bring us to a proper understanding" but for Protestants over the past five centuries, has this agreed "proper understanding" been bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit? Did Philipp Melancthon believe he was being led by the Holy Spirit when he altered his original Augsburg Confession while Martin Luther was still alive?
The same could be said for Calvinists, you could find, single predestination and physical presence within the reformed tradition albeit. This would not be strict adherence to the WCF. A argument could be made for such things. That being said I have met 5 point Lutherans and Lutheranistic Calvinists albeit a minority it seems
Oh yeah. Ask a Baptist Calvinist if he agrees with Calvin on the sacraments, or even absolution. Modern Wesleyans are similar in that Wesley's doctrines of the sacraments are far closer to Luther or Rome than they are the modern Methodist or Nazarene who embrace the Zwinglian/evangelicalism view of baptism and the Lord's supper. But the thing to remember is that ANY Christian, if he is being honest, ultimately listens to a person as well as the Scriptures, to one degree or another. We are all influenced by preachers and theologians; no honest Christian can claim to "only" listen to Scripture. Now, obviously, the pastors and scholars we should heed ought to be as in line with the Bible as possible. But nevertheless it's a display of hubris and a roundabout degree of dishonesty to state that one "only listens to God and never man."
Yeah, I, for example, basically agree with all the orthodox reformed tradition in everything but unconditional election & limited atonement (and thus irresistible grace). I think Arminius went a bit too far, but I still think that the intuitu fidei way of thinking is the way to go, specifically that of the 17th century Lutheran scholastics. I would affirm the Belgic confession and the Heidelberg catechism, but not Dort or the WCF. We all have hybrid theologies to an extent lol. I’m leaning closer and closer to simply accepting age of orthodoxy Lutheranism (as opposed to modern Waltherian Lutheranism) though.
@@TheOtherCaleb Embrace Lutheranism! Being Lutheran is better than Arminian anyway. Modern day Arminians have lost their way, and tend to give all law with no gospel.
The disagreement I have with those who identify as confessional Lutherans is that they claim to be in agreement with Luther's teachings on predestination and grace when in reality this isn't the case. They claim that the teaching of the Formula of Concord is in accordance with what Luther taught when this can be seen to be untrue from The Bondage of the Will. Luther maintained in this book that God has willed and predestined everything that happens and that people are predestined to be saved and damned. Many Lutherans try to deny this and claim that Luther was in agreement with single predestination and the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace when this isn't the case. Lutherans are not actually in agreement with Luther despite the fact that they say they are. Of course if those who identify as confessional Lutherans acknowledged that they're not in agreement with Luther on grace and predestination this would inevitably result in people concluding that they're not actually Lutherans, which is true because they follow the teachings of Martin Chemnitz in The Formula of Concord and not Luther when it comes to grace and predestination. The problem is that Chemnitz and those who followed him up to the present day have continued to claim that Luther was in agreement with the teaching of single predestination, and now it's almost impossible for them to correct this mistake because it would mean that they would have to acknowledge that they’ve been in error since 1580. It would also mean that they would have to acknowledge that the Formula of Concord represents a departure from the beliefs of Luther and the early Lutherans on predestination. This is hardly likely to happen. My position is that it's not necessary for Lutherans to be in complete agreement with Luther on everything he said, but on such a central issue as predestination and grace it is necessary to be in agreement with him if one is to be a genuine Lutheran. Luther strongly maintained against Erasmus that Scripture teaches that God has predestined people to hell so in order to be a true Lutheran it's necessary to also be in agreement that Scripture teaches predestination to hell (as I do myself). The fact that confessional Lutherans reject predestination to hell means that in reality they're not Lutherans.
@@Galmala94 Luther was rightly convinced that the subject of predestination is completely central because it teaches that we can't come to faith and be saved unless God has first chosen us to be saved and has elected to save us in eternity. This was also Paul's conviction as he writes in his letters that God has chosen us to be saved and that everything happens according to His will and predestination (e.g. Ephesians 1). The idea that whether we're saved or damned depends on human decision making is untrue. Scripture teaches monergism not synergism. The Formula of Concord compromises this truth by asserting that damnation is caused by human resistance to being converted and not by God choosing not to save a person. Predestination to heaven can't exist on its own as God's choice of who to save automatically involves the decision by God not to save everyone but to leave some unsaved who are therefore predestined to be damned. To argue that God can choose to save only some people and that this doesn't mean that God elects to leave the others in their sins so that they're damned, is completely illogical and can’t possibly be true. Romans 9 teaches double predestination. Paul says that God has mercy only on some people whilst hardening others in their unbelief, which then causes people to complain that God is being unjust in blaming people for their unbelief when He wills that they be unbelievers (verse 19). Since God wills that some people remain in their unbelief and be hardened in it, it follows that He wills to damn them, and since everything He does in time He decided to do in eternity it follows they're predestined to be damned. Paul confirmed the truth of double predestination when he likened God to a potter who makes vessels of honour and dishonour (e.g. vases and chamber pots) with the former referring to those who are saved, and the latter to those who are damned. (9:20-21).
@@Edward-ng8oo "The Formula of Concord compromises this truth by asserting that damnation is caused by human resistance to being converted and not by God choosing not to save a person" And Calvinism absolves the reprobate of all responsibility. In Calvinism, a reprobate's disbelief in the gospel cannot even be a sin. Jesus didn't die for him, so he doesn't even have the gospel to believe. Calvinism compromises the truth of the Bible when it denies that - Jesus died for all (John 1:29, John 3:16, 1. Tim. 2:3-6, 1. Tim 4:10, Titus 2:11, Hebr. 2:9, 1. John 2:2 etc.) - God wants all to be saved (pretty much the same Bible passages as above) - People can resist God's grace (Luke 7:29-30, Luke 7:29-30, Acts 7:51-53, Acts 13:44-46 etc.) "Romans 9 teaches double predestination" No it does not. I recommend watching Jordan Cooper's video on the subject. If Paul is teaching Calvinism in Romans 9, he is saying that he is more merciful than God. Romans 9:3 tells how Paul would be willing to sacrifice himself for the unbelieving Jews. However, the Calvinist false Jesus did not do this. God predestined them to hell, yet inspired Paul to write that Paul would be willing to sacrifice himself for them. Makes sense. A Calvinist reads Romans 9 out of context, and doesn't even read the whole chapter. Paul draws his own conclusions from the passage in Romans 9:30-33. "What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works" In Romans 10 Paul writes: "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" All day long God has held out his hands to people whom he had predestinated to hell? Yeah, right. Romans 11:11 "So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous" According to Calvinists, Paul teaches that God has predestined unbelieving Jews in Romans 9 to hell, but Paul later writes that this is NOT the case. Romans 11:32 "For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all." Amen.
@@Galmala94 I agree that Scripture teaches that Christ died for all and not just the elect and that through Christ God desires to save everyone, however I also agree with Luther that God has a hidden will through which He has omnipotently willed and predestined everything that happens (including that people are predestined to be saved and damned), and this is separate from His revealed will. The problem with confessional Lutherans is that they don't properly distinguish between these two wills and wrongly conclude that because God desires to save everyone through the Gospel this means He hasn't predestined anyone to be damned. This is false and Luther shows that this is false in The Bondage of the Will by proving from Scripture that God has predestined to happen everything that occurs. For instance on the basis of John 6:44 he rightly maintained that the Father only gives the Holy Spirit through the Word to those He wills to convert and that conversion happens irresistibly. He was opposed to the teaching that the Holy Spirit operates universally through the Word and that the Father wills to convert everyone through the Holy Spirit. I would also like to add that John 6:64-65 confirms that Luther was right as Christ says people are unbelievers because the Father hasn't granted them the ability to believe. People can of course resist the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the Word as did the Pharisees but it's not possible to resist being regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the Word. If this was possible then God couldn't predestine anyone to be saved as everyone through original sin is naturally resistant to God and would resist being converted. So conversion has to be irresistible in that God must change our wills so that we willingly believe in Christ. With respect to Romans 11:32 (For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. ESV), this verse refers only to those God has elected to save. The context shows that he was meaning that both the elect Jews and the elect gentiles had been consigned to disobedience but that God has mercy on all of them (i.e. both elect Jews and elect gentiles) not on all people in general. It's impossible that Paul was referring to everyone in the world as this would contradict what he said previously in Romans 9. Romans 9:15-18 ESV - For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
@@Galmala94 Incidentally I’m in agreement with all the teaching contained in the Book of Concord (except for the FC) and agree with Luther's teaching in The Bondage of the Will so I personally identify as being Lutheran in belief.
Can a clean thing come from an unclean thing? If you disavow your founder, how can you justify your position? The man, Luther, founded his own communion by virtue of his idiosyncratic view of soteriology. This alone is cause to reject Lutheranism, as such.
@@Catholic-Perennialist "Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord's Supper." JOSEPH RATZINGER (POPE BENEDICT XVI)
Lutherans don't have a doctrine of infallibility for Luther?!? It's like critics of Luther don't understand theology.
People do the same thing with John Calvin against the Reformed tradition.
@JeP-lz4ti oh my, yes. The number of critques I see by Catholics of Martin Luther as a person, let alone any of his teachings, used against all Protestants, not only just Lutherins, is astonishing.
It's like a lot of them actually think he's the 1st Pope of Protestantism or something.
Which of course means they don't even understand that one of the main reasons Protestants broke away in the first place was precisely because they believed there was no such thing as a "Pope," at least not in the way Catholics understood.
@@JustAskingQuestions8571 The most common one I see is “Martin Luther removed books from the Bible.” Others are taking him out of context such as “sin boldly.”
@@JeP-lz4ti yup. It takes two seconds to verify he didn't even take the apocrypha out, he just put it at the end.
It would be appropriate to say that Luther believed in what Lutherans say about the Christian faith.
People do the same with Calvin and claim you have to believe everything he said or else you're not really a Calvinist.
Who cares this is about Luther
@@Dilley_G45I, I carr
We only follow Luther or any man as he sincerely followed Christ. We recognize wholeheartedly Luther was far from perfect and had a fallen corrupt human nature to battle as we all do.
Hand-waiving the objection with a general and unspecific "well we are all sinners" does not move the conversation forward. Any group can say the same thing (ie Methodists can say the same thing about John Wesley, he was imperfect, etc).
@@N1IA-4 it is simple: Christ died for us, Wesley, Luther, Calvin,____(fill in the blank) did not. They were not crucified for us. . The apostle Paul said to follow him only as he followed Christ. Luther would say the same.
@@mmtas1995 You miss the main point that a faith tradition named after any man certainly makes it appear less than the original faith. And many times in life, Occam's Razor is true (the simplest answer is usually the best and truest).
Dr. Luther is to be regarded as the chief teacher of the churches that confess the Augsburg Confession. His entire doctrine in sum and substance is embraced in the articles of the frequently mentioned Augsburg Confession, which was presented to Emperor Charles V. Therefore, the proper meaning and sense of the oft-mentioned Augsburg Confession can and should be derived from no other source more properly and correctly than from the doctrinal and polemical writings of Dr. Luther. Formula: SD, art. vii, par. 41
oh wow
It'll be something Lutherans have to deal with as long as the title exists. The Catholics have the same issue with the Pope and the Reformed traditions with Calvin. When the first believers were called Christians it's because they claimed to follow the way of Jesus Christ and thus would have to "defend" anything that Christ said. Id rather have the problem of being ridiculed by what Christ said than what was said by those other leaders of the faith.
Catholics are not named after any man. That is the difference.
In Germany, the official title of the Protestant church associated with Martin Luther is the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, EKD.
@@N1IA-4 Catholics are accused of worshipping the pope. Im sure you cannot be that naive to popular argumentation.That is pop level arguments.
@@N1IA-4The Catholics are the ones who named their opponents “Lutherans” and “Calvinists”, so they can’t really use the name as a talking point. That’s like if I could somehow convince everyone else to refer to you as Dummie Dumb Dumb, and then I start refuting everything you say by arguing, “Well, with a name like that, he can’t possibly be smart.”
Yes😊
They don't. Luther did not believe in the "no physical death before the fall" business. "Luther's Works" American edition vol 1, p 47 "On Page 92 he posits that the Tree of Life was put in the garden to keep Adam and Eve in “full bodily vigor, free from diseases and free from weariness”. Freedom from physical death was not baked into the cake of the world before the fall, it was something available due to access to the Tree of Life. " There is more but that should get folks thinking.
Dr. Cooper said that the name "Lutheran" was given by opponents within Rome. Then why would he take the name given by the opponents? If he detaches yourself from what Luther taught or he cherry picks what he can agree from his teaching, then he should adopt different name.
I will let two of our theologians answer this question:
"We do not call ourselves Lutherans, but are so styled by our enemies, and we permit it as a token of our consent with the pure teaching of the word which Luther set forth. We suffer ourselves to bear his name, not as of one who has invented a new faith, but of one who has restored the old, and purified the Church [emphasis original]." - Johann Gerhard
Charles Krauth also states:
"In Poland and Hungary, the official title of our communion is ‘CHURCH OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION,’ and this is the name which, on the title-page of the Form [sic] of Concord, and repeatedly within it, is given to our churches."
@@fernandoduranmanzano Excellent answer but as pointed out by Dr. Cooper those who refer themselves as Lutheran may not follow what Charles Kraut referred as his pure teaching of the word.
@@fernandoduranmanzano I found the following statement made by Luther:
In the first place, I ask that men make no reference to my name; let them call themselves Christians, not Lutherans.
Source: Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 45 : The Christian in Society II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 45 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 70.
True, by any consideration of body or soul you should never say: I am Lutheran, or Papist. For neither of them died for you, or is your master. Christ alone died for you, he alone is your master, and you should confess yourself a Christian. But if you are convinced that Luther’s teaching is in accord with the gospel and that the pope’s is not, then you should not discard Luther so completely, lest with him you discard also his teaching, which you nevertheless recognize as Christ’s teaching. You should rather say: Whether Luther is a rascal or a saint I do not care; his teaching is not his, but Christ’s.
Source: Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 36: Word and Sacrament II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 36 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 265.
@@justfromcatholic Yes, I believe it is one of Luther's best known quotes. As Dr Cooper commented and the theologians I quoted in my answer, the term "Lutheran" took root as a way of differentiating themselves, not only from Roman Catholicism, but also from other movements that emerged from the Protestant Reformation. Rather than looking at it from a pejorative perspective, for Lutherans, the term itself has become synonymous with "orthodoxy" and "catholicity", not belonging to a particular group or following a particular person. In the years of the struggle against the Arian heresy, those who held the catholic and orthodox faith were called "Athanasians", in fact the Creed that confesses this faith is still called the "Athanasian Creed". In the Lutheran confessions, they do not speak of a "Lutheran" church, but refer to it as the "true and genuine Catholic Church", they speak of a church that is "evangelical" and "catholic".
@@justfromcatholic Yes, I believe it is one of Luther's best known quotes. As Dr Cooper commented and the theologians I quoted in my answer, the term "Lutheran" took root as a way of differentiating themselves, not only from Roman Catholicism, but also from other movements that emerged from the Protestant Reformation. Rather than looking at it from a pejorative perspective, for Lutherans, the term itself has become synonymous with "orthodoxy" and "catholicity", not belonging to a particular group or following a particular person. In the years of the struggle against the Arian heresy, those who held the catholic and orthodox faith were called "Athanasians", in fact the Creed that confesses this faith is still called the "Athanasian Creed". In the Lutheran confessions, they do not speak of a "Lutheran" church, but refer to it as the "true and genuine Catholic church", they speak of a church that is "evangelical" and "catholic".
Well, I don't know if Lutherans have to agree with Luther, but I do know that Luther didn't agree with Lutherans. When people started calling themselves that, he rebuked them for doing so, and wrote, "I beg of you, leave my name alone!"
"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? " (1Cor 1:12-13)
Its the whole point of Luther, sola scriptura means you can reject Luther where he is wrong (such as not rejecting the filioque).
@@Dilley_G45🗿
Dr. Cooper speaking at 0:47 - 0:52 "... instead we are bound to the Lutheran Confessions as found in the Book of Concord."
Response:
1. Martin Luther's 1537 Smalcald Articles were added to the Book of Concord in 1580, which is authoritative in Lutheranism.
From the Smalcald Articles, Part Two, Article 2 - Of The Mass: "That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious." [From the Gutenberg webpage /files/273/273-h/273-h.htm#link2H_4_0004]
2. From the authoritative Lutheran Book of Concord's Smalcald Articles, Part Two, Article 4 - Of The Papacy:
"This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2, 4."
[From the Gutenberg webpage /files/273/273-h/273-h.htm#link2H_4_0004]
3. I assume, Dr. Cooper, that you are bound to the original 1530 Augsburg Confession penned by Philipp Melancthon and not his Altered Augsburg Confession (Lat. Confessio Augustana Variata) that John Calvin signed in 1540. It was further revised in 1542.
Quoting Wikipedia:
The most important difference between the Variata and the Augsburg Confession is in the theology of Real Presence. The Unaltered Augsburg Confession states:
"Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed (communicated) to those that eat in the Lord's Supper. And they disapprove of those that teach otherwise."
Altered Augsburg Confession states:
"Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that 'WITH' BREAD AND WINE are truly exhibited the body and blood of Christ to those that eat in the Lord's Supper."
4. Since I have a great respect for Philipp Melancthon who is honored as Praeceptor Germaniae (first national educator), I've always been curious: Did he (A) actually abandon Martin Luther's teaching on the Last Supper, or was he (B) simply attempting a reconciliation with the Swiss Reformers by altering the Augsburg Confession while Luther was still alive?
As a Lutheran
1. yes the Mass in the Papacy, which was used as a tool to gain merit and often described as the Priest re-sacrificing Christ to the Father, is an abomination (the first was addressed at Trent, and talking to Roman Catholics now, the second seems to have been addressed somewhen too). Not sure why you mentioned this?
2. yes the pope is the antichrist (one who puts himself before/against Christ), there is argument that today's popes have changed in nature and so might not be antichrist.
3 & 4. the Variata was intended to compromise teaching for the sake of unity; the general understanding is that Philipp may not have moved in conviction but was happy to compromise with Calvin (and so the term philippist generally refers to one who compromises the truth for the sake of unity; like the union churches in Europe).
Also not sure why you didn't highlight the big change in that "the body and blood are only exhibited in those that eat", a shift away from the Lutheran "is means is".
A+ question
Thanks.
1. What compounds this puzzling Altered and Unaltered Augsburg Confession question is that previously, in 1529, Philipp Melancthon with Martin Luther attended the Marburg Colloquy and they both signed its 15 Articles.
2. The Marbury Colloquy was conducted at the behest of ruling Philip I of Hessen who desired Protestant unity and he drew together all available continental Reformers.
3. All were able to reach complete agreement on 14 of the articles but not the 15th, On the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, that contains the following 'agree to disagree' clause:
"Fifteenth, regarding the Last Supper of our dear Lord Jesus Christ ... AND ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO AGREE AT THIS TIME, WHETHER THE TRUE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST ARE CORPORALLY PRESENT IN THE BREAD AND WINE [OF COMMUNION] each party should display towards the other Christian love, as far as each respective conscience allows, and both should persistently ask God the Almighty for guidance so that through his Spirit he might bring us to a proper understanding. Amen."
Martin Luther
Justus Jonas
Philipp Melanchthon
Andreas Osiander
Stephan Agricola
Johannes Brenz
Johannes Oecolampadius
Huldrich Zwingli
Martin Bucer
Caspar Hedio
Source: D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Band 30, Teil 3. Weimar, 1910, pp. 160-71.
Translation: Ellen Yutzy Glebe
[ The Marburg Colloquy - The Marburg Articles (1529), page 2 of 2; germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org /docpage.cfm?docpage_id=5245 ]
4. It was Luther's corporeal view versus Zwingli's symbolist view that could not be reconciled and this disagreement produced the first major rupture in Protestantism between the Lutheran and Reformed movements that never healed. The Swiss symbolist view penetrated Church of England Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles of Religion and it subsequently predominated in all of the other English speaking Protestant movements.
5. I have no reason to doubt that all of the ten signers of the 1529 Marburg Articles including Philipp Melancthon "persistently ask(ed) God the Almighty for guidance so that through his Spirit he might bring us to a proper understanding" but for Protestants over the past five centuries, has this agreed "proper understanding" been bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit? Did Philipp Melancthon believe he was being led by the Holy Spirit when he altered his original Augsburg Confession while Martin Luther was still alive?
Nor Concord
The same could be said for Calvinists, you could find, single predestination and physical presence within the reformed tradition albeit. This would not be strict adherence to the WCF. A argument could be made for such things. That being said I have met 5 point Lutherans and Lutheranistic Calvinists albeit a minority it seems
Oh yeah. Ask a Baptist Calvinist if he agrees with Calvin on the sacraments, or even absolution. Modern Wesleyans are similar in that Wesley's doctrines of the sacraments are far closer to Luther or Rome than they are the modern Methodist or Nazarene who embrace the Zwinglian/evangelicalism view of baptism and the Lord's supper.
But the thing to remember is that ANY Christian, if he is being honest, ultimately listens to a person as well as the Scriptures, to one degree or another. We are all influenced by preachers and theologians; no honest Christian can claim to "only" listen to Scripture. Now, obviously, the pastors and scholars we should heed ought to be as in line with the Bible as possible. But nevertheless it's a display of hubris and a roundabout degree of dishonesty to state that one "only listens to God and never man."
Yeah, I, for example, basically agree with all the orthodox reformed tradition in everything but unconditional election & limited atonement (and thus irresistible grace). I think Arminius went a bit too far, but I still think that the intuitu fidei way of thinking is the way to go, specifically that of the 17th century Lutheran scholastics. I would affirm the Belgic confession and the Heidelberg catechism, but not Dort or the WCF. We all have hybrid theologies to an extent lol. I’m leaning closer and closer to simply accepting age of orthodoxy Lutheranism (as opposed to modern Waltherian Lutheranism) though.
@@TheOtherCaleb Embrace Lutheranism! Being Lutheran is better than Arminian anyway. Modern day Arminians have lost their way, and tend to give all law with no gospel.
The disagreement I have with those who identify as confessional Lutherans is that they claim to be in agreement with Luther's teachings on predestination and grace when in reality this isn't the case. They claim that the teaching of the Formula of Concord is in accordance with what Luther taught when this can be seen to be untrue from The Bondage of the Will. Luther maintained in this book that God has willed and predestined everything that happens and that people are predestined to be saved and damned. Many Lutherans try to deny this and claim that Luther was in agreement with single predestination and the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace when this isn't the case. Lutherans are not actually in agreement with Luther despite the fact that they say they are. Of course if those who identify as confessional Lutherans acknowledged that they're not in agreement with Luther on grace and predestination this would inevitably result in people concluding that they're not actually Lutherans, which is true because they follow the teachings of Martin Chemnitz in The Formula of Concord and not Luther when it comes to grace and predestination. The problem is that Chemnitz and those who followed him up to the present day have continued to claim that Luther was in agreement with the teaching of single predestination, and now it's almost impossible for them to correct this mistake because it would mean that they would have to acknowledge that they’ve been in error since 1580. It would also mean that they would have to acknowledge that the Formula of Concord represents a departure from the beliefs of Luther and the early Lutherans on predestination. This is hardly likely to happen.
My position is that it's not necessary for Lutherans to be in complete agreement with Luther on everything he said, but on such a central issue as predestination and grace it is necessary to be in agreement with him if one is to be a genuine Lutheran. Luther strongly maintained against Erasmus that Scripture teaches that God has predestined people to hell so in order to be a true Lutheran it's necessary to also be in agreement that Scripture teaches predestination to hell (as I do myself). The fact that confessional Lutherans reject predestination to hell means that in reality they're not Lutherans.
Predestination is not a central issue. Why would it be?
@@Galmala94 Luther was rightly convinced that the subject of predestination is completely central because it teaches that we can't come to faith and be saved unless God has first chosen us to be saved and has elected to save us in eternity. This was also Paul's conviction as he writes in his letters that God has chosen us to be saved and that everything happens according to His will and predestination (e.g. Ephesians 1).
The idea that whether we're saved or damned depends on human decision making is untrue. Scripture teaches monergism not synergism. The Formula of Concord compromises this truth by asserting that damnation is caused by human resistance to being converted and not by God choosing not to save a person. Predestination to heaven can't exist on its own as God's choice of who to save automatically involves the decision by God not to save everyone but to leave some unsaved who are therefore predestined to be damned. To argue that God can choose to save only some people and that this doesn't mean that God elects to leave the others in their sins so that they're damned, is completely illogical and can’t possibly be true.
Romans 9 teaches double predestination. Paul says that God has mercy only on some people whilst hardening others in their unbelief, which then causes people to complain that God is being unjust in blaming people for their unbelief when He wills that they be unbelievers (verse 19). Since God wills that some people remain in their unbelief and be hardened in it, it follows that He wills to damn them, and since everything He does in time He decided to do in eternity it follows they're predestined to be damned. Paul confirmed the truth of double predestination when he likened God to a potter who makes vessels of honour and dishonour (e.g. vases and chamber pots) with the former referring to those who are saved, and the latter to those who are damned. (9:20-21).
@@Edward-ng8oo "The Formula of Concord compromises this truth by asserting that damnation is caused by human resistance to being converted and not by God choosing not to save a person"
And Calvinism absolves the reprobate of all responsibility. In Calvinism, a reprobate's disbelief in the gospel cannot even be a sin. Jesus didn't die for him, so he doesn't even have the gospel to believe.
Calvinism compromises the truth of the Bible when it denies that
- Jesus died for all (John 1:29, John 3:16, 1. Tim. 2:3-6, 1. Tim 4:10, Titus 2:11, Hebr. 2:9, 1. John 2:2 etc.)
- God wants all to be saved (pretty much the same Bible passages as above)
- People can resist God's grace (Luke 7:29-30, Luke 7:29-30, Acts 7:51-53, Acts 13:44-46 etc.)
"Romans 9 teaches double predestination"
No it does not. I recommend watching Jordan Cooper's video on the subject.
If Paul is teaching Calvinism in Romans 9, he is saying that he is more merciful than God. Romans 9:3 tells how Paul would be willing to sacrifice himself for the unbelieving Jews. However, the Calvinist false Jesus did not do this. God predestined them to hell, yet inspired Paul to write that Paul would be willing to sacrifice himself for them. Makes sense.
A Calvinist reads Romans 9 out of context, and doesn't even read the whole chapter. Paul draws his own conclusions from the passage in Romans 9:30-33.
"What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works"
In Romans 10 Paul writes: "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people"
All day long God has held out his hands to people whom he had predestinated to hell? Yeah, right.
Romans 11:11 "So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous"
According to Calvinists, Paul teaches that God has predestined unbelieving Jews in Romans 9 to hell, but Paul later writes that this is NOT the case.
Romans 11:32 "For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."
Amen.
@@Galmala94 I agree that Scripture teaches that Christ died for all and not just the elect and that through Christ God desires to save everyone, however I also agree with Luther that God has a hidden will through which He has omnipotently willed and predestined everything that happens (including that people are predestined to be saved and damned), and this is separate from His revealed will. The problem with confessional Lutherans is that they don't properly distinguish between these two wills and wrongly conclude that because God desires to save everyone through the Gospel this means He hasn't predestined anyone to be damned. This is false and Luther shows that this is false in The Bondage of the Will by proving from Scripture that God has predestined to happen everything that occurs. For instance on the basis of John 6:44 he rightly maintained that the Father only gives the Holy Spirit through the Word to those He wills to convert and that conversion happens irresistibly. He was opposed to the teaching that the Holy Spirit operates universally through the Word and that the Father wills to convert everyone through the Holy Spirit. I would also like to add that John 6:64-65 confirms that Luther was right as Christ says people are unbelievers because the Father hasn't granted them the ability to believe.
People can of course resist the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the Word as did the Pharisees but it's not possible to resist being regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the Word. If this was possible then God couldn't predestine anyone to be saved as everyone through original sin is naturally resistant to God and would resist being converted. So conversion has to be irresistible in that God must change our wills so that we willingly believe in Christ.
With respect to Romans 11:32 (For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. ESV), this verse refers only to those God has elected to save. The context shows that he was meaning that both the elect Jews and the elect gentiles had been consigned to disobedience but that God has mercy on all of them (i.e. both elect Jews and elect gentiles) not on all people in general. It's impossible that Paul was referring to everyone in the world as this would contradict what he said previously in Romans 9.
Romans 9:15-18 ESV - For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
@@Galmala94 Incidentally I’m in agreement with all the teaching contained in the Book of Concord (except for the FC) and agree with Luther's teaching in The Bondage of the Will so I personally identify as being Lutheran in belief.
Can a clean thing come from an unclean thing?
If you disavow your founder, how can you justify your position?
The man, Luther, founded his own communion by virtue of his idiosyncratic view of soteriology.
This alone is cause to reject Lutheranism, as such.
It's actually really easy for Lutherans, we come from Christ and will never disavow Him (just as Luther never).
@@j.g.4942 Jesus gave a commission to his disciples. Luther was not one of them.
@@Catholic-Perennialist So, the Church ended when all those disciples died?
@@pete3397 No. They bequeathed the Church to their successors.
Do not pretend that Luther did not start a new and separate communion.
@@Catholic-Perennialist "Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord's Supper."
JOSEPH RATZINGER
(POPE BENEDICT XVI)