This has been very helpful - I have always had the nagging sense that while Calvinism is rational and “makes sense” it does not harmonize with various passages of scripture.
Bottom line is you cannot have the doctor or predestination that the Bible clearly teaches and a free will if it's defined of having no external influence. You can't have both of these things at the same time. Calvinism is the clearest understanding with the majority of scriptural backing
@@cassandragarcia5548 well I'm proof that you can. If Calvin was right I wouldn't need Jesus for salvation. I just need to be lucky enough to be part of the small minority of the Calvinist elect. No need to repent. No need to follow the bible. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why would the bible call us to repent if we couldn't sin because we have no free Will? If I have no choice over my actions I am not responsible and then I can't sin. Nor could I repent. Same goes for Charismaniacs. We do not deny the holy spirit. We just deny that those weirdos like Copeland are driven by the holy spirit. They are driven by demonic spirits. Speaking in tongues is clearly explained in the bible....like...2 or 3 at a time max...only with interpreter....If charismatics would read their bibles properly they would stop their nonsense....some might even stop going to church as they lack the feeling and experience...well all you need is the wird of God...the rest will follow. If you can't feel Christian or close to God without a light show and shallow trance inducing music with no substantial God centered lyrics...then you haven't graduated from Christian kindergarten yet
As a former PCA strict Calvinist, you nailed it! I am Lutheran now by the grace of God and certainly relate to your 5 reasons. Thank you. I will be sharing your video to my Calvinist friends that think I've went off the rails. God's peace be with you.
@@justinwilson3694false argument. Single predestination means God makes the offer, we can't make it...but we can reject it. As the Bible says, choose....resist...don't lead astray....etc.
@@Dilley_G45 have you never read Romans 9. Predestination mean a pre determined destination. People are the object God determines their ultimate finale destination. God is the potter people are the clay. God owns no one grace.
Lutheran, ex presbyterian/evangelical/zwinglian here. I 'd like to wish you, Jordan, a happy new year. Your videos helped a lot to understand the gospel and what christianity really teaches. When in Greece, let me know. My home, your home.
One of the things that sold me on Lutheranism was the assertions of the early church fathers (and we're talking within a generation of the apostles) about sacramental efficacy. When this was brought up to a Reformed contact, he replied that the early church simply fell away quickly from the gospel. Odd that we don't read of any conflicts about views of the sacraments so early in church history.
Efficacy for what? As far as I'm concerned if someone believes they're saved by God's grace alone through faith alone then they're a Christian. I get deeply concerned however when I see people divide over baptism and the Lord's supper because one group ascribes magical powers to these ordinances more than the other.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 We are ascribing to the sacraments what Christ and the Scriptures ascribe to the sacraments, just as the Scriptures ascribe salvation to the preaching of the gospel as well. You said that if somebody believes that they're saved by God's grace alone through faith alone, then they're a Christian. I mostly agree (I'm concerned that you left out the person and work of Christ regarding his substitutionary atonement in your definition, but I'm assuming you understand that to be part of it), but at the same time HOW does that saving grace come to be conferred upon us? If you read the Scriptures plainly about baptism and the Lord's Supper, it's plain that they are not merely symbolic, but active channels through which God gives us grace. And this was not just Rome that believed this. Even before the Roman Catholic church, the Fathers said as much, again: even so far back as within a generation of the apostles. I liked how Dr. Cooper has made the comparison of the Sacraments to the preaching of the word: Why is it that God's Sprit cannot work through bread, wine, and water, but can work through somebody's vocal cords or printed ink, which are also earthly and secular elements? Speaking and writing are just earthly things, just like bread, water, and wine, yet evangelicals have no issue with believing that the Spirit can work through those things. Why is it so hard to believe God cannot choose to work through the means He has declared (and to be clear, the Sacraments only take effect when the Word is applied to them)? Oh, by the way, here's a quote from a well-respected figure in Evangelicalism for you to consider: “I come then to God's altar, with a full persuasion that these words, This is My body, promise me more than a figure; that this holy banquet is not a bare memorial only [...] in what manner this is done I know not; it is enough for me to admire.And thus His body and blood have everywhere, but especially at this Sacrament, a true and real presence.” That quote comes from John Wesley, father of Methodism and the Nazarene Church (neither of which, to my knowledge, even believe as much as this about the sacraments anymore). No, Wesley wasn't Lutheran, but he also wasn't a symbolist, either. One has to wonder why... By the way, Wesley's view is shared by early Calvinists such as John Knox, and although Knox did not believe in a literal presence as Lutherans do, the point is that a purely symbolic view was alien to his thinking. It would be nice if evangelicalism would consider these without crying "Roman Catholic!" or complaining that they don't fit the scheme of human reason which they've latched onto. Again: read the passages about communion and baptism, in context, without the presupposition of your own doctrinal positions, and take the texts at face value for what is being said.
@@Outrider74 Paul wrote that the Gospel is of first importance. Peter wrote that we are saved through the Living and abiding word of God. It is God who saves and that salvation is procured through the preaching of His Word which will never pass away. When you say the things you are saying about how the last supper and baptism are an equal means of being saved, I worry about you. I've read passages on baptism and the Lord's supper as clearly stated in the New Testament and the conclusion that they're to be taken as tools of imparted grace is tittering on blasphemy, imo. The "miracle" of Transubstantiation was never taught in the early church. And even if you do believe in a literal body and literal blood, your Roman Catholic friends dont believe that you, as a Lutheran, are actually engaging in holy communion because as far as they're concerned your church has no authority.
@@Outrider74 I think you mischaracterize what evangelicalism is. It's not a denomination or church, but a school of thought or movement. As a result, you can find evangelicals in Lutheran churches, Anglican churches, Methodist churches, etc. While evangelical Baptists and non-denominational Christians (which ultimately must get their theology from somewhere, usually Baptists or Reformed) believe in a symbolic Eucharist, evangelicals in other churches do not. Evangelical Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans believe Christ's real presence is there in one form or another. I believe traditional Presbyterians hold to a pneumatic presence.
As a reformed presby this is a very good critique that I will gladly accept and think about. If I were not Presbyterian, Lutheran would be my first or second alternative. (Definitely not Baptist lol)
I appreciate your vision to discuss openly your views of Calvinism as they differ from Lutheranism. This is a much needed and overdue discussion. Thank you. To your 1st point about Calvinist use of logic, it is true Calvinist theology is much more logical than Lutheran theology. This would make a great topic for a further post. But, it seems to me Calvinism is also much more exegetically accurate and comprehensive on each theological topic you mention than Lutheranism. The age and timing of Luther’s ministry precedes that of Calvin some 40 years. They were aware of each other but never met nor exchanged correspondence. Calvin knew the work of Luther completely. Luther did theology from a medieval worldview which was beginning to crumble. As Luther was the last medieval theologian of consequence Calvin was the first Modern. Regarding your concept of universal grace, Calvinists speak of particular atonement. Jesus saves. To understand this as universal saving grace creates more problems than it solves. Both Calvinists and Lutherans agree that God’s electing and atoning grace is not based on foreknowledge, unlike Arminians. The Lutheran and Calvinist doctrine of election are identical. Regarding your understanding of the Reformed view of sacraments, you point to Zwingli. This is my pet peeve with Lutherans and shows their total misunderstanding of Calvinism. In Reformed theology, Zwingli is understood as a forerunner of the Reformation along with a dozen or so others who contributed one point or another to the cause. Luther was the Founder of the Reformation. Calvin was the Formulator of the Reformation. Many other great theologians continued to contribute to the Reformed Consensus to this day. Calvinists insist the sacraments are efficacious. They signify and seal to the believer the grace of which they speak. Both the Supper and Baptism participate in the grace to which they point. This is also true of the preaching of the Word. I don’t hear Lutherans being nearly as clear as that regarding the “means of grace”. In Catholic theology all the means of grace including election, predestination, calling, regeneration, faith, adoption, sanctification etc are understood as works (ministries) of the Church. The Reformation changed the whole idea of the Ordo Saludis (order of salvation) forever from God to Church to Man to that of God to Man to Church. Sorry to be verbose. I look forward to a day when Bible believing Lutherans and Bible believing Calvinists will commune together.
This is an excellent reply. I also notice that Cooper frequently says “it’s all over Scripture” but then does not cite any actual Scripture. I am an Anglican, not a Presbyterian and I wouldn’t call myself a Calvinist apart from soteriology, but moderately Reformed with a High Church leaning. The point here is not who I am but that his point about Reformed==Presbyterian is fundamentally and historically incorrect. It is a very fast, engaging, articulate, and slick presentation, but I’m not sure it would hold up to a deep point by point scrutiny.
“Exegetically accurate” lol. Dude y’all tie yourselves in knots to explain away passages like John 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1, and especially 1 John 2:2 in terms of limited atonement. Or Acts 7:51 in terms of resistible grace. There are others. Luther (as an Augustinian) was focused on maintaining beliefs that were as close to what scripture seemed to say, even if at face value they were contradictory. This to me is better than the Calvinist view of “let’s create a comprehensive, slick systematic theology outside the Bible which requires a PhD to explain”. I think Luther had an Augustinian bias, but he did a pretty good job sticking to scripture nonetheless. Lutheran views on atonement, double predestination, resistible grace, and who keeps salvation are basically the same as classical Arminians. Where they differ is primarily on election. We believe in freed will, not free will. What I’ve noticed is that Calvinism often relies on taking OT poetry literally and even sometimes out of context to justify beliefs. Not to mention a heavy reliance on a particular interpretation of John 6 and Romans 8-9, which no church father before Augustine maintained to my knowledge.
Thank you for this video. You hit it right on the head. I’ve been studying and reading on Lutheranism for a year, myself a former Calvinist. What you said about taking Scripture at face value rang loud & clear for me. I wrestled for a long time with the baptism passages but once I started to let the text say what it said I found much comfort in them. Great video. Thanks again
@@prayunceasingly2029 How do you explain "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"? You seem to want a passive god, but not THE God who actively predestines in his creation. How will you interpret "13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 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,[a] but on God, who has mercy." (Romans 9:13-16)
@@thomasc9036 If God predestined all things in creation (if literally nothing escapes his predestining in creation) he also predestined evil. The only way God doesn't predestine evil and evil deeds is if free will exists.
@@thomasc9036 God had mercy in Christ. God isn't passive, he acted in Christ. And the spirit is working. That's hardly passive. God calls all men. But most reject him. He's also a just judge. Could he adequately judge someone who was totally incapable (indeed was barred from) even choosing him? This is the final conclusion of calvinism. Jacob had faith and love towards God. Did Esau? No. The fruits of the heart were expressed in each life. God made us (the potter formed us as clay) to freely choose him by faith or to reject him and reject faith in him and obedience to him.
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist I'm also a monarchist and a Lutheran. I'm not lucky enough to be Slovak though. My ancestors come primarily from the Rhine Valley and all the countries that border the Rhine as well as England and Denmark. Are there many Lutherans in Slovakia?
@@toddbonin6926 I am Slovak, but I am not from Slovakia. My ancestors came to a "Southern Land" or "Dolna Zem" which is today Vojvodina in Serbia and Banat(Western Transilvania) in Romania. More specifically in 1792 my ancestors were exiled from Slovakia for being Lutheran and serfs were necessary for Hungarian feudal lords for this area of constant wars with the Ottomans, disease, famine etc. So some Slovaks from Slovakia say "you are bigger Slovaks then we are" because we are here always in the minority so we stick together and are proud of our Slovak ethnicity. Back to your question... There are around 270.000 Protestants in Slovakia of which most of them are Lutheran. Here in Vojvodina around 40.000 Slovaks and 50.000 Lutherans. Of which most are Slovaks, the Hungarians and Germans. Serbs not so much but mostly when people marry somebody of Lutheran faith they come few times a year, but whether they are believers in Lutheranism is not clear.(mostly not)
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist ah yes, I’m a little familiar with Vojvodina. It’s the part of Serbia in the Pannonian Basin where the buildings look more like Austria than Serbia. I hope that doesn’t sound offensive. It’s a region on my list of places I want to visit.
Great video Pastor Cooper, I came to basically the same conclusions about these things in my time studying at a Reformed evangelical seminary. After my studies, Lutheranism and Orthodoxy were really the only choices I could feel comfortable with. I’m now Orthodox, but I can definitely see how someone could take the Lutheran route.
+Wed Nnam -- I might have seen a handful at times but it's not every day I see that sort of cordial response. A case in point is Jay Dyer who seems to get on his widdle triumphalist high...errr, hobby horse and bash most or all non-Orthodox Christians. I gave credit where credit was due when he beat some Roman Catholic nicknamed "The Kurgan" in a debate several weeks ago (any traditionalist, anti-Vatican 2 Roman Catholic who does not know about Denzinger needs to have their head examined) but he's a bloated idiot as far as I'm concerned. Why such harsh tones one may ask? Anyone who has a bigger mouth than mine *AND* had to spend 3+ hours refuting the anti-Trinitarian views of some UA-camr named *RockingMrE* needs their own head examined! I was going to do my own little attempt at refuting the latter's horse manure upon downloading several of his videos (that included Mr. Dyer's magnum pus -- missing letter "o" intentional) in order to go over them once again with a fine-toothed comb. In the end I couldn't be bothered (re: laziness) and decided to let one measly journal article do the trick. For any theological geeks looking on and curious as to which one it was, here you go.... *_"Father,Son and Holy Spirit---The One God: An Exploration of the Trinitarian Doctrine of Wolfhart Pannenberg"_* by *Chuck Gutenson* [The Asbury Theological Journal; Vol 49, No. 1; (Spring)1994; pp. 5-21]
resurrectionjose Jay has some awesome philosophy and theology lectures, but his attitude and temperament get in the way of what he’s saying. I think his experience debating and being involved with the conspiratorially minded right-wing causes him to be overly hostile towards his detractors. I’m not really a fan, although I cannot dispute his vast theological knowledge. He does know what he’s talking about, he just doesn’t know how to interact with people who disagree with him.
+Werd Nnam -- I realize that going head to head with like-minded folks (i.e., Right Wing, Far-Right, etc.) can bring out the savage beast and at times force a person to go on the defensive. It takes one to know one! That being me. :) All in all, I am not impressed by his *_vast theological knowledge_* for several reasons. I don't know how many books (that includes eBooks) he has in his personal library that touch upon theology, but I am pretty sure I have a helluva lot more (that includes biblical studies which is TONS and TONS!) despite material on Eastern Orthodoxy making up a very small portion. That includes even parapsychology (or paranormal) which amounts to a decent quantity, but the interest I had for the latter within the past 15-20 years has pretty much waned.
Completely unrelated but it seems like such a coincidence that everyone that is apart of this broader theology conversation loves star wars including me. I just find this to be neat.
It is my understanding that those called "reformed" are not simply "Calvinists", but also hold to a historic confession of faith. They are both Calvinist and confessional.
Kind of. All Reformed are Calvinist, but not all Calvinists are Reformed. In modern parlance, "Calvinist" is usually speaking of those who hold to the soteriological formulation summarized in TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints). Reformed includes much more than that, but includes Calvinists soteriology. It includes their views of covenant theology, of the Sabbath/Lord's day, images of Jesus, regulative principle of worship, the sacraments, etc. There are Calvinists who disagree with the Reformed on one or more of these areas. It's also disputed whether Reformed Baptists are really "Reformed" or not; they agree with Reformed on many of these issues, but they practice believers baptism only. This is why someone like John MacArthur or John Piper are Calvinist (holding to TULIP) but is not Reformed.
@@daric_ Thankyou for an informative reply. Most English speakers are unlikely to realise that Reformed is being given a special meaning. As matters stand, it sounds like the maker of this video went to a Borstal school, but didn't benefit from it. Most English speakers includes the populations of India and Nigeria.
I am so greatful to God and Jesus Christ that that my Grandparents, who immigrated to the US from a devistated post WW1 Germany, brought with them their beautiful faith in Lutheranism. They settled in a neighborhood of fellow german immigrant families, found jobs and worked strong and hard to raise their 4 children with love, respect, and the moral, ethical ways of Lutheran ideology. Along with their friends, they founded and built a Lutheran church to serve their community, sharing the love and grace of the creator and son that excludes no one. I was raised with this church as my cornerstone of faith and will be ever thankful to my God and Savior for blessing me with this life and beautiful family...
Hey Jordan! I just left a "lutheran" church (they were a progressive liberal church, they said the Bible wasnt literal and its a cultural book) so i will start attending a reformed one, (there arent many traditional protestant churches here), but i am reformed in most doctrines I do have a question about baptism, i do believe that it saves, but since according to the video it regenerates, what if someone gets baptized without having Faith at all, im not talking about infants im talking about lets say a 20 year old guy who is an atheist and wants to impress a Christian girl by getting baptized in a geniune church, is he saved? Or regenerated? Does he recieve the Holy Spirit? Thanks and i hope you can answer!
Nicely done! I have been struggling with these issues for sometime now, thank you. I'm a baptized Christian who attends a Mennonite Brethren church...I can find zero comfort in Calvinism at all, I find it quite horrifying actually. I'm better off with no faith than always wondering..
Having grown up under the heel of Calvinism for decades you make a great point: it is horrifying. It rejects free grace, Christ’s substitution and it reinforces the belief that only Calvinists attain heaven.
Yes, I find hardline predestination beliefs to be horrifying too. I think it might be higher up than Catholic beliefs in purgatory. Also horrifying to think we go through this very tough life, only to find that we have to do hard time on the other side of eternity, to somehow earn our way fully into heaven.
@@ferbeybill I do think the Calvinistic view of predestination is very wrong. It gives me pause when you say, no faith at all is better than always wondering. Maybe I don't understand their view, because I rejected it so many decades ago. I just knew in my spirit that it could be right. Don't they believe though, that if you are called and serving God, that you must be elect?
I appreciate your videos you put out. I have been a Christian for 4 years now, and would label myself reformed/Calvinist through my own study or influences by reformed men, my congregation would be baptist with reformed tilt, and currently seeming to tilt charismatic (not happy about). Have not spent much time looking into Lutheran traditions as much as the other main traditions except from what I have seen via your videos. You make good points, thank you.
Copper criticizes the reformed 'coherent' system, comparing its so-called 'reason' to Lutheran 'revelation.' Now, ironically, you seem to favor Lutheranism for its coherence and logical appeal. Is that sarcasm?
@@dafang1 While I am not a Lutheran, I do find it to be more coherent and reflective of an earlier Christian pedigree. That is, Reformed theology would be more alien to the church fathers than Lutheranism.
Excellent video, The two things that have always concerned me as a lay scholar/reader of theology is the character of God issue i.e. the "Membership has its privileges" mentality and what that says about the character of God. Secondly the ways that they interpret scriptures that are quite out of the realms of what a first century church or even Augustine would have generally understood about the Gospel.
Anglicanism under Edward VI wanted to be a middle way between Geneva and Wittenberg. I think the 39 articles well express view points somewhere between (or encompassing) the Reformed and Lutheran. You should do a why I’m not Anglican video someday.
The 39 Articles upholds the Reformed view of the pneumatic presence (spiritual presence) in the elements, however Anglo-Catholics uphold transubstantiation. I would love to see his 5 reasons why I'm not Anglican.
@@goofygrandlouis6296 and the “Vicar of Christ” at the time was prepared to issue a dispensation allowing Princess Mary to marry her half brother Henry Fitzroy to avoid the break with the Church of Rome. It was all a bloody mess.
Why are so many people obsessed with man's opinions? If one stays with scripture you WILL see God's absolute sovereignty in salvation. NONE seeks after God. In our deadness we hate God before HE awakens us to our desperate need of salvation
@@danielgeb2752 Hey! Klar. Ich liebe die Videos von Dr. Cooper. Ich bin mehr als glücklich hier noch andere Deutsche zu finden haha! So eine theologische Tiefe haben wir im deutschsprachigen Raum oft nicht, ganz einfach weil sich verhältnismäßig wenig dafür interessieren habe ich im Gefühl.
Personally the Church father reliance (not saying they do not still influence me) actually made me first consider Eastern Orthodoxy. Then the recognition of development throughout church history helped me start to move actually to Reformed theology. Still love my Lutheran brothers in the Faith though.
Great video pastor. I am not Reformed because the only assurance of salvation it provides is an evaluation of your own works which if taken seriously can only convince a person they are not one of the elect. It is a hopeless theology that leads a person to either pride or despair.
I don't think that reflects a confessional view of Reformed theology. For example, look up the chapter _Of the Perseverance of the Saints_ (chapter 17) in the Westminster Confession. It ties our perseverance to God's work, and when it turns to man's work in the third section, it is only bad. Thus, when the next chapter _Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation_ makes its case, we can look to the work God is doing in us for our assurance. "2. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the *divine truth of the promises of salvation,* the inward evidence of *those graces unto which these promises are made,* the *testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits* that we are the children of God: which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption." So we can trust the promises of salvation because they aren't contingent on our work, but God's work, and he will accomplish his work. And we can look inward at the graces God is doing in us because it isn't our work, or belief or any other thing originating in us that saves us, but God's work that saves us. And we can look to our baptism, but not merely the getting wet baptism, but also the thing the sign points to, the regeneration and indwelling work of the spirit in our lives (see also 28.1,6).
@@oracleoftroy We all agree salvation is not contingent upon our work. Since the Reformed system does not teach that Christ died for all the the most important question we can ask is: Did he die for me? The only assurance it can provide which you referenced in the Westminster Confession are inward evidences, personal subjective feelings. With no objective truth outside of ourselves for a terrified conscience to lay hold of, the subjective inner call or testimony quickly melts away providing no assurance. What comfort can be had by looking inside ourselves? Jesus died for all, this includes me, he told me my sins were truly and actually washed away when he baptized me, he tells me he forgives my sins when I am given his real and true body to eat and real and true blood to drink, all of these things take me outside of myself and point me to Christ.
@@flashhog01 I don't see how your view escapes your own accusation of mere subjective feelings. In your view, Jesus died as much for you as he did for Judas, Hitler, and any other unsaved person one could list. Since you reject the inward evidence of the Fruit of the Spirit as "personal subjective feelings" and instead look to something God did for unsaved people as assurance of your own salvation, what possible assurance could that provide? Meanwhile, the Fruit of the Spirit is not found in such men, so would I not have every right to believe with full assurance the hope the Bible offers to those God is working in? Or should the son of perdition have your same assurance in Jesus's death? As for baptism and communion, amen! Lutherans have a nasty habit of following Luther in assuming Calvinists are Zwinglists on the sacraments. Calvin and Luther weren't as far apart as most Lutherans (and Luther) assumed. Note, I am not saying their views are identical, but I fully affirm that part of you final paragraph.
@@oracleoftroy Yes, Jesus died as much for you, me, Hitler, etc. Jesus has given us the gift of baptism, in it he says we are saved, regenerated. This is something objective, outside of me I can look to for assurance of salvation. He gives me his true body and his true blood in my mouth, broken and shed for me for the forgiveness of my sins. That too is objective and outside of me and has nothing to do with my feelings. We understand that while Jesus died for the sins of everyone who ever lived, not all reap the benefits of that objective truth, faith being the thing that obtains them. I am sorry if I gave the impression that we reject all subjective indicators of salvation. We can look to certain things in our lives but only as subjective indications of faith. We first go to and mainly emphasize the external, objective means of grace for assurance.
Well said Jordan; however, please let Jesus defend the reformed. John 6: 37 '"All that the Father gives to me will come to me. 39 "I shall loose none of all that he has given me..." 44 ("No one) CAN come to me UNLESS the Father who sent me DRAWS him,... " All in RED letters. We love you Lutherans as brothers. Please don't make this up about us Presbyterians and try to sell fiction as facts. Surely you can build yourself up without inventing a new us. We use scripture not human reason as you accuse us.
Thank you for writing what you wrote. So many things come to my arthritic little brain when I think about the real root cause of all of our doctrinal rock-fighting. Three quotes: the first from Billy Graham: "We live by grace, and do the best we can." The second from C.S.Lewis: "We Christians believe that everyone who is saved is saved by Christ. What we do not know is how." And the third from Arthur Rueprect: "The best test of orthodoxy is gratitude." If anyone (me, for example) can keep those quotes in mind, it will absolutely change how we disagree with the next 'heretic' we need to talk to. Remember Jesus scratching in the dirt with a stick? Remember what he said about rocks? We all need that kind of patience and self-control.
Lutheranism makes a lot of sense, I love the videos from Dr Cooper, but my heart and soul belongs to the reformed church. I still think it makes a lot of sense intellectually also, but presbyterianism is the air I breathe and this is quite hard to explain, it is related to a lot of particular events related how God rescued me from Sheol.
@@Solideogloria00 Baptism doesn't save. Paul wrote I am not afraid of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes, first to the Jew then the Gentile. So the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Paul said I come not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. That proves that Baptism and the Gospel are not synonymous and that Baptism isn't apart of the Gospel. Recap: If the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation and baptism isn't apart of the Gospel, then baptism does not and can not save.
Regarding your first point… Dr. Norman Nagel used to say, “We are dogmaticians, not systematicians. We simply repeat what God has said. And if his Word doesn’t fit into your system, then too bad for your system!”
@@hjc1402 Basically entire sanctification (as wesley put it) is when "A Christian is so far perfect as not to commit sin." This doesn't mean a Christian cannot make mistakes or have accidents, but that they can't/won't willingly and knowingly commit sin.
Living in the UK, I have no opportunity to attend a Lutheran church. I was attending an Anglican Church and was a reader and member of General Synod. The developments in the Cof E turned me away and now I attend an Evangelical free church. I tend to be loosely Calvinistic but I appreciate the Scripture paradoxes.
Would you agree that if an idea is logical but not biblical, then it's not to be considered theology? *Luke 7:30* God's βουλή (plan/purpose/resolve/counsel) for the Pharisees was to accept them. But they rejected this βουλή of God for themselves, by refusing John's baptism. *1 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:2* He is especially the Savior of believers. He remains the Savior of all people. This makes the labor of evangelism and the reproach of scoffers bearable. He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the church AND the world. *John 1:29; 3:16* The lamb of God takes away the sins of the world. God loved the world. *Luke 8:13* Jesus asserts that some really do *joyfully believe* the gospel for a while, and actually *fall away* through trials and temptations. *Luke 11:13* Jesus is emphatic that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks. *Eph **4:30* The Ephesians were sealed for the day of redemption, yet Paul warned them that the possibility of grieving the Holy Spirit was a reality. *2 Peter 2:1* Christ bought even the heretics who deny Him and destroy themselves. *1 Tim 2:1-6* Christ died for all people and wants all people to be saved. Therefore, Paul commands us to *interceed* even for godless kings and rulers. *Hebrews 3:1-12* Even "holy brothers and sisters" can "turn away from the living God" with an "evil, unbelieving heart." *Hebrews 2:1, 12:25* The author and the audience could reject God's warning and not escape. *Ephesians 3:3-6; Isaiah 45:19* As God has revealed his secret will in scripture, it is always to extend greater mercy.
Faith needs an outward object to clean to? The book of Hebrews states that faith is being certain of what we do NOT see. Why does it seem that Lutherans turn Types into Realities, which were not ment to be Realities?? For example, Peter says that baptism is a symbol (a type) that does not remove the dirt of sin in 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism does not remove sin nor regenerate. Baptism is a symbol of regeneration. NLT And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ Might this be why disenchanted people of the Reformed world flock to Lutheranism? After being under cold doctrinal, didactic, historical, grammatical and yet Christ famished exegesis, often plaguing Reformed churches, they find a mystical religion seemingly infused with more meaning that makes typology manifest? The symbols/types take an outward physical form and thus give the Lutheran a more tangible and mystical experience? It makes Lutheranism seemingly richer to the starved, Reformed intellectual who desires some affectiuous religious experience? The Lord's Supper clearly tell us us that we are to do this in rememberance. This is a perpetual symbols in memorial given to God's people and yet again, the Lutheran wants to infuse the symbol with more. Again, placing the emblem on steroids? God tells the OT fathers to build plain altars without engravings or any contribution of man's artistic talent, resulting in oft idolatrous ingenuity. Might the Lutheran tradition seems to add to the plain altar and carve more meaning into the base, making it a faith based on sight? Reformed Christians can be hungry for Christ and are eager to hear of their sweet Savior because the Saharan sermons given in the Reformed camp are frequently held captive to a mere historical, grammatical approach. These send Jesus into the background of sermonizing. I get why Reformed people part ways and are looking for more substance, more Jesus. What does that mean that Christ's grace is universal and yet for me? How does that bolster assurance? I am afraid that Baptismal regeneration has zero textual support unless you twist typology. Baptismal regeneration is at odds with the argument that Paul builds throughout Romans concerning Abraham and the blessings that come through the one who has the same faith as Abraham, prior to anything Abraham had done (circumcision). Again, like the Presbyterian, you take baptism and fashion too much continuity between the Old and New Covenant. The symbols in the OT never saved either. Again, this is making too much of type and shadow. The types found in Noah and the Red Sea and Jonah are symbols of regeneration and resurrection, the antitype is found in Christ alone, not in the sacraments. It appears that the sacraments/symbols are elevated to an extra dose of tangibility?? Why?? Does this tangibility effect the Lutheran Church? Sacred art? Veneration? Vestments? Clerical garb?
Been enjoying your videos. I was with you up until point four. One thing you are missing is that when the Bible speaks of baptism, you have to ask which baptism? With water or with the Spirit? regeneration is a work of the holy Spirit according to scripture.that's how the new birth happens. It does not come through water.
I have genuine question. In acts 10 it reads: All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” - Acts 10:45-47 They where saved before baptism. Am i understanding baptism regeneration wrongly?
The Holy Spirit can come in varying degrees and more than once. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and had the Holy Spirit from conception. The Holy Spirit also descended upon him in his baptism. The Holy Spirit spoke through Peter in Matt 10:20. Yet in some way He had not yet been given, Jn 7:39. Yet in some way Jesus declares He actually HAD been given Jn 14:17. Jesus breathed on his disciples after his Resurrection and gave them the Holy Spirit. They further received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. In our day there are many separate promises of the Holy Spirit. Anyone who prays to the Father receives the Holy Spirit. Lk 11:13 Anyone who is baptized receives the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 Anyone who believes and confesses that Jesus is Lord has the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 2:13; Eph 1:13 Whoever hears and believes the preaching of the Gospel has the Holy Spirit. 1 Peter 1:12 So Cornelius' and his companions received the Holy Spirit as soon as they believed Peter's message. But this does not mean that now their water baptism did nothing. This is not a contradiction or cancellation but an abundance. Grace upon grace. Their water baptism did for them everything the Bible says about baptism. Matthew 21:25 Mere water baptism is a gift from Heaven. Matthew 28:19 Make disciples by baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and by teaching. Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism repentance grants the forgiveness of sins. Mark 16:16 *Baptized believers are saved, unbelievers condemned.* Luke 7:29 Even water baptism is a public declaration that God is righteous. Luke 7:30 *Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.* John 1:31, 33 John knew beforehand that God would reveal the Christ through baptism. Acts 2:38 *Repentance and water baptism in the name of Jesus = forgiveness and the Spirit.* Acts 2:39-41 3000 bachelors, virgins, wives, husbands, and children of all ages *received forgiveness and the Spirit in baptism.* The smallest can't have decided to repent in a mature way, but they were not excluded. Acts 8 Many early church Bible readers saw a distinction between the Spirit's invisible gift of repentance/forgiveness and the Spirit's visible gift of leadership/ordination. Philip the Evangelist could baptize but not bestow spiritual authority. Only the apostles could do that. Acts 10:47-48 *Baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism.* Acts 22:16 *Baptism washes away sins.* Romans 6:3-5 *Water Baptism (which buries) is death to sin, death with Christ, newness of life in Christ, and resurrection with Christ.* 1 Corinthians 1:13 Baptism must not turn into hero worship, cliques, and factionalism. 1 Corinthians 12:13 On the contrary, baptism is unity in the one Holy Spirit in Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:29 Even heretical baptism declares the resurrection of the dead. Galatians 3:27-28 Baptism clothes every member of the body of Christ in equality. Ephesians 3:5 There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. Ephesians 5:26 *Baptism sanctifies the Church because it is the washing of water with the word.* Colossians 2:11 Water Baptism is the Spiritual circumcision, the circumcision of Christ. Colossians 2:12 Christ was buried. You were buried with Christ *in water baptism.* God raised Christ from the dead. You believe God raised Christ from the dead. Therefore, God raised you with Christ *in baptism.* This is all *God’s powerful work.* Hebrews 6:1-2 *Baptism is a basic foundational teaching. You can't say you believe in Jesus while rejecting his basic teachings.* 1 Peter 3:20 Noah was saved by water, not from water. The flood waters washed away much evil. 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you!* Baptism is assurance/demand of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I thank God for HIS absolute sovereignty in saving me as a child . If HE had not l would have no hope in my corrupt free will. We do not choose God's claims on our lives
I'm also a confirmed Lutheran coming from the reformed tradition, but my reasons are very different. The first one is the doctrine of the Lord's supper and also I agree on your fifth. The others you give are rather irrelevant for me and I could even dispute your second one. I hold that the doctrine of limited atonement simply doesn't work the way you understand it, and especially regarding what you mention about security of salvation. It simply has nothing to do with that. But I know you don't interact much with followers, so I won't say more unless you request it. I say this respectfully, and as a big fan of most of your videos. But simply sometimes when you speak about reformed doctrines I really feel I'm listening to something quite different from what I learned there, and that's very common in the Lutheran environment. GBY.
Good question Alfredo. Jesus says: “My sheep listen to me voice, I know them and they follow me.” John 10:27 You are one of Jesus’ sheep so let’s ask Jesus (excuse the caps for emphasis). Whom did you die for, Jesus? Jesus says: “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father-and I lay down my life for THE SHEEP....I call my own sheep by name and lead them out.” John 10:14-15, 3 To the goats Jesus says: “You do not believe because you are NOT my sheep....My Father HAS GIVEN THE SHEEP to me.” John 10:27, 29 Jesus says: “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends IF you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I CHOSE YOU.” John 15:13-16 Jesus did not choose the goats as his friends. Jesus says: “The Son of Man came....to give his life as a RANSOM for MANY (not all).” Matthew 20:28 If Jesus ransomed the goats, they would be saved. “ I pray for them. I am NOT praying for the world (goats), but for those you have GIVEN ME, for they are yours. All I have is yours, and all you have is mine.” John 17:9-10 Jesus says he died for the sheep and at the same time told the unbelieving goats they were not his sheep so he did not die for them and Jesus specifically said he is not praying for the goats. Jesus chose his friends and died for them, not people who were not his friends and hated him. Jesus says he died to ransom many not all or all would be saved. If Jesus died for the unbelieving goats, then their sin of unbelief would be paid for and they would be saved. Jesus says: “I came down from heaven to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me: That I shall lose none of all he HAS GIVEN ME (the sheep) but raise them up at the last day.” John 6:38-39 In John 10:28-30 Jesus said the sheep were all the Father had given him and he and the Father are one (in essence and purpose and will). To have Jesus die for all the sins of people who the Father did not choose is to split the Trinity and make Jesus an inefficient fool working against the Father’s will. Jesus did not die for Pharaoh and other people already in hell and the goats whom he knew were freely choosing to go to hell. Why would Jesus die for the goats already in hell? We all freely choose to go to hell but God chooses to regenerate and save some and die for them. That is pure mercy and grace. When God makes some people spiritually alive, who are dead in sin and resisting God, Jesus becomes irresistible to them. If Jesus is irresistible to you, then you are one of the Sheep Jesus died for. Jesus did not die for the goats who hate Jesus by their own desire. Jesus says make a bad tree good and it will bear the good fruit of belief in him. That is what God does for his chosen ones. Matthew 12:33
I have a problem with baptizing infants and toddlers. In the Bible, Baptism always occurs after someone accepts Jesus (with the exception of John's Baptism), not before, and they always agree to it or request it. Getting baptized before you accept Jesus is like putting the cart before the horse. The cart doesn't pull the horse. Can a baby or toddler accept Jesus? They barely have any understanding of this physical world, much less the spiritual world.
@@scottswanson9761 This is an old comment. Since then I've actually joined the LCMS, which I find to be better than where I was (at least for me). I still have my doubts about infant baptism, but I decided to comply with the customs and rules if we have another kid.
@@Procopius464 Great! The Bible mentions households being baptized. Look into what the average household looked like in the area at the time. Would have been weird for avoiding infants to not be mentioned if it was the case. Especially since it happens more than once. God bless.
@@scottswanson9761 Yea the pastor showed me that. It could be that it was the original custom, although it seems like more of an implication. Anyways we will cooperate with the custom since we are in the church now.
PC(USA) Minister here, ordained originally in the PCA and served in that denomination for 15 years. Have been a PC(USA) minister for 11 years now. The PC(USA) is in full communion with the ELCA. Your arguments may apply to SOME in the Reformed tradition, but not to the Reformed tradition in general. 1) Most ministers I know consciously try to listen to the text and not to try to hammer the text to make it fit their theology. I certainly hope I do this. 2) Probably for that very reason, I don't know of any ministers in the PC(USA) who hold to "Limited Atonement." There may be some, but I don't know of any. I certainly don't. 3) I don't know any "jure divino" presbyterians. All the ones I know are "jure humano." I believe there is pretty much equal NT support for either a presbyterian or an episcopal polity, and you yourself said much the same thing in this video. I don't know of anyone saying presbyterian polity is "the" way. Straw man. 4) I don't know why you would say we don't believe in Baptismal Regereration. We most certainly do. Our Confessions teach Baptismal Regeneration. The Scots Confession is particularly strong on this. Even the "Puritan" Westminster Confession teaches Baptismal Regeneration. The fact that groups like the PCA promote a sort of "baptism lite" does not mean that our Reformed Confessions do the same, or that the Reformed tradition as a whole does. Baptismal Regeneration is also in our baptismal liturgy in our Book of Common Worship. When I baptize an infant, I then make the sign of the cross on the newly baptised person's forehead with the words, "You are sealed with the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and marked as Christ's own, forever." 5) Speaking of our liturgy, the Service for the Lord's Day of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is extremely similar to Lutheran Gottesdienst or an Episcopal Eucharist. Sure, there are some pockets of low-church, "pine and pain," regulative-principle Puritans out there, but I have done much work in liturgy and music in and for the Presbyterian Church and I can tell you that the historic, ecumenical Christian liturgy is thriving in Reformed churches. As an aside, the modern neckband "dog collar" worn by many Protestant clergy (myself included) was invented by a Church of Scotland minister and then borrowed by Anglicans and those in other traditions. There are some differences between the Lutheran and the Reformed tradition, but our traditions are not nearly as far apart as it seems you would like for them to be.
5 additional reasons: 1 - a Church that thinks a cross is an idol is looking down on Christ's sacrifice, because to them it doesn't matter as Christ only died for some 2 - they don't celebrate Christmas because they say it's not commended. Well we have Liberty to celebrate the birth of Jesus 3 - no hymns and only psalms in a service? What a waste, similar to the a capella only orthodox and mennonites 4 - No communion, maybe 3 times a year and then just "symbolic" 5 - calling people arminians if they don't subscribe to their brand of theology
The Bible says: “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29 People assume this verse teaches that Jesus died for everybody without “exception” but it does not say this. First of all, they themselves correctly believe Jesus only “takes away” the sin of people who believe so they contradict themselves. They do not realize that if Jesus “takes away” the sins of everybody in the world without exception, then nobody is left with any sins including the sin of unbelief and so everybody is saved. So this verse has to teach that Jesus only died for and takes away the sins of the sheep scattered in all the world without distinction in all nations whom God has chosen! The Bible makes this clear: “He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish NATION, and not only for that NATION but also for the SCATTERED children of God, to bring them together and make them one!” John 11:51-52 Plus Jesus says: “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father-and I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR THE SHEEP!” John 10:14-15 So while these people make the Bible contradict itself, the Bible is in fact in perfect harmony and proves it was written by the Holy Spirit without error because all people do is contradict and disagree with each other. Jesus says: “You do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me!” John 10:26-27 And Jesus says, “I lay down my life for the sheep!” John 10:14
Isaiah 53:6: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us ALL." 1 Timothy 4:10: "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of ALL MEN, specially of those that believe." 1 John 2:2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD." Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY MAN." 1 Timothy 2:4: "Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the Truth."
emanuel kournianos Taking away someone’s sin doesn’t save you. FAITH IN CHRIST saves you. People don’t go to hell because of sin. People go to hell because of UNBELIEF. People go to hell because they reject the only way to the Father.
@@apilkey you are exactly right.. very few people believe this... Sin has been paid for All.. people don't go to hell to pay for their sin.... they go there because it's the only suitable place for someone who is not Glorified... once I understood this it made everything so clear...
Luther pointed to the universalism of The Gospel when he himself struggled with election. I have dealt with this darkness and only to be pointed to God wants me because I’m included in this universal Gospel. Luther was once asked “don’t you wish scripture just said God died for Martin Luther?” He answered, “no because I would wonder who the other Martin Luther was, look upon Christ in his humanity and see your election there. “
When you leave such issues in paradox you open up the possibility of Self interpretations of the meanings of the text, and that causes readers to make the Bible fit there view not what God intended in his word. Trust in Christ, pray for discernment to understand, and always keep his word in context.
The only thing I would say is that there was quite a bit of 'Lutheran reasoning' in the first two points whilst trying to critique the Reformed for using reason! So many ex or anti-reformed use 'double predestination' as a reformed criticism when in fact that is not what Calvin or any reformed great theologian (Edwards/Knox) or even Spurgeon taught. RC Sproul smashes those views as incorrect use of predestination (Hyper Calvinism) and he undoes TULIP also in his book Chosen. All mankind is worthy of wrath. God chooses His elect and overlooks those that were worthy of wrath anyway. Its more about God being Sovereign to choose to elect and give grace. This is why He is God. We cant read the scriptures any other way (ie ignore the huge number of 'elect' scriptures' or sovereignty scriptures. The ones that infer universal grace must be held in tension with that. If there was even one grain of sand to say there is mans involvement - then man is slightly more righteous than totally unrighteous - which he is not (Romans 3/Eph 2). God didn't deliberately create or predestine people for hell. That would be evil. NO. Man is worthy of judgement and deserves it - but God also chooses to save. I think Reformed and Lutherans have more in common than they confess (no pun intended!). And I love the baptism and Revelation points! Re governance - the only issue with bishopric suddenly not being on par with elder/pastor is worldly forms of hierarchy. But I guess a good Lutheran area would know how to get around that...and I did love the view of the transition from apostles to bishops - that could well be right...
The consistent Calvinist believes in double predestination. God in Calvinism afterall, ordains man's sinful nature making him deserving of hell from the moment he was born. You can sugarcoat it all you want.
@@chrispedayo I think he's more highlighting that when anti-Calvinists say "double predestination" they aren't referring to the Reformed view of predestination, but the error of equal ultimacy. That's why he put it in scare quotes. If Reformed Theology does indeed have evil implications, that's fine and would be very helpful to present the true gospel so Reformed Christians can read it and repent, but sadly, most anti-Calvinists just lie about what Reformed Theology actually teaches to make their point and falsely condemn it. _"God in Calvinism afterall, ordains man's sinful nature making him deserving of hell from the moment he was born."_ That belief is much older than Calvin by at least 1000 years. Read the Canon of Orange.
Spurgeon is a stealth calvinist, who equated calvinism with the gospel and Scripture. It isn't. Spurgeon is like a sneaky gateway drug into harder drugs and deeper into the heresies of calvinism.
I do not agree with all your points but some of them (like #1) are some things I struggle with as a Reformed Christian. I do not think I will change from being reformed but that does not mean that I have to be 100% in a agreement or like everything 100% in the Reformed tradition. Reformed Christians are often overly logical and legal oriented. But the latter I can say about Lutherans also. Not all people in the Reformed tradition are so overly logical. Also some can be almost mystical or spiritual (not mystical in experience is on par with Scripture). But views on Jesus Christ's presence in the LS differ from a Zwinglian non-presence (if Zwingli actually ever taught that) to what I call a real spiritual presence in which Christ is present in the LS in a mystical/ spiritual way. We could not really know how JC is present "spiritually." This would be much closer to Lutheran Consubstantiation or that Jesus is physically present (mysteriously) with the elements. Again it ends up being a mystery.
Reformed Theology is difficult for people who can't see the difference (or who don't value the difference) between being man-centered vs. being God-centered.
So, pretty much back in the days of the Reformation (and up through the 3rd generation), the only difference between Dutch Calvinism and Lutheranism were their views on the sacraments. Martin Luther and John Calvin both would have agreed with the Canons of Dort. For instance, see Martin Luther’s bondage of the will.
God says: “And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified!” Romans 8:30 The “US” in the following are the sheep (Christians) - not the goats and teaches that Jesus died for his Chosen ones. “What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for US, who can be against US? He who did not spare his own Son, but GAVE HIM UP FOR US all-how will he not ALSO, along with him, graciously give US all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God HAS CHOSEN? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died-more than that, who was raised to life-is at the right hand of God and is also INTERCEDING FOR US. Who shall separate US from the love of Christ? Romans 8:31-35 Jesus did not die for the goats and he is not interceding for the goats or giving them all things. Jesus says: “I lay down my life for the sheep....You do not believe because you are not my sheep.” John 10:15, 26
Firstly Romans 8:29-30 is talking about how the old testament saints are also being conformed to the image of Christ, this is why we see the word "also" used in Romans 8:29. Because remember earlier in Romans 8 Paul was talking about Christians in the present then in 29-30 he includes all of the old testament saints and believers. Regarding the OT saints, recall that in Matthew 27:52-53 after Jesus' death many of the saints rose from the dead. see Romans 11:2 " God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Isreal, saying" Hence all of the past tense verbs used in Romans 8:30 Then on John 10:15-26, Jesus most likely said that some of them were not his sheep because some of them may have blasphemed the Holy Spirit in John 10:20 On some of your other statements, it is saddening you do not believe Jesus died for everyone's sins. Why let an ideology twist your view of the gospel.
@@stea6853 if you don't believe Jesus died for everyone, you are unsaved. I'm not arguing with you on almost a 4 year thread. Let you and your calvinist false gospel be accursed.
John 6: 65 "This is why I told you that (No one CAN come to me) UNLESS the Father has enabled him." Will you believe Jesus or Jordan or have you mistaken Jordan for Jesus?
How about a video on the Church of Christ and their demand that we all ought to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ alone? I see no textual variations for the great commission. Update: it's actually the oneness folks that do so (and Church of Christ) and they're reading of scripture is too laughably bad to take seriously
As a Congregationalist I would actually agree with the sentiment you gave; while I do think that the New Testament use of 'Bishop' is synonymous with Elder I don't therefore think Episcopal or Presbytery orders are evil and anti-Christian, I just don't see them called for in Scripture and have a low view of how their historical development seems to be inseparable from the ways in which the Church became embroiled in political matters; which I would say were both inappropriate and corrupt. Presbyterianism, on the other hand, I find some pragmatic sympathy towards but due to their use of the regulative principal in worship it seems to me they ought to hold more directly with the prescription of Scripture so there's an extra internal critique there.
Claiming to be biblical, you don't seem to bring up much scriptural passages to support your hermeneutics. You seem to call upon selective church history that you personally like or use what your personal opinions, but very little scriptural coherency.
@@DrJordanBCooper not a "Lutheran" mass as its not valid but instead by an ordained Catholic priest who is valid to consecrate the host and conduct the mass.
@@Outrider74 Not to mention "offering an unbloody sacrifice" to God the father, instead of recieving what God has done for us. The deciever will decieve...
I really enjoy this content. I've never heard much from the Lutheran end. It is very interesting. I personally a conservative Pentecostal but I hold traditional Baptist arminian views on soteriology. But you really have helped educate me. God bless brother
What are the views on child baptism? I am Lutheran baptised and confirmed in a Lutheran church.( I am not American). How is it with all people who are baptised as children but then do not believe? If baptism forgives sin than they are forgiven??
"For the remission of sins" would be both present and future, so my read on that is that it is a new circumcision in that it leaves behind the old life and begins a new life within a covenant, essentially making one eligible for the forgiveness of sins. Is my read on this incorrect?
Charles Spurgeon claimed the Bible was a Calvinist Bible. I’m pleased you were clever enough to choose Christ as your saviour. Without you God’s hands are tied. Man should always have the deciding decision.
To #5 -- argument seems confused when you argue for what worship should be from Revelation, because the force of that argument has teeth in terms of the premise of the regulative principle (RP) -- namely, that our worship should be derived (only from) Scripture. Said differently, you could "take part in the discussion" in a group holding to the RP and make those same points. (The church history arguments are something else -- I'm only commenting on the Revelation part.)
The Reformation was definitely very much of Luther, and his protest which followed against the Latin RC ; yet the term “reformed” for all Protestant Believers has been hijacked by just Calvinism. It isn’t true that all reformers then were pushing Tulip / John Calvin, and should not be confused with having the same meaning.
As someone raised Reformed Baptist who became Presbyterian I can confirm that existential struggle about whether or not you're saved, which you raised in point 2, is real.
@FightPeople I've been inquiring into Orthodoxy for over a year now. Lord willing I will convert. We will see though. I've been raised in the Reformed Tradition and so I want to learn more about it (and Orthodoxy) for a little longer before making any final decision.
I'm expecting 5 reasons I'm Lutheran from you now.
One reason is that , lutheranism answers to the Catholic church.
@Ibrahim Andre
you shouldn't have done that. Even if the brake up was bad, it is wrong to sabotage someone like that.
@@abashedsanctimony154 So if the Catholic church did no longer exist could the Lutherans still go on without someone left to "answer to"?
why dont they just answer to God our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
This has been very helpful - I have always had the nagging sense that while Calvinism is rational and “makes sense” it does not harmonize with various passages of scripture.
I agree. I’m Anglican and generally agree with Lutheran critiques of Calvinism.
Bottom line is you cannot have the doctor or predestination that the Bible clearly teaches and a free will if it's defined of having no external influence. You can't have both of these things at the same time. Calvinism is the clearest understanding with the majority of scriptural backing
I’d love to hear five reasons I’m not a Charismatic next
I would love to help with that one. Lol
I am both.
Me too:
1. I'm Lutheran
2. I'm not charismatic
@@Dilley_G45 Newsflash: you can't be a non-charismatic and be biblical!
@@cassandragarcia5548 well I'm proof that you can. If Calvin was right I wouldn't need Jesus for salvation. I just need to be lucky enough to be part of the small minority of the Calvinist elect. No need to repent. No need to follow the bible. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why would the bible call us to repent if we couldn't sin because we have no free Will? If I have no choice over my actions I am not responsible and then I can't sin. Nor could I repent. Same goes for Charismaniacs. We do not deny the holy spirit. We just deny that those weirdos like Copeland are driven by the holy spirit. They are driven by demonic spirits. Speaking in tongues is clearly explained in the bible....like...2 or 3 at a time max...only with interpreter....If charismatics would read their bibles properly they would stop their nonsense....some might even stop going to church as they lack the feeling and experience...well all you need is the wird of God...the rest will follow. If you can't feel Christian or close to God without a light show and shallow trance inducing music with no substantial God centered lyrics...then you haven't graduated from Christian kindergarten yet
As a former PCA strict Calvinist, you nailed it! I am Lutheran now by the grace of God and certainly relate to your 5 reasons. Thank you. I will be sharing your video to my Calvinist friends that think I've went off the rails. God's peace be with you.
Why do you think God says you were chosen if it's actually you choosing him?
2 Timothy 2:25 God grants repentance if he doesn't Grant it can that person repent and is there salvation without repentance of a person?
Lutherans are all pro gay lifestyle and marriage?
@@justinwilson3694false argument. Single predestination means God makes the offer, we can't make it...but we can reject it. As the Bible says, choose....resist...don't lead astray....etc.
@@Dilley_G45 have you never read Romans 9. Predestination mean a pre determined destination. People are the object God determines their ultimate finale destination. God is the potter people are the clay. God owns no one grace.
Lutheran Satire is the best Lutheran channel. Change my mind.
That's a good choice, Patrick.
I mean, Dr. Cooper is pretty cool too
Shout out to my boy Ask the Pastor.
@@binkymagnus
Yes Patrick!!
@@fuhd9892 that guy drops one liners and doesn't even know it
Lutheran, ex presbyterian/evangelical/zwinglian here. I 'd like to wish you, Jordan, a happy new year. Your videos helped a lot to understand the gospel and what christianity really teaches. When in Greece, let me know. My home, your home.
One of the things that sold me on Lutheranism was the assertions of the early church fathers (and we're talking within a generation of the apostles) about sacramental efficacy. When this was brought up to a Reformed contact, he replied that the early church simply fell away quickly from the gospel. Odd that we don't read of any conflicts about views of the sacraments so early in church history.
Interesting to note, too, how Mormons make the exact claim, that the early church fell away from "true" Biblical teaching.
Efficacy for what? As far as I'm concerned if someone believes they're saved by God's grace alone through faith alone then they're a Christian. I get deeply concerned however when I see people divide over baptism and the Lord's supper because one group ascribes magical powers to these ordinances more than the other.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 We are ascribing to the sacraments what Christ and the Scriptures ascribe to the sacraments, just as the Scriptures ascribe salvation to the preaching of the gospel as well.
You said that if somebody believes that they're saved by God's grace alone through faith alone, then they're a Christian. I mostly agree (I'm concerned that you left out the person and work of Christ regarding his substitutionary atonement in your definition, but I'm assuming you understand that to be part of it), but at the same time HOW does that saving grace come to be conferred upon us? If you read the Scriptures plainly about baptism and the Lord's Supper, it's plain that they are not merely symbolic, but active channels through which God gives us grace. And this was not just Rome that believed this. Even before the Roman Catholic church, the Fathers said as much, again: even so far back as within a generation of the apostles.
I liked how Dr. Cooper has made the comparison of the Sacraments to the preaching of the word: Why is it that God's Sprit cannot work through bread, wine, and water, but can work through somebody's vocal cords or printed ink, which are also earthly and secular elements? Speaking and writing are just earthly things, just like bread, water, and wine, yet evangelicals have no issue with believing that the Spirit can work through those things. Why is it so hard to believe God cannot choose to work through the means He has declared (and to be clear, the Sacraments only take effect when the Word is applied to them)?
Oh, by the way, here's a quote from a well-respected figure in Evangelicalism for you to consider: “I come then to God's altar, with a full persuasion that these words, This is My body, promise me more than a figure; that this holy banquet is not a bare memorial only [...] in what manner this is done I know not; it is enough for me to admire.And thus His body and blood have everywhere, but especially at this Sacrament, a true and real presence.”
That quote comes from John Wesley, father of Methodism and the Nazarene Church (neither of which, to my knowledge, even believe as much as this about the sacraments anymore). No, Wesley wasn't Lutheran, but he also wasn't a symbolist, either. One has to wonder why...
By the way, Wesley's view is shared by early Calvinists such as John Knox, and although Knox did not believe in a literal presence as Lutherans do, the point is that a purely symbolic view was alien to his thinking.
It would be nice if evangelicalism would consider these without crying "Roman Catholic!" or complaining that they don't fit the scheme of human reason which they've latched onto. Again: read the passages about communion and baptism, in context, without the presupposition of your own doctrinal positions, and take the texts at face value for what is being said.
@@Outrider74 Paul wrote that the Gospel is of first importance. Peter wrote that we are saved through the Living and abiding word of God. It is God who saves and that salvation is procured through the preaching of His Word which will never pass away. When you say the things you are saying about how the last supper and baptism are an equal means of being saved, I worry about you. I've read passages on baptism and the Lord's supper as clearly stated in the New Testament and the conclusion that they're to be taken as tools of imparted grace is tittering on blasphemy, imo. The "miracle" of Transubstantiation was never taught in the early church. And even if you do believe in a literal body and literal blood, your Roman Catholic friends dont believe that you, as a Lutheran, are actually engaging in holy communion because as far as they're concerned your church has no authority.
@@Outrider74 I think you mischaracterize what evangelicalism is. It's not a denomination or church, but a school of thought or movement. As a result, you can find evangelicals in Lutheran churches, Anglican churches, Methodist churches, etc. While evangelical Baptists and non-denominational Christians (which ultimately must get their theology from somewhere, usually Baptists or Reformed) believe in a symbolic Eucharist, evangelicals in other churches do not. Evangelical Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans believe Christ's real presence is there in one form or another. I believe traditional Presbyterians hold to a pneumatic presence.
As a reformed presby this is a very good critique that I will gladly accept and think about. If I were not Presbyterian, Lutheran would be my first or second alternative. (Definitely not Baptist lol)
I fall more on the Reformed Baptist spectrum, but I absolutely agree with you on his critique. Dr. Cooper does is with grace and sincerity
What is the difference w/ Baptist? Is it because it's not very sacramental and traditional?
I appreciate your vision to discuss openly your views of Calvinism as they differ from Lutheranism. This is a much needed and overdue discussion. Thank you. To your 1st point about Calvinist use of logic, it is true Calvinist theology is much more logical than Lutheran theology. This would make a great topic for a further post. But, it seems to me Calvinism is also much more exegetically accurate and comprehensive on each theological topic you mention than Lutheranism. The age and timing of Luther’s ministry precedes that of Calvin some 40 years. They were aware of each other but never met nor exchanged correspondence. Calvin knew the work of Luther completely. Luther did theology from a medieval worldview which was beginning to crumble. As Luther was the last medieval theologian of consequence Calvin was the first Modern.
Regarding your concept of universal grace, Calvinists speak of particular atonement. Jesus saves. To understand this as universal saving grace creates more problems than it solves. Both Calvinists and Lutherans agree that God’s electing and atoning grace is not based on foreknowledge, unlike Arminians. The Lutheran and Calvinist doctrine of election are identical.
Regarding your understanding of the Reformed view of sacraments, you point to Zwingli. This is my pet peeve with Lutherans and shows their total misunderstanding of Calvinism. In Reformed theology, Zwingli is understood as a forerunner of the Reformation along with a dozen or so others who contributed one point or another to the cause. Luther was the Founder of the Reformation. Calvin was the Formulator of the Reformation. Many other great theologians continued to contribute to the Reformed Consensus to this day. Calvinists insist the sacraments are efficacious. They signify and seal to the believer the grace of which they speak. Both the Supper and Baptism participate in the grace to which they point. This is also true of the preaching of the Word. I don’t hear Lutherans being nearly as clear as that regarding the “means of grace”. In Catholic theology all the means of grace including election, predestination, calling, regeneration, faith, adoption, sanctification etc are understood as works (ministries) of the Church. The Reformation changed the whole idea of the Ordo Saludis (order of salvation) forever from God to Church to Man to that of God to Man to Church.
Sorry to be verbose. I look forward to a day when Bible believing Lutherans and Bible believing Calvinists will commune together.
Thank you
This is an excellent reply. I also notice that Cooper frequently says “it’s all over Scripture” but then does not cite any actual Scripture.
I am an Anglican, not a Presbyterian and I wouldn’t call myself a Calvinist apart from soteriology, but moderately Reformed with a High Church leaning.
The point here is not who I am but that his point about Reformed==Presbyterian is fundamentally and historically incorrect. It is a very fast, engaging, articulate, and slick presentation, but I’m not sure it would hold up to a deep point by point scrutiny.
“Exegetically accurate” lol. Dude y’all tie yourselves in knots to explain away passages like John 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1, and especially 1 John 2:2 in terms of limited atonement. Or Acts 7:51 in terms of resistible grace. There are others. Luther (as an Augustinian) was focused on maintaining beliefs that were as close to what scripture seemed to say, even if at face value they were contradictory. This to me is better than the Calvinist view of “let’s create a comprehensive, slick systematic theology outside the Bible which requires a PhD to explain”. I think Luther had an Augustinian bias, but he did a pretty good job sticking to scripture nonetheless.
Lutheran views on atonement, double predestination, resistible grace, and who keeps salvation are basically the same as classical Arminians. Where they differ is primarily on election. We believe in freed will, not free will.
What I’ve noticed is that Calvinism often relies on taking OT poetry literally and even sometimes out of context to justify beliefs. Not to mention a heavy reliance on a particular interpretation of John 6 and Romans 8-9, which no church father before Augustine maintained to my knowledge.
Oriental orthodox here and I loved this video keep up the good work 👏👏👏
Thank you for this video. You hit it right on the head. I’ve been studying and reading on Lutheranism for a year, myself a former Calvinist. What you said about taking Scripture at face value rang loud & clear for me. I wrestled for a long time with the baptism passages but once I started to let the text say what it said I found much comfort in them.
Great video. Thanks again
I'm not reformed because ultimately there's no comfort for me and my loved ones. I see a God in Scripture that delights in saving, not damning people.
Reformed people would say God delights in their salvation. But he also somehow gets glory for predestining people to hell from eternity
@@prayunceasingly2029 How do you explain "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"? You seem to want a passive god, but not THE God who actively predestines in his creation. How will you interpret "13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 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,[a] but on God, who has mercy." (Romans 9:13-16)
@Danny Murdach
I agree with free will. You seem to as well when you say, "The ones who perish choose to perish"
@@thomasc9036
If God predestined all things in creation (if literally nothing escapes his predestining in creation) he also predestined evil. The only way God doesn't predestine evil and evil deeds is if free will exists.
@@thomasc9036
God had mercy in Christ. God isn't passive, he acted in Christ. And the spirit is working. That's hardly passive. God calls all men. But most reject him. He's also a just judge. Could he adequately judge someone who was totally incapable (indeed was barred from) even choosing him? This is the final conclusion of calvinism.
Jacob had faith and love towards God. Did Esau? No. The fruits of the heart were expressed in each life. God made us (the potter formed us as clay) to freely choose him by faith or to reject him and reject faith in him and obedience to him.
Yes!!! Just found this channel and am very interested. So far so good. Looking forward to more
1. Logic 0:50
2. Universal Grace 4:30
3. Church goverment 7:09
4. Baptism 11:31
5. Early Church 15:57
Slovak + Lutheran + Monarchist = three things I can agree with!
@@toddbonin6926 Those are three things I am and for which I stand for.
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist I'm also a monarchist and a Lutheran. I'm not lucky enough to be Slovak though. My ancestors come primarily from the Rhine Valley and all the countries that border the Rhine as well as England and Denmark. Are there many Lutherans in Slovakia?
@@toddbonin6926 I am Slovak, but I am not from Slovakia. My ancestors came to a "Southern Land" or "Dolna Zem" which is today Vojvodina in Serbia and Banat(Western Transilvania) in Romania.
More specifically in 1792 my ancestors were exiled from Slovakia for being Lutheran and serfs were necessary for Hungarian feudal lords for this area of constant wars with the Ottomans, disease, famine etc.
So some Slovaks from Slovakia say "you are bigger Slovaks then we are" because we are here always in the minority so we stick together and are proud of our Slovak ethnicity.
Back to your question...
There are around 270.000 Protestants in Slovakia of which most of them are Lutheran.
Here in Vojvodina around 40.000 Slovaks and 50.000 Lutherans. Of which most are Slovaks, the Hungarians and Germans. Serbs not so much but mostly when people marry somebody of Lutheran faith they come few times a year, but whether they are believers in Lutheranism is not clear.(mostly not)
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist ah yes, I’m a little familiar with Vojvodina. It’s the part of Serbia in the Pannonian Basin where the buildings look more like Austria than Serbia. I hope that doesn’t sound offensive. It’s a region on my list of places I want to visit.
Great video Pastor Cooper, I came to basically the same conclusions about these things in my time studying at a Reformed evangelical seminary. After my studies, Lutheranism and Orthodoxy were really the only choices I could feel comfortable with. I’m now Orthodox, but I can definitely see how someone could take the Lutheran route.
+Wed Nnam -- I might have seen a handful at times but it's not every day I see that sort of cordial response. A case in point is Jay Dyer who seems to get on his widdle triumphalist high...errr, hobby horse and bash most or all non-Orthodox Christians. I gave credit where credit was due when he beat some Roman Catholic nicknamed "The Kurgan" in a debate several weeks ago (any traditionalist, anti-Vatican 2 Roman Catholic who does not know about Denzinger needs to have their head examined) but he's a bloated idiot as far as I'm concerned. Why such harsh tones one may ask? Anyone who has a bigger mouth than mine *AND* had to spend 3+ hours refuting the anti-Trinitarian views of some UA-camr named *RockingMrE* needs their own head examined! I was going to do my own little attempt at refuting the latter's horse manure upon downloading several of his videos (that included Mr. Dyer's magnum pus -- missing letter "o" intentional) in order to go over them once again with a fine-toothed comb. In the end I couldn't be bothered (re: laziness) and decided to let one measly journal article do the trick. For any theological geeks looking on and curious as to which one it was, here you go....
*_"Father,Son and Holy Spirit---The One God: An Exploration of the Trinitarian Doctrine of Wolfhart Pannenberg"_* by *Chuck Gutenson* [The Asbury Theological Journal; Vol 49, No. 1; (Spring)1994; pp. 5-21]
resurrectionjose Jay has some awesome philosophy and theology lectures, but his attitude and temperament get in the way of what he’s saying. I think his experience debating and being involved with the conspiratorially minded right-wing causes him to be overly hostile towards his detractors. I’m not really a fan, although I cannot dispute his vast theological knowledge. He does know what he’s talking about, he just doesn’t know how to interact with people who disagree with him.
+Werd Nnam -- I realize that going head to head with like-minded folks (i.e., Right Wing, Far-Right, etc.) can bring out the savage beast and at times force a person to go on the defensive. It takes one to know one! That being me. :) All in all, I am not impressed by his *_vast theological knowledge_* for several reasons. I don't know how many books (that includes eBooks) he has in his personal library that touch upon theology, but I am pretty sure I have a helluva lot more (that includes biblical studies which is TONS and TONS!) despite material on Eastern Orthodoxy making up a very small portion. That includes even parapsychology (or paranormal) which amounts to a decent quantity, but the interest I had for the latter within the past 15-20 years has pretty much waned.
I feel the exact way. Definitely see the merits in Lutheranism but I went the Orthodox route ultimately
What is a Reformed Evangellical Seminary? I haven’t heard of a seminary that describes itself that way.
Can you do “5 reasons why I’m not pentecostal”?
Completely unrelated but it seems like such a coincidence that everyone that is apart of this broader theology conversation loves star wars including me. I just find this to be neat.
Reformed is a codeword for Calvinist. Is that right?
It is my understanding that those called "reformed" are not simply "Calvinists", but also hold to a historic confession of faith. They are both Calvinist and confessional.
Technically Calvinist is a code word for Reformed
Kind of. All Reformed are Calvinist, but not all Calvinists are Reformed. In modern parlance, "Calvinist" is usually speaking of those who hold to the soteriological formulation summarized in TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints).
Reformed includes much more than that, but includes Calvinists soteriology. It includes their views of covenant theology, of the Sabbath/Lord's day, images of Jesus, regulative principle of worship, the sacraments, etc.
There are Calvinists who disagree with the Reformed on one or more of these areas. It's also disputed whether Reformed Baptists are really "Reformed" or not; they agree with Reformed on many of these issues, but they practice believers baptism only.
This is why someone like John MacArthur or John Piper are Calvinist (holding to TULIP) but is not Reformed.
@@daric_ Thankyou for an informative reply. Most English speakers are unlikely to realise that Reformed is being given a special meaning. As matters stand, it sounds like the maker of this video went to a Borstal school, but didn't benefit from it. Most English speakers includes the populations of India and Nigeria.
I am so greatful to God and Jesus Christ that that my Grandparents, who immigrated to the US from a devistated post WW1 Germany, brought with them their beautiful faith in Lutheranism. They settled in a neighborhood of fellow german immigrant families, found jobs and worked strong and hard to raise their 4 children with love, respect, and the moral, ethical ways of Lutheran ideology. Along with their friends, they founded and built a Lutheran church to serve their community, sharing the love and grace of the creator and son that excludes no one. I was raised with this church as my cornerstone of faith and will be ever thankful to my God and Savior for blessing me with this life and beautiful family...
Hey Jordan! I just left a "lutheran" church (they were a progressive liberal church, they said the Bible wasnt literal and its a cultural book) so i will start attending a reformed one, (there arent many traditional protestant churches here), but i am reformed in most doctrines
I do have a question about baptism, i do believe that it saves, but since according to the video it regenerates, what if someone gets baptized without having Faith at all, im not talking about infants im talking about lets say a 20 year old guy who is an atheist and wants to impress a Christian girl by getting baptized in a geniune church, is he saved? Or regenerated? Does he recieve the Holy Spirit? Thanks and i hope you can answer!
I doubt any church would baptize him on those conditions.
5 Reasons I am not a Calvinist.
1. God did not force me to be a Calvinist.
2, 3, 4, 5. Same as 1.
Then u actually never studying calvinism.
Nicely done! I have been struggling with these issues for sometime now, thank you. I'm a baptized Christian who attends a Mennonite Brethren church...I can find zero comfort in Calvinism at all, I find it quite horrifying actually. I'm better off with no faith than always wondering..
Having grown up under the heel of Calvinism for decades you make a great point: it is horrifying. It rejects free grace, Christ’s substitution and it reinforces the belief that only Calvinists attain heaven.
Yes, I find hardline predestination beliefs to be horrifying too. I think it might be higher up than Catholic beliefs in purgatory. Also horrifying to think we go through this very tough life, only to find that we have to do hard time on the other side of eternity, to somehow earn our way fully into heaven.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Yes! Thank you!
@@ferbeybill I do think the Calvinistic view of predestination is very wrong. It gives me pause when you say, no faith at all is better than always wondering. Maybe I don't understand their view, because I rejected it so many decades ago. I just knew in my spirit that it could be right. Don't they believe though, that if you are called and serving God, that you must be elect?
I appreciate your videos you put out. I have been a Christian for 4 years now, and would label myself reformed/Calvinist through my own study or influences by reformed men, my congregation would be baptist with reformed tilt, and currently seeming to tilt charismatic (not happy about). Have not spent much time looking into Lutheran traditions as much as the other main traditions except from what I have seen via your videos. You make good points, thank you.
A very coherent and well-reasoned video. Thanks, Jordan !!
Copper criticizes the reformed 'coherent' system, comparing its so-called 'reason' to Lutheran 'revelation.' Now, ironically, you seem to favor Lutheranism for its coherence and logical appeal. Is that sarcasm?
@@dafang1
While I am not a Lutheran, I do find it to be more coherent and reflective of an earlier Christian pedigree. That is, Reformed theology would be more alien to the church fathers than Lutheranism.
Excellent video, The two things that have always concerned me as a lay scholar/reader of theology is the character of God issue i.e. the "Membership has its privileges" mentality and what that says about the character of God. Secondly the ways that they interpret scriptures that are quite out of the realms of what a first century church or even Augustine would have generally understood about the Gospel.
Anglicanism under Edward VI wanted to be a middle way between Geneva and Wittenberg. I think the 39 articles well express view points somewhere between (or encompassing) the Reformed and Lutheran. You should do a why I’m not Anglican video someday.
The 39 Articles upholds the Reformed view of the pneumatic presence (spiritual presence) in the elements, however Anglo-Catholics uphold transubstantiation. I would love to see his 5 reasons why I'm not Anglican.
lol lol lol LOL !
Anglicanism exists because Henri the VIII wanted to bang Ann Boleyn.
@@goofygrandlouis6296 and the “Vicar of Christ” at the time was prepared to issue a dispensation allowing Princess Mary to marry her half brother Henry Fitzroy to avoid the break with the Church of Rome. It was all a bloody mess.
@@parksmason7451 :)
@@goofygrandlouis6296 lol as a king in those years you were the Super Chad .... the Lord Bang-salot
Why are so many people obsessed with man's opinions?
If one stays with scripture you WILL see God's absolute sovereignty in salvation. NONE seeks after God. In our deadness we hate God before HE awakens us to our desperate need of salvation
I really miss the old Intro :( I still always expect the sound
Hey nice to see you here. Not only under the videos from Gunnar Engel. 😊
I can put it back in.
@@DrJordanBCooper That would be lovely! I don't know how others see it though.
@@danielgeb2752 Hey! Klar. Ich liebe die Videos von Dr. Cooper. Ich bin mehr als glücklich hier noch andere Deutsche zu finden haha! So eine theologische Tiefe haben wir im deutschsprachigen Raum oft nicht, ganz einfach weil sich verhältnismäßig wenig dafür interessieren habe ich im Gefühl.
@@lutherserbe6435 ja bei den Amis gibts noch echte konfessionelle Lutherische Kirchen. Hier in Neuseeland leider nicht. Sehr traurig
Personally the Church father reliance (not saying they do not still influence me) actually made me first consider Eastern Orthodoxy. Then the recognition of development throughout church history helped me start to move actually to Reformed theology. Still love my Lutheran brothers in the Faith though.
Great video pastor. I am not Reformed because the only assurance of salvation it provides is an evaluation of your own works which if taken seriously can only convince a person they are not one of the elect. It is a hopeless theology that leads a person to either pride or despair.
Ultimately I think you are correct.
I don't think that reflects a confessional view of Reformed theology. For example, look up the chapter _Of the Perseverance of the Saints_ (chapter 17) in the Westminster Confession. It ties our perseverance to God's work, and when it turns to man's work in the third section, it is only bad. Thus, when the next chapter _Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation_ makes its case, we can look to the work God is doing in us for our assurance.
"2. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the *divine truth of the promises of salvation,* the inward evidence of *those graces unto which these promises are made,* the *testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits* that we are the children of God: which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption."
So we can trust the promises of salvation because they aren't contingent on our work, but God's work, and he will accomplish his work. And we can look inward at the graces God is doing in us because it isn't our work, or belief or any other thing originating in us that saves us, but God's work that saves us. And we can look to our baptism, but not merely the getting wet baptism, but also the thing the sign points to, the regeneration and indwelling work of the spirit in our lives (see also 28.1,6).
@@oracleoftroy We all agree salvation is not contingent upon our work. Since the Reformed system does not teach that Christ died for all the the most important question we can ask is: Did he die for me? The only assurance it can provide which you referenced in the Westminster Confession are inward evidences, personal subjective feelings. With no objective truth outside of ourselves for a terrified conscience to lay hold of, the subjective inner call or testimony quickly melts away providing no assurance. What comfort can be had by looking inside ourselves?
Jesus died for all, this includes me, he told me my sins were truly and actually washed away when he baptized me, he tells me he forgives my sins when I am given his real and true body to eat and real and true blood to drink, all of these things take me outside of myself and point me to Christ.
@@flashhog01 I don't see how your view escapes your own accusation of mere subjective feelings. In your view, Jesus died as much for you as he did for Judas, Hitler, and any other unsaved person one could list. Since you reject the inward evidence of the Fruit of the Spirit as "personal subjective feelings" and instead look to something God did for unsaved people as assurance of your own salvation, what possible assurance could that provide? Meanwhile, the Fruit of the Spirit is not found in such men, so would I not have every right to believe with full assurance the hope the Bible offers to those God is working in? Or should the son of perdition have your same assurance in Jesus's death?
As for baptism and communion, amen! Lutherans have a nasty habit of following Luther in assuming Calvinists are Zwinglists on the sacraments. Calvin and Luther weren't as far apart as most Lutherans (and Luther) assumed. Note, I am not saying their views are identical, but I fully affirm that part of you final paragraph.
@@oracleoftroy Yes, Jesus died as much for you, me, Hitler, etc. Jesus has given us the gift of baptism, in it he says we are saved, regenerated. This is something objective, outside of me I can look to for assurance of salvation. He gives me his true body and his true blood in my mouth, broken and shed for me for the forgiveness of my sins. That too is objective and outside of me and has nothing to do with my feelings.
We understand that while Jesus died for the sins of everyone who ever lived, not all reap the benefits of that objective truth, faith being the thing that obtains them. I am sorry if I gave the impression that we reject all subjective indicators of salvation. We can look to certain things in our lives but only as subjective indications of faith. We first go to and mainly emphasize the external, objective means of grace for assurance.
Well said Jordan; however, please let Jesus defend the reformed.
John 6: 37 '"All that the Father gives to me will come to me.
39 "I shall loose none of all that he has given me..."
44 ("No one) CAN come to me UNLESS the Father who sent me DRAWS him,... "
All in RED letters.
We love you Lutherans as brothers. Please don't make this up about us Presbyterians and try to sell fiction as facts. Surely you can build yourself up without inventing a new us.
We use scripture not human reason as you accuse us.
Thank you for writing what you wrote.
So many things come to my arthritic little brain when I think about the real root cause of all of our doctrinal rock-fighting. Three quotes: the first from Billy Graham: "We live by grace, and do the best we can." The second from C.S.Lewis: "We Christians believe that everyone who is saved is saved by Christ. What we do not know is how." And the third from Arthur Rueprect: "The best test of orthodoxy is gratitude."
If anyone (me, for example) can keep those quotes in mind, it will absolutely change how we disagree with the next 'heretic' we need to talk to.
Remember Jesus scratching in the dirt with a stick? Remember what he said about rocks? We all need that kind of patience and self-control.
im in a process to being out of calvinism but its being so hard, tough in my head im trying to get out of it, but my heart still calvinist
As someone who leans Dutch reformed, I do appreciate Luther’s view on the Lords Supper a bit more.
hey bro, im a dutch reformed too, any other youtube channel you recommended?
+Dr. Jordan B Cooper -- Waiting any day now for a *_"Five Reasons I Am Not A Flat-Earther"_* video. :P
+Mikael Nyman -- Well, look at that. How I missed that puppy is beyond me. Thanks for the heads up.
@@resurrectionjose I made that one just for the comments.
+Dr. Jordan B Cooper -- I took a quick look at the comment section two days ago. Whoa!
Lutheranism makes a lot of sense, I love the videos from Dr Cooper, but my heart and soul belongs to the reformed church. I still think it makes a lot of sense intellectually also, but presbyterianism is the air I breathe and this is quite hard to explain, it is related to a lot of particular events related how God rescued me from Sheol.
Five reason why I’m not Baptist! Oh wait you did that already in your infant baptism videos lol
Oh...you baptize UNSAVED people?
Baptism is a means of grace, it saves as Scripture teaches. So, your question isn’t valid :)
@@Solideogloria00 What church do you go to that teaches that?
@@cassandragarcia5548 Any Confessional Lutheran one.
@@Solideogloria00 Baptism doesn't save. Paul wrote I am not afraid of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes, first to the Jew then the Gentile. So the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Paul said I come not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. That proves that Baptism and the Gospel are not synonymous and that Baptism isn't apart of the Gospel. Recap: If the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation and baptism isn't apart of the Gospel, then baptism does not and can not save.
Thank you for this break down. Confirms a lot.
One of the best theology video I have seen. Thank you. I am a subscriber now!
Regarding your first point…
Dr. Norman Nagel used to say, “We are dogmaticians, not systematicians. We simply repeat what God has said. And if his Word doesn’t fit into your system, then too bad for your system!”
As a Calvinist, I appreciate your character about reformed theology.
Respect for those who believe it, even though there's strong disagreement.
Dr. Cooper is a recovering Presbyterian 😆 during his studies he became Lutheran
I am Calvinist, but I appreciate your video.
5 reasons why you're not Wesleyan/Arminian next!
I think his main disagreement with Wesley is his idea of entire sanctification.
Lutheranism is the middle way between calvinism and arminianism that every protestant should go imao.
@@JP-rf8rr can you explain further? Trying to learn more on the topics
@@eliasg.2427 can you explain further? Trying to learn more on the topics
@@hjc1402
Basically entire sanctification (as wesley put it) is when "A Christian is so far perfect as not to commit sin."
This doesn't mean a Christian cannot make mistakes or have accidents, but that they can't/won't willingly and knowingly commit sin.
Living in the UK, I have no opportunity to attend a Lutheran church. I was attending an Anglican Church and was a reader and member of General Synod. The developments in the Cof E turned me away and now I attend an Evangelical free church. I tend to be loosely Calvinistic but I appreciate the Scripture paradoxes.
As a reformed guy, "you're too logical" is one of the best criticisms I could receive! :)
Would you agree that if an idea is logical but not biblical, then it's not to be considered theology?
*Luke 7:30* God's βουλή (plan/purpose/resolve/counsel) for the Pharisees was to accept them. But they rejected this βουλή of God for themselves, by refusing John's baptism.
*1 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:2* He is especially the Savior of believers. He remains the Savior of all people. This makes the labor of evangelism and the reproach of scoffers bearable. He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the church AND the world.
*John 1:29; 3:16* The lamb of God takes away the sins of the world. God loved the world.
*Luke 8:13* Jesus asserts that some really do *joyfully believe* the gospel for a while, and actually *fall away* through trials and temptations.
*Luke 11:13* Jesus is emphatic that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks.
*Eph **4:30* The Ephesians were sealed for the day of redemption, yet Paul warned them that the possibility of grieving the Holy Spirit was a reality.
*2 Peter 2:1* Christ bought even the heretics who deny Him and destroy themselves.
*1 Tim 2:1-6* Christ died for all people and wants all people to be saved. Therefore, Paul commands us to *interceed* even for godless kings and rulers.
*Hebrews 3:1-12* Even "holy brothers and sisters" can "turn away from the living God" with an "evil, unbelieving heart."
*Hebrews 2:1, 12:25* The author and the audience could reject God's warning and not escape.
*Ephesians 3:3-6; Isaiah 45:19* As God has revealed his secret will in scripture, it is always to extend greater mercy.
Faith needs an outward object to clean to? The book of Hebrews states that faith is being certain of what we do NOT see. Why does it seem that Lutherans turn Types into Realities, which were not ment to be Realities?? For example, Peter says that baptism is a symbol (a type) that does not remove the dirt of sin in 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism does not remove sin nor regenerate. Baptism is a symbol of regeneration.
NLT
And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Might this be why disenchanted people of the Reformed world flock to Lutheranism? After being under cold doctrinal, didactic, historical, grammatical and yet Christ famished exegesis, often plaguing Reformed churches, they find a mystical religion seemingly infused with more meaning that makes typology manifest? The symbols/types take an outward physical form and thus give the Lutheran a more tangible and mystical experience? It makes Lutheranism seemingly richer to the starved, Reformed intellectual who desires some affectiuous religious experience?
The Lord's Supper clearly tell us us that we are to do this in rememberance. This is a perpetual symbols in memorial given to God's people and yet again, the Lutheran wants to infuse the symbol with more. Again, placing the emblem on steroids?
God tells the OT fathers to build plain altars without engravings or any contribution of man's artistic talent, resulting in oft idolatrous ingenuity. Might the Lutheran tradition seems to add to the plain altar and carve more meaning into the base, making it a faith based on sight?
Reformed Christians can be hungry for Christ and are eager to hear of their sweet Savior because the Saharan sermons given in the Reformed camp are frequently held captive to a mere historical, grammatical approach. These send Jesus into the background of sermonizing. I get why Reformed people part ways and are looking for more substance, more Jesus.
What does that mean that Christ's grace is universal and yet for me? How does that bolster assurance?
I am afraid that Baptismal regeneration has zero textual support unless you twist typology. Baptismal regeneration is at odds with the argument that Paul builds throughout Romans concerning Abraham and the blessings that come through the one who has the same faith as Abraham, prior to anything Abraham had done (circumcision). Again, like the Presbyterian, you take baptism and fashion too much continuity between the Old and New Covenant. The symbols in the OT never saved either. Again, this is making too much of type and shadow. The types found in Noah and the Red Sea and Jonah are symbols of regeneration and resurrection, the antitype is found in Christ alone, not in the sacraments. It appears that the sacraments/symbols are elevated to an extra dose of tangibility?? Why?? Does this tangibility effect the Lutheran Church? Sacred art? Veneration? Vestments? Clerical garb?
Been enjoying your videos. I was with you up until point four. One thing you are missing is that when the Bible speaks of baptism, you have to ask which baptism? With water or with the Spirit? regeneration is a work of the holy Spirit according to scripture.that's how the new birth happens. It does not come through water.
I have genuine question. In acts 10 it reads: All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”
- Acts 10:45-47
They where saved before baptism. Am i understanding baptism regeneration wrongly?
The Holy Spirit can come in varying degrees and more than once.
Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and had the Holy Spirit from conception. The Holy Spirit also descended upon him in his baptism.
The Holy Spirit spoke through Peter in Matt 10:20. Yet in some way He had not yet been given, Jn 7:39. Yet in some way Jesus declares He actually HAD been given Jn 14:17. Jesus breathed on his disciples after his Resurrection and gave them the Holy Spirit. They further received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
In our day there are many separate promises of the Holy Spirit.
Anyone who prays to the Father receives the Holy Spirit. Lk 11:13
Anyone who is baptized receives the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38
Anyone who believes and confesses that Jesus is Lord has the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 2:13; Eph 1:13
Whoever hears and believes the preaching of the Gospel has the Holy Spirit. 1 Peter 1:12
So Cornelius' and his companions received the Holy Spirit as soon as they believed Peter's message. But this does not mean that now their water baptism did nothing. This is not a contradiction or cancellation but an abundance. Grace upon grace. Their water baptism did for them everything the Bible says about baptism.
Matthew 21:25 Mere water baptism is a gift from Heaven.
Matthew 28:19 Make disciples by baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and by teaching.
Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism repentance grants the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 16:16 *Baptized believers are saved, unbelievers condemned.*
Luke 7:29 Even water baptism is a public declaration that God is righteous.
Luke 7:30 *Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.*
John 1:31, 33 John knew beforehand that God would reveal the Christ through baptism.
Acts 2:38 *Repentance and water baptism in the name of Jesus = forgiveness and the Spirit.*
Acts 2:39-41 3000 bachelors, virgins, wives, husbands, and children of all ages *received forgiveness and the Spirit in baptism.* The smallest can't have decided to repent in a mature way, but they were not excluded.
Acts 8 Many early church Bible readers saw a distinction between the Spirit's invisible gift of repentance/forgiveness and the Spirit's visible gift of leadership/ordination. Philip the Evangelist could baptize but not bestow spiritual authority. Only the apostles could do that.
Acts 10:47-48 *Baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism.*
Acts 22:16 *Baptism washes away sins.*
Romans 6:3-5 *Water Baptism (which buries) is death to sin, death with Christ, newness of life in Christ, and resurrection with Christ.*
1 Corinthians 1:13 Baptism must not turn into hero worship, cliques, and factionalism.
1 Corinthians 12:13 On the contrary, baptism is unity in the one Holy Spirit in Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:29 Even heretical baptism declares the resurrection of the dead.
Galatians 3:27-28 Baptism clothes every member of the body of Christ in equality.
Ephesians 3:5 There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.
Ephesians 5:26 *Baptism sanctifies the Church because it is the washing of water with the word.*
Colossians 2:11 Water Baptism is the Spiritual circumcision, the circumcision of Christ.
Colossians 2:12 Christ was buried. You were buried with Christ *in water baptism.* God raised Christ from the dead. You believe God raised Christ from the dead. Therefore, God raised you with Christ *in baptism.* This is all *God’s powerful work.*
Hebrews 6:1-2 *Baptism is a basic foundational teaching. You can't say you believe in Jesus while rejecting his basic teachings.*
1 Peter 3:20 Noah was saved by water, not from water. The flood waters washed away much evil.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you!* Baptism is assurance/demand of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I'd be interested in a 5 reasons I'm not a dispensationalist.
I thank God for HIS absolute sovereignty in saving me as a child . If HE had not l would have no hope in my corrupt free will. We do not choose God's claims on our lives
I'm also a confirmed Lutheran coming from the reformed tradition, but my reasons are very different. The first one is the doctrine of the Lord's supper and also I agree on your fifth. The others you give are rather irrelevant for me and I could even dispute your second one. I hold that the doctrine of limited atonement simply doesn't work the way you understand it, and especially regarding what you mention about security of salvation. It simply has nothing to do with that. But I know you don't interact much with followers, so I won't say more unless you request it. I say this respectfully, and as a big fan of most of your videos. But simply sometimes when you speak about reformed doctrines I really feel I'm listening to something quite different from what I learned there, and that's very common in the Lutheran environment. GBY.
The Supper would be my sixth reason if I didn't limit myself by the arbitrary "5" series.
I know I'm a few years late but what about examples of those in acts who had the Spirit before baptism?
ua-cam.com/video/UHos5DrVyF0/v-deo.htmlsi=iIoUBw3fvrapjNxn
Any good student of the Bible could likely find at least 5 reasons for not belonging to any denomination. That is, except the one they belong to😉
If any one thing sold me on Lutheranism, it was the proper distinction of law and gospel.
Good question Alfredo.
Jesus says: “My sheep listen to me voice, I know them and they follow me.” John 10:27
You are one of Jesus’ sheep so let’s ask Jesus (excuse the caps for emphasis).
Whom did you die for, Jesus?
Jesus says:
“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father-and I lay down my life for THE SHEEP....I call my own sheep by name and lead them out.”
John 10:14-15, 3
To the goats Jesus says:
“You do not believe because you are NOT my sheep....My Father HAS GIVEN THE SHEEP to me.”
John 10:27, 29
Jesus says:
“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends IF you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I CHOSE YOU.”
John 15:13-16
Jesus did not choose the goats as his friends.
Jesus says:
“The Son of Man came....to give his life as a RANSOM for MANY (not all).”
Matthew 20:28
If Jesus ransomed the goats, they would be saved.
“ I pray for them. I am NOT praying for the world (goats), but for those you have GIVEN ME, for they are yours. All I have is yours, and all you have is mine.” John 17:9-10
Jesus says he died for the sheep and at the same time told the unbelieving goats they were not his sheep so he did not die for them and Jesus specifically said he is not praying for the goats.
Jesus chose his friends and died for them, not people who were not his friends and hated him.
Jesus says he died to ransom many not all or all would be saved.
If Jesus died for the unbelieving goats, then their sin of unbelief would be paid for and they would be saved.
Jesus says:
“I came down from heaven to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me: That I shall lose none of all he HAS GIVEN ME (the sheep) but raise them up at the last day.”
John 6:38-39
In John 10:28-30 Jesus said the sheep were all the Father had given him and he and the Father are one (in essence and purpose and will).
To have Jesus die for all the sins of people who the Father did not choose is to split the Trinity and make Jesus an inefficient fool working against the Father’s will.
Jesus did not die for Pharaoh and other people already in hell and the goats whom he knew were freely choosing to go to hell.
Why would Jesus die for the goats already in hell?
We all freely choose to go to hell but God chooses to regenerate and save some and die for them. That is pure mercy and grace. When God makes some people spiritually alive, who are dead in sin and resisting God, Jesus becomes irresistible to them.
If Jesus is irresistible to you, then you are one of the Sheep Jesus died for. Jesus did not die for the goats who hate Jesus by their own desire.
Jesus says make a bad tree good and it will bear the good fruit of belief in him. That is what God does for his chosen ones.
Matthew 12:33
I have a problem with baptizing infants and toddlers. In the Bible, Baptism always occurs after someone accepts Jesus (with the exception of John's Baptism), not before, and they always agree to it or request it. Getting baptized before you accept Jesus is like putting the cart before the horse. The cart doesn't pull the horse. Can a baby or toddler accept Jesus? They barely have any understanding of this physical world, much less the spiritual world.
Then how did John the Baptist have faith in the womb?
@@scottswanson9761 This is an old comment. Since then I've actually joined the LCMS, which I find to be better than where I was (at least for me). I still have my doubts about infant baptism, but I decided to comply with the customs and rules if we have another kid.
@@Procopius464 Great! The Bible mentions households being baptized. Look into what the average household looked like in the area at the time. Would have been weird for avoiding infants to not be mentioned if it was the case. Especially since it happens more than once. God bless.
@@scottswanson9761 Yea the pastor showed me that. It could be that it was the original custom, although it seems like more of an implication. Anyways we will cooperate with the custom since we are in the church now.
PC(USA) Minister here, ordained originally in the PCA and served in that denomination for 15 years. Have been a PC(USA) minister for 11 years now. The PC(USA) is in full communion with the ELCA. Your arguments may apply to SOME in the Reformed tradition, but not to the Reformed tradition in general. 1) Most ministers I know consciously try to listen to the text and not to try to hammer the text to make it fit their theology. I certainly hope I do this. 2) Probably for that very reason, I don't know of any ministers in the PC(USA) who hold to "Limited Atonement." There may be some, but I don't know of any. I certainly don't. 3) I don't know any "jure divino" presbyterians. All the ones I know are "jure humano." I believe there is pretty much equal NT support for either a presbyterian or an episcopal polity, and you yourself said much the same thing in this video. I don't know of anyone saying presbyterian polity is "the" way. Straw man. 4) I don't know why you would say we don't believe in Baptismal Regereration. We most certainly do. Our Confessions teach Baptismal Regeneration. The Scots Confession is particularly strong on this. Even the "Puritan" Westminster Confession teaches Baptismal Regeneration. The fact that groups like the PCA promote a sort of "baptism lite" does not mean that our Reformed Confessions do the same, or that the Reformed tradition as a whole does. Baptismal Regeneration is also in our baptismal liturgy in our Book of Common Worship. When I baptize an infant, I then make the sign of the cross on the newly baptised person's forehead with the words, "You are sealed with the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and marked as Christ's own, forever." 5) Speaking of our liturgy, the Service for the Lord's Day of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is extremely similar to Lutheran Gottesdienst or an Episcopal Eucharist. Sure, there are some pockets of low-church, "pine and pain," regulative-principle Puritans out there, but I have done much work in liturgy and music in and for the Presbyterian Church and I can tell you that the historic, ecumenical Christian liturgy is thriving in Reformed churches. As an aside, the modern neckband "dog collar" worn by many Protestant clergy (myself included) was invented by a Church of Scotland minister and then borrowed by Anglicans and those in other traditions. There are some differences between the Lutheran and the Reformed tradition, but our traditions are not nearly as far apart as it seems you would like for them to be.
5 additional reasons:
1 - a Church that thinks a cross is an idol is looking down on Christ's sacrifice, because to them it doesn't matter as Christ only died for some
2 - they don't celebrate Christmas because they say it's not commended. Well we have Liberty to celebrate the birth of Jesus
3 - no hymns and only psalms in a service? What a waste, similar to the a capella only orthodox and mennonites
4 - No communion, maybe 3 times a year and then just "symbolic"
5 - calling people arminians if they don't subscribe to their brand of theology
@AVB2 been to reformed churches here that's how they do it
The Bible says:
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
John 1:29
People assume this verse teaches that Jesus died for everybody without “exception” but it does not say this.
First of all, they themselves correctly believe Jesus only “takes away” the sin of people who believe so they contradict themselves.
They do not realize that if Jesus “takes away” the sins of everybody in the world without exception, then nobody is left with any sins including the sin of unbelief and so everybody is saved.
So this verse has to teach that Jesus only died for and takes away the sins of the sheep scattered in all the world without distinction in all nations whom God has chosen!
The Bible makes this clear:
“He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish NATION, and not only for that NATION but also for the SCATTERED children of God, to bring them together and make them one!”
John 11:51-52
Plus Jesus says:
“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father-and I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR THE SHEEP!”
John 10:14-15
So while these people make the Bible contradict itself, the Bible is in fact in perfect harmony and proves it was written by the Holy Spirit without error because all people do is contradict and disagree with each other.
Jesus says:
“You do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me!”
John 10:26-27
And Jesus says, “I lay down my life for the sheep!” John 10:14
Isaiah 53:6: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us ALL."
1 Timothy 4:10: "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of ALL MEN, specially of those that believe."
1 John 2:2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD."
Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY MAN."
1 Timothy 2:4: "Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the Truth."
Michael Bain Amen, sadly no amount of scripture will convince him because scripture is not his authority.
emanuel kournianos Taking away someone’s sin doesn’t save you.
FAITH IN CHRIST saves you.
People don’t go to hell because of sin.
People go to hell because of UNBELIEF.
People go to hell because they reject the only way to the Father.
@@apilkey you are exactly right.. very few people believe this... Sin has been paid for All.. people don't go to hell to pay for their sin.... they go there because it's the only suitable place for someone who is not Glorified... once I understood this it made everything so clear...
Luther pointed to the universalism of The Gospel when he himself struggled with election. I have dealt with this darkness and only to be pointed to God wants me because I’m included in this universal Gospel. Luther was once asked “don’t you wish scripture just said God died for Martin Luther?” He answered, “no because I would wonder who the other Martin Luther was, look upon Christ in his humanity and see your election there. “
Get ready for the paragraphs.
I just saw your video for the first time..thank you for this, it is very good and you explained it very well.
Jesi li iz Srbije, Bosne, Hrvatske? Ili slicno?
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist From Serbia.
@@johndoe767-c6l I ja sam iz Srbije, samo sto nisam Srbin vec Slovak.
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist Odakle iz Srbije?
@@johndoe767-c6l Iz Bačke Palanke.
Would be interesting to hear your opinion on confession and absolution, since you come from a Reformed tradition
Regarding your first reason, I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's recommendation: "don't think, but look!"
When you leave such issues in paradox you open up the possibility of Self interpretations of the meanings of the text, and that causes readers to make the Bible fit there view not what God intended in his word. Trust in Christ, pray for discernment to understand, and always keep his word in context.
Scripture about Baptism can also be talking about the Holy Spirit which people take as face value.
The only thing I would say is that there was quite a bit of 'Lutheran reasoning' in the first two points whilst trying to critique the Reformed for using reason! So many ex or anti-reformed use 'double predestination' as a reformed criticism when in fact that is not what Calvin or any reformed great theologian (Edwards/Knox) or even Spurgeon taught. RC Sproul smashes those views as incorrect use of predestination (Hyper Calvinism) and he undoes TULIP also in his book Chosen. All mankind is worthy of wrath. God chooses His elect and overlooks those that were worthy of wrath anyway. Its more about God being Sovereign to choose to elect and give grace. This is why He is God. We cant read the scriptures any other way (ie ignore the huge number of 'elect' scriptures' or sovereignty scriptures. The ones that infer universal grace must be held in tension with that. If there was even one grain of sand to say there is mans involvement - then man is slightly more righteous than totally unrighteous - which he is not (Romans 3/Eph 2). God didn't deliberately create or predestine people for hell. That would be evil. NO. Man is worthy of judgement and deserves it - but God also chooses to save. I think Reformed and Lutherans have more in common than they confess (no pun intended!). And I love the baptism and Revelation points! Re governance - the only issue with bishopric suddenly not being on par with elder/pastor is worldly forms of hierarchy. But I guess a good Lutheran area would know how to get around that...and I did love the view of the transition from apostles to bishops - that could well be right...
The consistent Calvinist believes in double predestination. God in Calvinism afterall, ordains man's sinful nature making him deserving of hell from the moment he was born. You can sugarcoat it all you want.
I left Calvinism because I stopped convincing myself that the implications of the system are not ugly and EVIL.
@@chrispedayo I think he's more highlighting that when anti-Calvinists say "double predestination" they aren't referring to the Reformed view of predestination, but the error of equal ultimacy. That's why he put it in scare quotes. If Reformed Theology does indeed have evil implications, that's fine and would be very helpful to present the true gospel so Reformed Christians can read it and repent, but sadly, most anti-Calvinists just lie about what Reformed Theology actually teaches to make their point and falsely condemn it.
_"God in Calvinism afterall, ordains man's sinful nature making him deserving of hell from the moment he was born."_
That belief is much older than Calvin by at least 1000 years. Read the Canon of Orange.
Have you read "Bondage of the Will" by Luther?
I can't get enough of reading Charles Spurgeon lately, and I just can't see how anyone would have a problem with his theology.
Spurgeon is a stealth calvinist, who equated calvinism with the gospel and Scripture. It isn't.
Spurgeon is like a sneaky gateway drug into harder drugs and deeper into the heresies of calvinism.
Spurgeon sure seems to hate the Anglo Catholics. I noticed that. And it really turned me off.
@@tracygriffin4439 Did he hate them, or did he hate what they believed and did
@@LilacDaisy2 Either way he's wrong.
@@tracygriffin4439 lol. Strong reasoning.
What about the handling of Law/Gospel?
The idea that the Reformed church doesn't embrace paradox is delusional
I do not agree with all your points but some of them (like #1) are some things I struggle with as a Reformed Christian. I do not think I will change from being reformed but that does not mean that I have to be 100% in a agreement or like everything 100% in the Reformed tradition. Reformed Christians are often overly logical and legal oriented. But the latter I can say about Lutherans also. Not all people in the Reformed tradition are so overly logical. Also some can be almost mystical or spiritual (not mystical in experience is on par with Scripture). But views on Jesus Christ's presence in the LS differ from a Zwinglian non-presence (if Zwingli actually ever taught that) to what I call a real spiritual presence in which Christ is present in the LS in a mystical/ spiritual way. We could not really know how JC is present "spiritually." This would be much closer to Lutheran Consubstantiation or that Jesus is physically present (mysteriously) with the elements. Again it ends up being a mystery.
Reformed Theology is difficult for people who can't see the difference (or who don't value the difference) between being man-centered vs. being God-centered.
So, pretty much back in the days of the Reformation (and up through the 3rd generation), the only difference between Dutch Calvinism and Lutheranism were their views on the sacraments. Martin Luther and John Calvin both would have agreed with the Canons of Dort.
For instance, see Martin Luther’s bondage of the will.
You forgot another difference
Lutheranism are cool with images, statues, crosses, etc but Calvinists are the opposite
God says:
“And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified!”
Romans 8:30
The “US” in the following are the sheep (Christians) - not the goats and teaches that Jesus died for his Chosen ones.
“What, then, shall we say in response to these things?
If God is for US, who can be against US? He who did not spare his own Son, but GAVE HIM UP FOR US all-how will he not ALSO, along with him, graciously give US all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God HAS CHOSEN? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died-more than that, who was raised to life-is at the right hand of God and is also INTERCEDING FOR US. Who shall separate US from the love of Christ?
Romans 8:31-35
Jesus did not die for the goats and he is not interceding for the goats or giving them all things.
Jesus says:
“I lay down my life for the sheep....You do not believe because you are not my sheep.”
John 10:15, 26
Firstly Romans 8:29-30 is talking about how the old testament saints are also being conformed to the image of Christ, this is why we see the word "also" used in Romans 8:29. Because remember earlier in Romans 8 Paul was talking about Christians in the present then in 29-30 he includes all of the old testament saints and believers. Regarding the OT saints, recall that in Matthew 27:52-53 after Jesus' death many of the saints rose from the dead. see Romans 11:2 " God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Isreal, saying" Hence all of the past tense verbs used in Romans 8:30
Then on John 10:15-26, Jesus most likely said that some of them were not his sheep because some of them may have blasphemed the Holy Spirit in John 10:20
On some of your other statements, it is saddening you do not believe Jesus died for everyone's sins. Why let an ideology twist your view of the gospel.
@@InterFinumRerum let me ask you this, is everyone going to be saved? I do agree that The work of Christ Can save everyone but is everyone saved?
@@stea6853 if you don't believe Jesus died for everyone, you are unsaved. I'm not arguing with you on almost a 4 year thread. Let you and your calvinist false gospel be accursed.
John 6: 65 "This is why I told you that (No one CAN come to me) UNLESS the Father has enabled him." Will you believe Jesus or Jordan or have you mistaken Jordan for Jesus?
How about a video on the Church of Christ and their demand that we all ought to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ alone? I see no textual variations for the great commission.
Update: it's actually the oneness folks that do so (and Church of Christ) and they're reading of scripture is too laughably bad to take seriously
Church of Christ does that? I thought that was mostly Oneness.
@@zarnoffa I double check and it seems the Church of Christ doesn't indeed do that. I don't know how I got that confused with the oneness folks.
Yikes!
As a Congregationalist I would actually agree with the sentiment you gave; while I do think that the New Testament use of 'Bishop' is synonymous with Elder I don't therefore think Episcopal or Presbytery orders are evil and anti-Christian, I just don't see them called for in Scripture and have a low view of how their historical development seems to be inseparable from the ways in which the Church became embroiled in political matters; which I would say were both inappropriate and corrupt. Presbyterianism, on the other hand, I find some pragmatic sympathy towards but due to their use of the regulative principal in worship it seems to me they ought to hold more directly with the prescription of Scripture so there's an extra internal critique there.
You have a reformed beard, so. I’m
Sure you are reformed and you just don’t know it.0
Simply put ... The Lord is Sovereign or man is , it can’t be both
Claiming to be biblical, you don't seem to bring up much scriptural passages to support your hermeneutics. You seem to call upon selective church history that you personally like or use what your personal opinions, but very little scriptural coherency.
You can watch his other videos or podcasts where he goes through many, many Biblical verses. This is just a short video summarizing his reasons.
Are you trying to make Jesus logical to humans ? Don't you think He us beyond our complete understanding
what ??? the reformed theology has consistent and coherent logic ??? NOOOOOP
I'm with you....like Dr. David Allen said... "Calvinism is a doctrine in search of a proof text"
What is your camera and specs? Thanksss dr cooper
Get to mass and receive the eucharist.
I do.
@@DrJordanBCooper not a "Lutheran" mass as its not valid but instead by an ordained Catholic priest who is valid to consecrate the host and conduct the mass.
@@ArgyllPiper90 Sure thing, as soon as the Catholic church stops muddling the gospel with works and false doctrine.
@@Outrider74I'm awaiting for you to expand on the statements you have made so I can respond accordingly.
@@Outrider74 Not to mention "offering an unbloody sacrifice" to God the father, instead of recieving what God has done for us. The deciever will decieve...
What is reformed
I really enjoy this content. I've never heard much from the Lutheran end. It is very interesting.
I personally a conservative Pentecostal but I hold traditional Baptist arminian views on soteriology. But you really have helped educate me.
God bless brother
What are the views on child baptism? I am Lutheran baptised and confirmed in a Lutheran church.( I am not American). How is it with all people who are baptised as children but then do not believe? If baptism forgives sin than they are forgiven??
All a bishop is, is a presbytyr. He is the presbytyr of the church.
"For the remission of sins" would be both present and future, so my read on that is that it is a new circumcision in that it leaves behind the old life and begins a new life within a covenant, essentially making one eligible for the forgiveness of sins. Is my read on this incorrect?
I guess you haven't read bondage of the will
Read Acts and Titus
How do Lutherans view Mary?
The Theotokos is beloved in Confessional Lutheranism. Lutheran Mariology is well established.
About the regulative form of worship: Nowhere in the New Testament does it mention that we should wear clothes.
Charles Spurgeon claimed the Bible was a Calvinist Bible. I’m pleased you were clever enough to choose Christ as your saviour. Without you God’s hands are tied. Man should always have the deciding decision.
@AVB2 I’m on your side,I was being sarcastic. Totally agree with you.
Is there a book that compiles the early church fathers writings on baptism?
To #5 -- argument seems confused when you argue for what worship should be from Revelation, because the force of that argument has teeth in terms of the premise of the regulative principle (RP) -- namely, that our worship should be derived (only from) Scripture. Said differently, you could "take part in the discussion" in a group holding to the RP and make those same points. (The church history arguments are something else -- I'm only commenting on the Revelation part.)
The Reformation was definitely very much of Luther, and his protest which followed against the Latin RC ; yet the term “reformed” for all Protestant Believers has been hijacked by just Calvinism. It isn’t true that all reformers then were pushing Tulip / John Calvin, and should not be confused with having the same meaning.
Being obsessed with calvin does nothing.. Just come to Him and HE WILL NOT cast you out. You will realize He chose you to salvation
As someone raised Reformed Baptist who became Presbyterian I can confirm that existential struggle about whether or not you're saved, which you raised in point 2, is real.
@FightPeople I've been inquiring into Orthodoxy for over a year now. Lord willing I will convert. We will see though. I've been raised in the Reformed Tradition and so I want to learn more about it (and Orthodoxy) for a little longer before making any final decision.
I come out more calvinist, but good video (perhaps that's why).