Video

As has been said by many, Heiser didn't claim to have discovered anything new or to have any special knowledge, but that he had the "ah, ha" moment or realization tgat he had done as most do and just read over the passage(s) w/o really carefully considering the literal interpretation or practical implication or how these inform or fit into the remainder of Scripture. He also came to reject or caution against the danger of systemetization of Scripture iot develop or, date I say "conjur" certain doctrines or theological thought which although clean and cohesive is only so to the exclusion of the balance of Scripture.

Thank you.

Can you please do some more videos on the difference between the ideas of the the sacrodotal priesthood and the priesthood of all believers

I had to rewind three times to make sure you weren't talking about Kant and I missed the segue. Why have I never heard of Pierre Charon?!

Some Lutherans have practicing homosexual pastors. The name Lutheran does not mean much.

❤❤ I like the online, inhouse approach but periodic seminars, retreats or learning encounters on campus can still work. I did not know there was so differences and backgrounds in Lutheranisum!!!! One point, when a missionary, at least in the past,, went into a culture, they immersed themselves in that culture. I believe we have to do the same right here in America. We have different regions of the country reflecting different cultures and yet we are all Americans. Glad to know you're group is not liberal!❤

Instead of saying Derrida is wrong about that he should probably say I disagree with this. It would seem more balanced.

If Paul is writing Romans 7 as a Christian and his struggle against sin, then had the "law of the spirit of life in Christ set him free from the law of sin and death"? Apparently not.

I think pastors are going to be forced into the “culture warrior” position in the very near future.

I don't understand how someone justified by faith and not works, can fail in doing good and sin themselves out of salvation (apostasy). I'm not subscribing to the idea that you can do whatever you want, I'm just wondering if there isn't something to the doctrine that says that one who apostates was never genuinely saved, rather than saying sin condemned you after being justified. It makes Lutheranism seem weak in its assertion. Which is fine if the only goal was to break away from Rome. But if the reformation was more than that, even the salvation of men's souls, how can this 'lose your justification by the victory of sin over the cross' stand?

so….. are they inspired scripture or not?

I can't help but think that Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox (not all, but many) might consider themselves as the gatekeepers of Tradition™️, in which they unnecessarily bind the conscience of many with traditions which might notb actually be necessary. (Ie mandatory icon veneration, prayer to the saints, etc)

54:24 that is one HECK of a Freudian slip. Because the Masoretic text *isn’t* what underlies the NT at all, in fact it is the Septuagint, which itself says ‘Sons of God’.

If infant baptism was supported by Scripture, there would be at least one example in the Bible, and at least a clear command. No verse commands us to baptize infants. We have examples of both for adults, and such examples is being submerged into water.

45:51 yeah no, that’s not what Jesus says. That’s what tradition has told you he says. The plainest reading is that he is claiming to be MORE divine that those that the Word came to, because HE is the Word. It’s a doubling down. Your interpretation has Him essentially saying ‘I’m not REALLY claiming to be divine. See your scriptures excuse my blasphemy’ The anger of the Jews is completely unexplained if he is just saying what you claim he is saying.

I get that you are Lutheran but if their hermanutical taking off point is a Christological one, then I think Lutherans are off base from sound practice and likely sound doctrine as a result. The beauty of the Divine Council worldview is that Christ and His Gospel are the focus of it all but the ancient context actually reveals the depth of every dimension of the Gospel. There is no hidden knowledge here, and Heiser’s vehement hatred of Gnostic teaching should prove that he is opposed to anything like that. The ancient context can’t be hidden knowledge as it was that context that the writers, editors and audience lived in. What Heiser takes issue with is the accretions of church doctrine over history that have, almost entirely inadvertently, papered over the ancient context that reveals the fullness of the Gospel.

No St Paul did along with the 12 apostles.

There goes Dr Cooper again...... separating tradition from the Word of God. This isn't how the early church functioned. First off, they had very little in the way of Scriptures other than the OT. They relied on the ORAL teachings and traditions. St Paul confirms this to the Thessalonians: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." I would ask Dr Cooper whether Paul's spoken words were somehow less authoritative than Paul's written words here. If tradition (the positive kind, or Holy Tradition) were hermetically sealed and separated from Scripture, why did Paul tell the Thessalonians this here? There is no evidence that the early church fathers bifurcated tradition in this way. And it doesn't fly to say "well this church father elevated Scripture here and there, and made this the final test of all things" because, in context, they weren't saying that at all. Without the authority structure of Holy Tradition, Scripture, and Magesterium, the believer is adrift in his own (or groups own) interpretation of Scripture which differs, at times radically, from one another. Furthermore, the "Word of God" is not strictly limited to Scripture. Jn 21:25: "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." All of Jesus' words and acts are authoritative, irrespective of whether they were written down or not.

Meanwhile, The independent Baptists will look at all these guys and say “ These guys are our spiritual forefathers”.

If you want to jump to the actual argument, go to 9:48

There are modern challenges with church discipline that I don’t feel are being adequately considered. There is a language barrier between generations, life styles (such as the “chronically online,” men and women, political affiliations, and so on. Take for example “racism.” If one asks Google is something is racist the answer is almost invariably yes. So when a person says “racism is bad,” those of us operating on a pre millennial definition say “of course,” while the youth hear that the morality of their mere existence is bad if their skin is a shade too light. What is worse is that the only thing not called racism is actual racism such as segregation. Should a church then have organizations or caucuses that are race based then the younger among us immediately feel justified in assuming that the church doesn’t mean the classical definition of “racism,” but rather the modern definition where segregation is the only thing not racist. Repeating the words of Martin Luther King Jr today is considered “racist.” We say “violence is bad,” but to the online crowd we are told that “silence is violence,” passing gas can be violence, speaking the truth is violence if you disagree with someone, but again arson and attacks are not considered violence but “the voice of the unheard.” “Far right,” years ago referred to specifically the European far right, monarchy, fascism, etc (American conservatism is actually European left wing as what is conserved depends on the start point). Today is we compare the policies of JFK and even Clinton in the 90’s even they would be called “far right.” So this term also in modern vernacular means anything right of chairman Mao. Unfortunately every word today has half a dozen definitions depending on sub groups and the repercussions of the wrong word in the wrong group is increasing becoming a life or death mistake which then leads young people to ally themselves which any group they don’t feel attacked by. As such people on both sides are extremely on guard and sensitive to words. The Left (in my opinion) to find targets to destroy, the right to try to build a bulwark around what precious few organizations we maintain and to ensure we don’t have picketers in front of our homes for reading Genesis 1 or our homes burned for exhibiting “racism” by mowing our lawn. This makes all issues far more divisive. The use of a single media buzzword can ignite it conservatives into extremely defensive postures and the left into attack mode. This then creates massive confusion about church disciplinary actions. Should a church (hypothetically) respond to accusations of slipping towards the left and the church responds with accusations of racism and far right extremism without specific in context examples the individual church goer can not understand because by racism do they mean “he is literally Hitler” because he enjoys fresh air? Is he far right because he isn’t a communist? or is he goose stepping on his way to a lynching with a picture of Mussolini with a halo on a picket sign. Every person who has been paying attention to definition creep and is right of a rainbow shirt Stalin fanatic is already asking “Am I to be excommunicated as “far right” too because I delete all the “pride month” emails without even opening them? Am I to be labeled a “racist” because I say I don’t like certain genres of music?” When someone (for example) says a certain document or statement of church leadership is “woke” a response of threatening disciplinary action against the “Far right racist!” Will only cause division as each person without greater context then examines the arguments on almost no information battle lines are drawn. A single confusing statement in the only information available, the document and last five emails from the church regardless of subject, suddenly has swords drawn in the pews. That was a really long winded way of saying that in a society with no remaining standard definitions unprecedented political and cultural divisiveness, and concern over being utterly destroyed and dragged in front of cameras for the crime of smiling at a native gentleman church discipline has challenges if they don’t want to look like a rainbow flagged draped pope shouting “off with his head” when people disagree. I certain recent church discipline actions please compare the public reactions of both sides and perhaps on one side of the church the statements rang like Martin Luther racking up a 95 thesis and unjustly being served a papal bull, while the other says “can you believe the nerve of this guy,” and the two of us as ushers in the center isle not having a clue because we understand that the definition of words is completely destroyed and have no clue what anyone is talking about because nobody wants to define the definition or definitions in an apolitical and objective way.

Is theosis the same doctrine as Divinization? Is there an appeal to Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15? Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. ~ Thanks.

Dune is not that great. Maybe the first two books are OK.

Dune is not that great. Maybe the first two books are OK.

I just think that it is very telling that the professor in the video did not provide any historical data to back up his claim and he conveniently omitted historical facts from credible sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica which states that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church and that every single Protestant denomination was started by man. Why would anyone turn their back on God and His Holy Church in favor of a counterfeit "church" that makes no claim to be founded by Jesus Christ? That has Satan written all over it my friends. Protestantism is Satan's greatest deception upon the people of the world.

16:30 I would agree that of course Christ can do anything he wants, he is everywhere at all time and any form or mode he deems. But that’s different than saying that what he commanded us in communion was that he would allow us to chew on his flesh carnally That’s definitely not the case. We receive him spiritually.

14:37 I am a member of the LCMS. I need to talk to my pastor about this.

10:54 mystery solved, the picture HE painted was “just like this bread is broken and consumed for carnal life, HIS body would be broken for eternal life, and just like the wine was consumed for earthly life, his blood would be spilled for eternal life” In what way do we cooperate with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection? In spirit and truth. In faith and hope through Christ our Lord. Mystery solved, read the Bible

9:48 and you’re not if you read the scripture you would understand. He is with us in spirit. This is just a fact, that’s God’s nature, that’s God’s character. The old and New Testament also forbid drinking blood.

7:13 just holding onto the pagan Institute of having physical means to display Christ, love. You just can’t let it go, paganism. we don’t need anything carnal to feel closer to God. This idea that to be grounded in faith to have these carnal and physical elements it’s just paganism

5:59 only in Spirit John 6:60-64

It’s really not that bizarre, that’s you trying to fit a square pack and round hole. Other words you over analyzing what was made clear by Christ himself.

1:43 first, there are no more alters. Christ’s sacrifice was enough, all alters have been broken. There are no more sacrifices. No more alters.

Amen

Just amazing

Thank You for the video. Could You elaborate more about on how You believe pietism influenced the rise of foreign missions? Thank You.

I appreciate this message. We attended a reformed Baptist church that quietly introduced headcovering for women. When we talked to the leadership (who were introducing it) they said that we should really study it out for ourselves either privately or with them. If after studying it out we were convinced that it was for today then we needed to obey that commandment to wear headcovering, to not obey meant were were in rebellious sin against Gods commandment for women to wear headcovering. I countered them by asking; did you have to study out any of the 10 commandments before you chose to obey them? Do you first need a burning conviction that adultery is wrong in order to call it sin. Or is it only a sin if your convinced of it. We didnt stay in that church. Their doctrine/ gospel was different than what I was taught.

I have two questions I don't quite understand. 1st) How would Lutherans answer the question to how the Patriarchs before Christ were saved. Since Baptism is required. Would you simply say their baptism was the circumcision? And whet about the thief on the cross? 2) How does it make sense to say that Lutherans believe in Faith Alone, when in the Lutheran tradition, Baptism is a required work for salvation? Thank you in advance.

I would like to buy a copy, but unfortunately Amazon does not sell it in Australia... : ( If you can advice on how can I obtain a copy, I will much appreciated. Thank you

Sorry, but Judaism didn't exist yet at that time

Amazing job as always. Which Eucharistic setting do you use?

That brought a tear to my eye, was blessing to hear it, thank you for sharing the sermon Dr. Cooper!

The body of flesh picks impurity like in the case of touching a dead animal, that kind of stain the water cleans. The spiritual body picks impurity like when lying or having cursed your brother, that impurity the blood cleans. It is BOTH that are needed, water AND blood to be perfectly cleansed, that is why water and blood came out of Jesus body .

Great Law Gospel sermon Dr. Cooper. Hearing the law and the gospel properly distinguished, the Law preached in all its severity, and the gospel in all its beauty has been one of the greatest blessings in my Christian walk. Hopefully you continue to post more sermons!

Your thoughts are always helpful. Thanks!

Great word!

Does Scripture say that God requires only repentance from us? Scripture says in Eze. 33:14-16 (ESV, emphasis in capital is mine): 14 Again, though I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' YET IF HE TURNS FROM HIS SIN AND DOES WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT, 15 if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 NONE OF THE SINS THAT HE HAS COMMITTED SHALL BE REMEMBERED AGAINST HIM. HE HAS DONE WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT; HE SHALL SURELY LIVE. According to Luther through faith alone ALL sins of believers (past, presents and future ) are imputed on Christ who already bore the punishment of those sins (the believers deserve) on the cross. Luther did write that believers still need to repent for their future sins - otherwise those sins won't be imputed on Christ: It is true that He [God] does not impute it [sin], but to whom and on what account? Not to the hardhearted and smug but to those who repent and who by faith take hold of Christ the Propitiator, on whose account sins are forgiven them and the remnants of sin are not imputed to them. Luther: Lectures on Galatians 5-6, 1535, Luther’s Works, Vol. 27, page 75 But to do what is just and right after repentance as stated in Ezekiel. 33:14-16 will add what Christ did on the cross, according to the teaching of Luther. Which one we should follow, Scripture or tradition of Luther?

Whoa, wait. So the Lord Jesus is present in the Lord's Supper in a SPIRITUAL sense but still present?

Oh my! The guy in the video claims to be some kind of professor or something, and yet I know 5th graders that could present a better argument. Artificial Intelligence is the buzz word lately, so let's ask Siri or Alexa who founded each of the Churches. Spoil alert, they will both tell us that Christ founded the Catholic Church and named men founded each of the Protestant "churches". Only God can establish His One True Church. The One True Church is Holy because God is Holy. It's amazing how someone as intelligent as the professor claims to be can believe that a sinful man could replace God's Holy Church with his man-made sinful "church". It's crazy stupid to deny the historical facts. For nearly 1500 years the world accepted without argument that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and was silent concerning any other claims to being the True Church that Christ founded. Then came Martin Luther and the printing press and voila! all of a sudden you've got new "churches" popping up all over the place and all of them opposing each other's doctrines. They hold nothing in common except for their anti-Catholicism. Just stick with the facts and you can't go wrong.

Too much talk,get to the point. Im so tired of heady conversations lol reformers seem to go on and on and on