Justification according to Paul A Response to Jordan B. Cooper - Robert C. Koons & Matthew J. Thomas
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- Patreon: / intellectualconservatism
Podcast: podcasts.apple...
Podcast: intellectualco...
Facebook page: / intellectualconservatism
The purpose of Intellectual Conservatism is to defend the true, good and beautiful things of life that are jeopardized in mainstream academia and society. On this page, you will find artwork, music, satire, academic papers, lectures and my own projects defending the duty of conserving these true, good and beautiful things.
Love seeing Rob with a headset; excited to hear this conversation!
Brought in matthew thomas... what a boss
Fantastic discussion, gentlemen! One thing I found very interesting among Dr. Cooper's objections to the Council of Trent was that there was more than one position being debated at the time. It seems to me that the nature of the magisterium is a spot that Dr. Cooper could strengthen his understanding of the Catholic Church substantially on.
Trent was called to settle the charges of the Reformers which required definitions on topics the church hadn't ever needed to define before. The fact there was a dispute at the Council is the very reason we need a magisterium and the authority of the Catholic Church. It is there to make a definitive decision that we know we can trust to be true because it is being guided by the Holy Spirit. Without this authority, we have no way to ever know who is right in these debates. We all point to the same scriptures and come to different conclusions.
Furthermore, it seems very important to me that one of the key positions that Trent ended up on, viz. the idea of infused sanctifying grace as the formal cause of our justification, is what is most in line with the traditions of the Church. Luther's position of the extrinsic imputation of Christ's very own righteousness, was a complete novelty to the Reformation, as can be seen here by one of the most prominent modern day scholars, Alister McGrath, on the historical development of the doctrine justification in the Christianity:
"The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external.
In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification."
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126*
"Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
*Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186*
It seems to me that Luther, himself, was even aware of the novelty of some of his positions, but for some reason that wasn't a problem for him or many of his followers (as quoted by Dr. Thomas towards the end of the video):
"Of this difference between the Law and the Gospel nothing can be discovered in the writings of the monks or scholastics, nor for that matter in the writings of the ancient fathers. Augustine understood the difference somewhat. Jerome and others knew nothing of it. The silence in the Church concerning the difference between the Law and the Gospel has resulted in untold harm. Unless a sharp distinction is maintained between the purpose and function of the Law and the Gospel, the Christian doctrine cannot be kept free from error."
**Luther, Matin. Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Chatper 3, v. 19. (1535).
I also highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy that Dr. Koons mentions to anyone exploring the historical justification debate between Lutherans and Catholics. It was highly influential on my own conversion to the Catholic Church from the LCMS Lutheran Church. This book argues that the Joint Declaration on Justification (1999) was not an accurate portrayal of either the Lutheran or Catholic positions on justification.This book claims (and I now agree) that the crux of the difference between the two views is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification: is it the imputation of Christ’s righteousness extra nos (Lutherans) or is it the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer (Catholics)? Dr. Malloy makes his case by surveying the two side’s positions on justification throughout history, including the failed reconciliation attempts at the Diet of Regensburg, the Council of Trent, modern Lutheran views, and finally a critique of the Joint Declaration. This was one of the most important books for solidifying my views that the Catholic Church is actually right about justification and does not teach any form of “works righteousness” or Pelagianism. It seems to me that Dr. Malloy does a very good job potraying Lutheran ideas fairly and heavily cites directly from the Lutheran Confessions.
God bless!
Agree . What Dr. Cooper is missing is that there are usually different factions at all Councils advocating different positions . That’s what Councils are for. There were some defending something very close to the Lutheran position . The Council Fathers did not accept their position . So what was a previously permitted theological position was no longer permitted after the Council. And so Seripando and Poole accepted the decision and submitted to the Council’s teaching as obedient sons of the Church (Poole’s clear submission took awhile to my understanding). I agree Mallory’s book is excellent
At around 34:00, I have absolutely no clue where Dr. Koons got the idea from that I believe the Roman view is the result of nominalism, and that the Lutheran approach is *the* Patristic one. That is very much opposed to what I have said/written in numerous places.
Would you like to join him on the channel?
Hi Dr. Cooper. I am not sure, but maybe this is what Dr. Koons was reacting to? This was from your "Response to Robert Koons on Justification" video around 14 minutes and 50 seconds:
"...what he's [Dr. Koon's] going to point out is that a lot of the polemics of Melanchthon - particularly he's kind of harsh about Melanchthon - but if you look at Melanchthon and Luther you know they portray this perspective that people can essentially save themselves by their own works. And in reality that is what Luther and Melanchthon were fighting against. *There was a perspective in late medieval nominalism, in particular, which said that man can of his own unaided powers love God above all things. So, that is a kind of crass Pelagianism and you find that being refuted by others, as well.* I mean the Jansenists fought against it after the Reformation. You find people like Gregory Romini and others as well in the medieval period that recognize these issues, so Luther and Melanchthon were not just misrepresenting Rome to say that there were teachers that were teaching these things very explicitly."
I think this is a spot where a conversation between you and Dr. Koons (or other Catholics) would help both sides greatly. I can certainly see how you are not trying to say that this nominalist-influenced view of justification is the current dogmatic Roman view, but as you said, it clearly is what Luther and Melanchthon were reacting against.
Currently, this is where I would question if this is where Luther and Melanchthon overreacted against certain errors among individuals within the Roman Church (which you will always find in any age) and, in doing so, threw the baby out with the bath water by constructing their own system of justification that is not inline with the Patristic Fathers or fits all the biblical data best.
I think this is where a very interesting conversation would ensue between yourself and Dr. Koons or other Catholic thinkers today. I would love to hear a dialogue with Catholics where you all can dig into whether Luther's ideas on sola fide were a theological novelty or if Luther was rediscovering important truths about justification that God meant for his Church to always hold to (viz. imputed righteousness vs. infused sanctifying grace).
May God lead us all towards His truth. God bless!
It would be realy nice to see a discussion between dr. Cooper and dr. Koons on justification as well as between dr. Cooper and Michael Lofton on the Holy Magisterium
@@intellectualcatholicism Sure.
@@DrJordanBCooper Awesome. My email is suan@ksu.edu. Email me there, and I can arrange something between you and Rob.
Love your podcasts....some of the best high quality theological discussions on u tube.
Luther outright states in his famous 1535 Galatians commentary that his view on law/gospel and justification are completely unknown to any church fathers. He goes as far to say Jerome would condemn him for his views.
Hi Suan, thank you for your amazing work. As a Marketing Manager I’d like to encourage you to don’t stop posting on Podcasts as well. Your content is really good and helps a lot of people, and over time your channel is very likely gonna grow a lot. That’s why I think you should keep following these boring structures of Marketing. God bless you bro!
Muchas gracias por evangelizar que Dios los bendiga grandemente 🙏
Really found this helpful in seeing the wider views of Justification- and as 'always' I am so glad and blessed I have come into the Catholic Faith and am learning the truth of Justification through the Church established by Christ and leaving behind the discordant, error filled and contrary views of Protestants.
This discussion was just pure gold.
You should have a Thomist and Molinist and maybe a third party come on and talk about grace, freedom of the will, and predestination.
Fantastic discussion between dedicated and intelligent men.
Woah this was good. Koons and Thomas are so thorough. I can't help but feel the Reformation never should've happened if justification was the key issue. It seems extremely nitpicky to quibble over this issue and I think I'm more in line with the view that justification is more broad and inclusive of transformation, and not some isolated component of salvation, even if there's a forensic aspect.
Thanks for this. Good stuff
Jordan B. Cooper puts on a clinic in the debate posted later on this channel. People should check it out.
I was hoping for something like this
This was so powerful, thanks guys
Suan I have been trying to find your papers on the papacy online but cannot find them. Would it be possible to send them to me? I am studying the papacy in Scripture and history currently, trying to understand what is true
I have heard that Luther was an occasionalist. If that is the case, could it be that a middle position between the transformative view of grace and the wholly extrinsic view of grace often attributed to Luther is that Luther held something like a transformative occasionalist view of grace? That would mean that God declares a person to be righteous, and so the person really is righteous (not just snow covered dung). However, given the occasionalist ontology, to be “transformed” really means to be nothing more than declared righteous. Since occasionalist deny secondary causality, it will often seem that it is wholly extrinsic (because it basically is), but in common parlance (given that ontology) it would be reasonable to say that grace is really transformative just as it would be reasonable to say that a fire really heats a pot. However on the occasionalist framework, what “the fire really heats the pot” means is more like “God heats the pot on the occasion that fire is near the pot”. So saying grace is transformative is like saying “a God makes a person righteous on the occasion that he has an act of sanctification (such as faith)”. And thus this can get really muddled because Luther is lacking the robust secondary causality that comes from a Neo-Platonic and Scholastic metaphysical worldview.
I would love to hear your comments. If I am way off base, please save me as I am certainly no Luther scholar.
Doesn't the fact that God writes his laws on the hearts of his people support the protestant/reformed view that works are the natural outworking of justification, rather than a prerequisite for it?
That verse would seem to contradict the Reformed view of forensic justification, in my opinion. The change of heart presented by the Prophet Ezekiel seems to posit a real change in the believer in regeneration/initial justification when it mentions a new heart being given to believers when they are cleaned with pure/clean water.
24 “‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God."
(Ezekiel 36:24-28)
From what I know the real change of the believer at the moment of justification is denied by Luther and Calvin, who think they are both sinner and Saint via the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ. They move this real change to sanctification in their theological framework. Catholics do not believe we can ever merit the grace of justification.
Session 6 of Trent:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
@@pokezeldamaster39 Brian, it's been like a year dude. What's up?
@@thomascomerford9683 Good, I messaged you on Discord.
One could argue though that, even though works are not part of initial justification, our being in the state of righteousness is not static and thus we can grow in it through good works. This can be seen in the immediate context of Romans 2, wherein Paul says the law is written in the hearts of the Gentiles. The same chapter says God will render to every man according to his works and that the doers of the law will be justified. Those passages, considered together with other verses that say we need to abide in God lest we fall away from grace, can make a strong case for the Catholic view.
Jesus Christ’s Death, Burial, and Resurrection Offers Forgiveness and Justification To All Men By Grace Through Faith Alone.
How can the death burial and resurrection offer anything .
That’s like saying an actions offers something.
Actions don’t offer stuff.
God offers forgiveness
There's no faith alone in the Bible except that in James which contradicts protest/ants view!