Is Conversion the Result of Human Free Will? (Formula of Concord Article II)
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
This is the second video in our series on the Formula of Concord. I discuss Article II on the subject of free will.
Been a fan of Just & Sinner for a year and a half now. Dr. Cooper, this podcast was a HUGE influence in swaying me to Lutheranism when I left Pentecostalism. Thank you for what you do. I am a broke college student, and am unable to support the podcast financially, but you and your team are in my prayers!
He has helped challenge my calvinistic Baptist thinking in a healthy way that has brought my family to anglicanism (REC) which is producing good fruit in us that we were tired of lacking.
Couldn't quite swim the channel over to Saxony, though. 😂
@@wenmoonson what stream of Calvinistic Baptist were you?
Thank you! I’m having this exact discussion with my Catholic youth group this Sunday and am scrambling to read through Chemnitz Examination Volume 1 first, but this is exactly what I needed!
Using the Lutheran confessions to teach theology to Roman Catholic youth is a funny concept. Not to knock you, but if you're a youth teacher it's generally best to ensure that the youth are taught a theology in line with the tradition they are under, not some other tradition.
@@tiberiusmagnificuscaeser4929 you’re assuming this person isn’t a Lutheran that is part of the Catholic youth group I really don’t think any Catholic would use Martin Kemnitz in their instruction
@@tiberiusmagnificuscaeser4929 I would completely agree if I were a teacher and not just a member of the group. My Lutheran church doesn’t have any youth so I just attend the Catholic group with my friends, and the opportunities we’ve had for conversations about soteriology and doctrine have been incredible. I don’t lead the group, but I get to engage with my friends and the leaders when they bring up topics of known disagreement and it has been incredibly useful to learn how to answer objections against Lutheran doctrine
@@keircampbell9374 Yep, you’re right. My post was confusing but my Lutheran church lacks a youth group so I attend the local Catholic one with my friends.
@@RealityConcurrence I figured if you’re very well versed in the faith, then that could be a great opportunity for you and for them I hope that you are safeguarding yourself against false hood, though, because Catholics have quite a lot of tricky arguments that seem persuasive on their face and Ku, even very earnest, and studied people if they’re not placing scripture at the very forefront of all of their studies and research
God bless you my young brother or sister
Dr. Jordan love your YT channel and theological confessional doctrinal critiques and teachings !
I became doctrinally convicted soteriology as a “Calvinist”…but I presently worship at a local Lutheran Church in S. California - with grace between our confessional difference.
I was baptized Christian during the Jesus Revolution in California at age 16, but later became a Jehovah’s Witness (JW) between 1974 until 1989 when I left the JW’s due to their false end times predictions.
With the help of a Christian apologetics ministry called Answers in Action, meeting at a local Lutheran Church, I learned the historical Biblical Orthodox doctrines, historical creeds/confessions, eschatology, the five sola’s, etc.
I love this series! I’ve been greatly edified by your walk through of the Formula or Concord as well as the Augsburg Confession. Thank you for all of the great work that you and your ministry do. You were absolutely instrumental in my conversion to the Lutheran tradition from a Calvinistic one. Lord willing, I am gonna pursue pastoral ministry in the LCMS once I graduate from college and that is in large part thanks to your work Dr Cooper. God bless!
Wow, I just love your videos and listening to you Explain Lutheran theology. you really know your stuff. I was baptized Lutheran as an infant, but growing up I went to Baptist churches, and after that I didn’t go to church for years and years and years, I will go once in a while for Christmas or Easter. I even Entertained the thought of joining the Catholic Church this was back in the 2000s I quickly got over that lol. Then I decided I wanted to dig deeper into Lutheran thought and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the best Christian theology that I’ve heard keep up the great work you’re doing God bless
Father God I pray that you bless this ministry financially and prosper them bringing more readers and donors
Excellent work as always, Dr. Cooper! Thank you for your ministry.
This article and presentation is immensely comforting, thank you.
I'm glad you're going through the Formula of Concord now that the Augsburg Confession series is done!
I chuckled at @ 49:56. Keeping it real is why I dig you man! 😀
Keep up the great work!!!!
What a privilege to be a Lutheran Christian. I never knew it. I was born one and drifted away for more than 20 years. But God's grace brought me back and what an honour. What a gracious and longsuffering God we belong to.
This video topic is exactly what has been on the top of my mind lately.
Excited for this series! Writing my exam on Art IV at the moment
Thanks Dr!
This is awesome.
Now I am VERY curious about the allusion you made concerning the historical point of American Puritanism and Unitarianism. A resource on that (either a video or perhaps a book you could reference) would be of great interest.
Saying "Bondage of the Will" is Luther's worst book = saying the emperor has no clothes
Bravo.
I would like to hear your lecture about nature of human being, as specially in context of the Formula Concord.
Dr. Cooper, can you explain how Article II of the Formula of Concord conforms to what Paul preaches in Acts 17? Saint Paul says to the men of Athens, "And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him." As I listened to this, these verses came to my mind and I don't see how Paul's anthropology can be squared with that of the Confessions on this topic.
Second, in Bondage of the Will Luther explains how the preached word of God relates to the hidden will of God and the question of Conversion. When addressing Ezekiel and how God desires not the death of the sinner, Luther says of the prophet: "He speaks of the published offer of God’s mercy, not of the dreadful hidden will of God, Who, according to His own counsel, ordains such persons as He wills to receive and partake of the mercy preached and offered."
Luther seems to be teaching that, secretly, Scripture is not clear as it pertains to questions of salvation. He's bumped into a text that contradicts his position, so he gets around it by saying that secretly, Scripture is not clear or true. The secret truth is that in God's Hidden will He does desire the death of those He choses not to bring to faith, otherwise he would have.
It's not clear to me how, with Luther's doctrine, you can really avoid concluding that God is the author of sin and evil in the monergistic scheme of Lutheranism, despite the denial of that conclusion by the confessions.
I would love to read your thoughts on that, as I don't see a way around concluding that this is the meaning of Lutheran doctrine when you take Original Sin, Free Will, and Election together as a package deal in the confessions.
Like the " acting on inclinations"
We talked about freewill in metaphysics and was presented with a view by Susan Wolf that seems similar to Lutheran soteriology, with a bit of tweaking in the verbiage and it’s intentions.
When it comes to doing good, we do not choose good because that is naturally what we are disposed to.
However, we can choose bad and act against what we are disposed to do, making us responsible.
Those who are not sane and act in immoral moments in times of insanity are not held responsible for their actions (possession, mental illness, etc.)
Now, I wouldn’t say we are disposed to doing good, but to translate it into soteriology:
We are not able to choose God because our sinful nature keeps us from choosing the good and God first comes to us and brings us to Him
However, through sinful nature, we are able to reject God and the good He is drawing us near.
However, some don’t have that option of rejecting God (those who died on the womb or deal with sever mental illness) and they do enter into heaven.
If I am wrong, please pick it apart as I don’t want to relay wrong information. I also don’t want to use philosophy to dictate my theology, but this view seems consistent with scripture.
I just started reading The Bondage of the Will today
"I don't care what it says."
-Dr. Jordan Cooper
I’m trying to understand how we don’t cooperate in justification but can walk away from the faith with a lack of cooperation. I feel like we do cooperate in the way of accepting the gift of salvation…so I don’t see how it makes sense to say we don’t cooperate in any sense for justification when we can forfeit that very justification.
This is a comment. Jordan doesn't care about what it says. But it helps with the algorithm.
" Say Something" - The Jordan B Cooper
Something - Jonah
In my humble opinion, it is so obvious that without the intervening of the Holy Spirit, we could do nothing towards God. This is clear in the Gospel narrative. Luther did a great job in the “Bondage of the Will” where he emphasizes that it was foretold how Jesus would be betrayed by one of His followers. This we can’t ignore. He argues that there are things set in motion before our own births. This goes beyond human ability to rationalize, which Luther states, well puts us in the right place, namely, that we are not the masters of our own destiny. Luther never went far enough to imply that there’s a double predestination as Calvin did.
To be Lutheran one has to hold to Augustine’s view on original sin?
I always tell people who ask about free will and predestination to read the Formula, Walther, and Pieper before they read the Bondage of the Will. I like Luther's stuff about making assertions and the clarity of scripture, but Bondage of the will did not help me understand predestination or free will at all.
I supose your still safer reading Luther than Forde though😂
I take it you've never read C.S. Lewis's foreword for St. Athanasius the Incarnation of the Word of God? Also dropping presuppositions prior to reading helps as well.
I read it recently and didn’t understand it.
@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 Bondage of the will? I've been told the O. R. Johnston version (reformed) is more modern and only 328 pages in paperback.
@@mulkster39chronological snobery has nothing to do with it.
Now during the specific event of conversion, I’m not sure of the correct terminology does a person have any agency?
Hypothetically an atheist is wandering around on Monday kicking rocks, lamenting the pointlessness of their life and attacking anyone who doesn’t believe that life is pointless.
On Tuesday one of us Lutherans emerges from our groundhog burrows and talks to our atheist friend in our way, knowing scripture and relying on it. The Atheist hears and it sticks as he finds himself believing.
On Wednesday he is in church stumbling through our liturgy as he prepares for baptism.
Does the events of Tuesday involve any free will, in so much as choosing to listen, choosing to think about scriptures with an open mind, and choosing to act on what he now believes?
He believes because of the Holy Spirit, yes, but isn’t further pursuit of that truth a choice.
I’m not arguing I’m curious
Love your videos! Don’t have a way to support monetarily… but hopefully my comment helps in some way! :)
It just feels like Luther believed as Calvin, but that it was put into different words (maybe due to the gentler influence of M.?). I do know that Lutherans don't believe in Limited Atonement so definitely not all 5 points.
The Lutherans don't believe in Unconditional election to damnation, limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints/Once saved always saved...then a myriad of other disagreements on the sacraments, church worship, and church structure.
Is not the bondage of the will further pointing out and remembering us in the fact that no other man, save the only begotten son of God could have performed the entirety of the life that Jesus lived?
I think Luther's bondage of the will obviously a show is a proof text and a call for humility toward a clearly Superior quality found in the person of Christ. Specifically how God's will is the proof of perfection and how impossible it is for man's will to be free of its relationship to the law and will of God and still be considered anything but detestable. The opposite of proper worship and do respect for life given by God alone as true source of the good and the beautiful.
Comment :)
Comment
Other problems with total theological determinism is that even God doesn't have agency or freedom (since ALL things are fixed). I don't see Luther being committed to that idea, since God is personal.
Luther defended determinism in The Bondage of the Will. He maintained that God is omnipotent and does everything by His hidden will so that everything happens according to his foreknowledge and is predestined to happen. He maintained that Scripture teaches double predestination and that the Holy Spirit doesn't operate universally in the means of grace. He therefore rejected what the FC teaches on predestination. Whilst it's true that divine determinism means that the future is fixed and unalterable it was initially determined by God who through His own free will decided what is to happen. History is a record of what God has freely willed and predestined to happen.
@@Edward-ng8oo I was pointing out that when Luther said "all things happen by divine necessity", he was not saying God was impersonal like Aristotle or the Stoics. The medievals had delt with this much earlier with the distinction between God's ordained power and absolute power.
Luther is not talking about predestination in De Servo Arbitrio. Do a word search. He only uses the word predestination like a dozen times. The topic is the unfree or bound choice or will.
The accusation against him was that he was teaching stoic determinism or fatalism (He was not, he is arguing God is personal and free in his dealings with his creation, as in the hardening of Pharoh's heart).
If you want to see Luther hinting at double predestination, look at his earlier Romans lecture.
@@StoicHippy Luther in his conclusion to The Bondage of the Will wrote:
“I will here bring this little book to an end, though I am prepared if need be to carry the debate farther. However, I think quite enough has been done here to satisfy the godly and anyone who is willing to admit the truth without being obstinate. For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature.” (p. 293, Vol. 33, Luther's Works)
He says that free will doesn't exist because God has willed foreknown and predestined everything that happens. Even if that was the only reference to predestination it is enough in itself to show that he believed in absolute predestination and that people are predestined to be either saved or damned. He constantly refers to God’s foreknowledge necessitating what happens because God is omnipotent, which is just the same as saying everything is predestined by God to happen. He also affirmed that everything is fated to happen when he discussed Isaiah 46:10:
It says in Isaiah: "My counsel shall stand and my will shall be done" [Isa. 46:10]. What schoolboy does not know the meaning of these terms "counsel," "will," "shall be done," "shall stand"? But why are these things abstruse to us Christians, so that it is irreverent and inquisitive and vain to discuss and come to know them, when heathen poets and even the common people speak of them quite freely? How often does Virgil (for one) remind us of Fate! "By changeless law stand all things fixed". "Each man's day stands fixed"' "If the Fates call thee"; "If thou canst break the harsh bonds of Fate." That poet has no other aim than to show that in the destruction of Troy and the rise of the Roman Empire, Fate counts for more than all the endeavors of men, and therefore it imposes a necessity on both things and men. Moreover, he makes even their immortal gods subject to Fate, to which even Jupiter himself and Juno must necessarily yield. Hence the current conception of the three Parcae, immutable, implacable, irrevocable. The wise men of those days were well aware of what fact and experience prove, namely, that no man's plans have ever been straightforwardly realized, but for everyone things have turned out differently from what he thought they would. Virgil's Hector says, "Could Troy have stood by human arm, then it had stood by mine." Hence the very common saying on everyone's lips, "God's will be done"; and "God willing, we will do it," or "Such was the will of God." "So it pleased those above"; "Such was your will," says Virgil. From this we can see that the knowledge of God's predestination and foreknowledge remained with the common people no less than the awareness of his existence itself. But those who wished to appear wise went so far astray in their reasonings that their hearts were darkened and they became fools (Rom. 1[:21 f.]), and denied or explained away the things that the poets and common people, and even their own conscience, regarded as entirely familiar, certain, and true. (pp. 40,41, Vol 33, Luther's Works)
Luther in his conclusion to The Bondage of the Will wrote:
I will here bring this little book to an end, though I am prepared if need be to carry the debate farther. However, I think quite enough has been done here to satisfy the godly and anyone who is willing to admit the truth without being obstinate. For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature. (p. 293, Vol. 33, Luther's Works)
He says that free will doesn't exist because God has willed, foreknown and predestined everything that happens. Even if that was the only reference to predestination it is enough in itself to show that he believed in absolute predestination and that people are predestined to be either saved or damned. He constantly refers to God’s foreknowledge necessitating what happens because God is omnipotent, which is just the same as saying everything is predestined by God to happen. He also affirmed that everything is fated to happen when he discussed Isaiah 46:10:
It says in Isaiah: "My counsel shall stand and my will shall be done" [Isa. 46:10]. What schoolboy does not know the meaning of these terms "counsel," "will," "shall be done," "shall stand"? But why are these things abstruse to us Christians, so that it is irreverent and inquisitive and vain to discuss and come to know them, when heathen poets and even the common people speak of them quite freely? How often does Virgil (for one) remind us of Fate! "By changeless law stand all things fixed". "Each man's day stands fixed"' "If the Fates call thee"; "If thou canst break the harsh bonds of Fate." That poet has no other aim than to show that in the destruction of Troy and the rise of the Roman Empire, Fate counts for more than all the endeavors of men, and therefore it imposes a necessity on both things and men. Moreover, he makes even their immortal gods subject to Fate, to which even Jupiter himself and Juno must necessarily yield. Hence the current conception of the three Parcae, immutable, implacable, irrevocable. The wise men of those days were well aware of what fact and experience prove, namely, that no man's plans have ever been straightforwardly realized, but for everyone things have turned out differently from what he thought they would. Virgil's Hector says, "Could Troy have stood by human arm, then it had stood by mine." Hence the very common saying on everyone's lips, "God's will be done"; and "God willing, we will do it," or "Such was the will of God." "So it pleased those above"; "Such was your will," says Virgil. From this we can see that the knowledge of God's predestination and foreknowledge remained with the common people no less than the awareness of his existence itself. But those who wished to appear wise went so far astray in their reasonings that their hearts were darkened and they became fools (Rom. 1[:21 f.]), and denied or explained away the things that the poets and common people, and even their own conscience, regarded as entirely familiar, certain, and true. (pp. 40,41, ibid)
@@Edward-ng8oo
But the God which is hidden in the majesty of his own nature, neither bewails nor takes away death; but works life and death, and all things in all things. For when acting in this character, He does not bound himself by his word, but has reserved to himself the most perfect freedom in the exercise of his dominion over all things.
But Diatribe beguiles herself through her ignorance, making no distinction between the proclaimed God, and the hidden God; that is, between the word of God, and God himself. God does many things which he has not shown us in his word.
He also wills many things which he has not shown us that he wills, in his word. For instance, he does not will the death of a sinner - not according to his word, truly - but he wills it according to that inscrutable will of his. Now, our business is to look at his word, and to leave that inscrutable will of his to itself: for we must be directed in our path by that word, and not by that inscrutable will. Indeed, who could direct himself by that inscrutable and inaccessible will? It is enough for us to barely know that there is a certain inscrutable will in God.
What that will wills, why it so wills, and how far it so wills, are matters which it is altogether unlawful for us to inquire into, to wish for knowledge about, to trouble ourselves with, or to approach even with our touch. In these matters, we have only to adore and to fear. So then, it is rightly said, 'If God does not will death, we must impute it to our own will that we perish;' - rightly, I say, if you speak of the proclaimed God. _For he would have all men to be saved,_ [1Timothy 2:4] coming, as he does, with his word of salvation to all men; and the fault is in our own will, which does not admit him; as he says, in Mat 23.37, "How often would I have gathered your children, and you would not?" But why this majesty of His does not remove this fault of our will, or change it in all men (seeing that it is not in the power of man to do so); or why he imputes this fault of his will to man, when man cannot be without it - these are questions which it is not lawful for us to ask; and which, if you were to ask them, you would never get answered. The best answer is that which Paul gives in Rom 9.20: "Who are you that replies against God?" Let these remarks suffice for this passage from Ezekiel, and let us go on to the rest.
Obligatory comment for the algorithm
This is the main point that keeps me out of the Lutheran church, although I love so much about it. After being in Calvinism for years, I feel spiritually and mentally bruised by the idea that God causes all evil in the world, prepares babies for hellfire, etc. This just feels too close.
We don't believe either of those things.
But, if God determines all things...??
Lutherans most definitely do not believe that. And the Reformed don’t either. There’s definitely debate on infant damnation but depending on what you mean by God causing evil is paramount to whether we would agree or not. Maybe check out the Westminster Confession of Faith to see what we believe when it comes to Gods Divine Decree
Luther's position in The Bondage of the Will is that God's foreknowledge necessitates what happens because God is omnipotent and wills everything that occurs. God has perfect foreknowledge of the future and it can't happen any different to how He foreknows it will, which means everything is predestined to happen and there's no free will. Luther affirmed that everything must happen as it does when he said in his lecture on Genesis 26:9 that he’d written that “everything is absolute and unavoidable”. This as Luther explained in TBOTW doesn't involve any coercion. People aren't compelled against their will to do things. They willingly do them but they have no freedom to do otherwise because God is in control of their wills and they can only choose to do what He has planned for them to do either from grace or from wrath. Luther maintained that Romans 9 teaches that people are predestined to hell as well as heaven, and I agree. The Formula of Concord is simply wrong on predestination. The Father doesn't draw everyone to Christ by the Holy Spirit but withholds the Holy Spirit from some so that they're unable to come to faith and be saved (John 6:44,64,65). The FC doctrine of the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace is untrue and is an unscriptural invention.
2 other hidden videos in this playlist😑🤨😂… I’ll wait I’ll wait.
Algorithm 😜
So what does all this say about the unregenerate secular atheists doing good?
Charismatic church member and wannabe Lutheran leaving a comment.
Calvinists love Luther for all the wrong reasons.
conversion is the result submitting to God
Just a question, but wouldn’t someone just say that submitting is an act then?
@haydenmiller4789
not sure what you mean
@@donhaddix3770Isn’t submitting an act of the human free will?
@@1920s actual rebirth an act of God.
@1920s I think of it as a letting go. The clutching to things, the holding back is the act. Submitting is ceasing to act and trusting in God first.
The real issue is monergism. When God beckons us to "come," can we in fact come?
Luther not only said "no," but insisted that God's offer to all can be likened to a parental jest played on a child, told to do something which he can obviously not accomplish.
When the stakes are low, this could be funny. But the stakes are eternal torment, so such a trick can only be played on humanity by a monstrous deity.
From memory Luther's argument is that in order for a person to realise his inability to live in accordance with God's commandments it's necessary for God to demand compliance so that a person realises his inability to comply and his need for grace so that he can do so, or at least make a start in doing so. It isn't the act of a monstrous deity but a considerate one whose intention is to enlighten blind humans to their sinful state, so that they can see their plight and their need for God’s intervention in their lives so that they can believe in Christ and live righteously.
59:50 he’s talking about you
@@Edward-ng8oo That is not the ordo salutis given in scripture:
"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
And to further illustrate the absurdity, Luther doesn't even allow for Jerome to be a legitimate Saint because he doesn't hold to Luther's gospel, supposedly in spite of Jerome's failed asceticism leading directly to Luther's grace within his system.
It just doesn't comport with reality.
I wont acknowledge it unless he uses my handle.@@captainfordo1
@@Catholic-Perennialist Christ saying that those who love Him will do as He teaches and that He and the Father will live in him, isn't to be understood as implying that we can make the free will decision to love Christ and obey Him. This ignores the fact that we must be born again by the Holy Spirit and drawn to Christ by the Father in order to be able to love and believe in Him (John 3 & 6). Paul says that Christians have been chosen to believe in Christ before they were created and that God has predestined them to be saved (Ephesians 1), so it follows that those not predestined to be saved are unable to truly love Christ and believe in Him.
I don't know enough about Jerome to be able to comment on him but the point is that unless a person recognises his sinful condition and need for God to regenerate him and give him faith (which is totally beyond his capacity to manufacture as faith isn't just belief in the bare facts about Christ but is a deep trust in Him as one’s Saviour) he will remain at heart an unbeliever. Just because a person fails at living righteously (and living as an ascetic doesn't necessarily equate with living a righteous life) doesn't mean he will necessarily realise that he is in a depraved sinful state and needs to completely despair of himself and rely solely on God to give him faith and love. Only those whom God chooses to regenerate are given this realisation that they're incapable of truly believing in and loving Christ and need to depend solely on God in order to be able to believe and love God.
Do you plan to have a video where you talk about how the means of Grace are the mechanism in regeneration, not just a spontaneous thing, (hope I'm summarizing well) at 51:10
Yes. See? Doesn't take an hour to say.
My question then is on the unbaptized. If they hear the Word, what is going on with the Holy Spirit amd them? If they are dead in their sin amd cannot believe or understand the Gospel. If they have not been baptized, they will hear it as foolishness. What is the mechanism then that changes their heart? Their will or Gods will? As a Christian how much of a mechanism am I to help in converting a person I care about? Im so happy to be a Lutheran, the way it comforts a Christian. My pain comes from the thought of people I love not knowing Jesus.