A Response to Robert Koons on Justification

On this video, I discuss a book written by Dr. Robert Koons, in which he presents arguments against the Reformational approach to justification. I respond to some of his arguments in this beginning of a series.

[TheCASSMAN]

Actually Dr. Cooper is mistaking about what Trent is saying about justification. Trent DOES say that we are initially justified by faith alone. It says this in session 6 chapter 8

[TheCASSMAN]

Catholic here. Trent did not rule out the "material sufficiency" of scripture. It just ruled out the "formal sufficiency" of scripture. The difference is that the material sufficiency teaches that all doctrine is at least implicit in scripture somewhere, but you still need the Church to interpret scripture correctly. Formal sufficiency is basically what the protestants believe about the perspicuity of scripture. It teaches that scripture can interpret itself. Its used by protestants for sola scriptura. Trent rejected the formal sufficiency of scripture, but it did not reject the material sufficiency. Catholics are allowed to believe in the material sufficiency of scripture if they want, but don't have to. However Catholics can't believe in the formal sufficiency of scripture.

[billyg]

I don't think he was accusing Lutheran's of pelagianism, but saying that it's what their understanding of justification leads to. I think he was pointing out a contradiction or conflict.

Again, doesn't mean he is right, but I don't think he was making accusations per se. For example, if you make 2 claims, and he argues that 1 logically leads to a conclusion of pelagianism, but that contradicts 2, responding with "that a major misunderstanding because its pretty basic that we espouse claim 2 so this accusation is silly" doesn't really defeat his point.

The same thing seems to apply regarding the point about sanctification and glorification.

[esayli-vainio]

Thank you, dr. Cooper! One thought I got, propably from dr. Kleinig:
If sanctification is our made perfect in Christ, eschaton come forward, it is also then liturgical term. For the means of our justification AND sanctification are means of grace. By divine service we partake the glory of Christ even now, and are purified from all sins by his blood. (1 John 1: 7)

[MrGassemann]

Thank you. I listened to the classical theism podcast #130. (Because a RC-friend asked me to) And I was glad to see that you already had an episode on Koonts’ book.

[rogerplested]

Thank you. Merry Christmas to you and your family

[ConciseCabbage]

What if J&S publishing released an abridgement of the best stuff from Chemnitz’ examination of Trent in an accessible paperback? Is it possible to do that and retain the force of that work?

[eastsidefellowship]

Merry Christmas to Dr. Cooper and all of you out there.

[Stormlight]

I would love to hear you dialogue someday with the Catholic theologian Dr. Christopher Malloy. He wrote the book "Engrafted into Christ" which is a critique of the Joint Declaration on Justification (JDDJ) from 1999. In that book he argued that both the traditional Lutheran and Catholic positions on justification were not well represented in the JDDJ. He also walks through some of the debates that came up early in the reformation (e.g. Regensburg and double justice and the Council of Trent's development and ultimate response to Reformers) and then deals with different modern views of justification in Lutheranism. He even includes a whole chapter on Mannermaa and the Finnish Lutherans.

Dr. Malloy breaks down the disagreement between the orthodox Lutheran and Catholic positions on justification into 4 main categories:

1. The formal cause of justification - Christ's imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. infused righteousness/sanctifying grace (Catholics).
2. Remnant sin after justification - sin remains: simul justus et peccator (Lutherans) vs. new creation and complete removal of original and mortal sins (Catholics).
3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutherans distinguish so sanctification does not mix with justification vs. Catholic wholistic approach including sanctification in justification.
4. The possibility of man earning merit towards salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes.

That book was instrumental in my coming to better know and finally agreeing with the Catholic position on justification. I think you two would have a very fruitful conversation were you able to interact. Dr. Malloy knows the Lutheran traditions very well and presents them very fairly.


God bless!

[toddvoss]

Critique of the excesses of the New Perspective (while acknowledging some of its limited merit) is spot on.

[lorenzomurrone]

Please an exposition of Rom. 7 would be awesome!

[TheCASSMAN]

Dr. Cooper is mistaking that when he says Purgatory came from the medieval church. You actually see it explicitly in Augustine.

“And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any of those of whom it is said, that they ‘shall not inherit the kingdom of God, ’ unless after suitable repentance their sins be forgiven them... (Continued)

[toddvoss]

To be fair, if one reads Chemnitz Examination of Trent, then one should read Bellarmine who responded to Chemnitz (and others). Of course, Gerhardt could then respond to Bellarmine. Time and money are a limited resource. And quite frankly Bellarmine calls out the "cherry picking" of the Fathers by the Reformers (including Chemnitz) and lack of context (as you often decry yourself). Of course, I note Bellarmine often cherry picks himself. Because these are all polemics - very detailed and high quality polemics on both sides - but polemics all the same - not "discussion". In the end, coherence - i.e. how does it all hold together : theology/history/ liturgy etc. will be the touchstone of decision. The "pelagian" point by Koons was very disappointing as you said. Strange.

[kyler]

Dr. Cooper, Catholic here. I'm 8 mins in and you say that Dr. Koons just proffers Newman's notion of development of doctrine essay in response to changes in Church practice/belief. Have you engaged with Newman's essay at length anywhere?

[lc-mschristian]

Thank you and God's peace be with you.

[rangerswampyclay]

Have you ever considered doing a podcast on exorcism as understood and practiced by the Lutheran church? I recently ran into a pastor who’d done some before including at his own parish and am now very curious

[pat]

Its seems the strongest argument made here is the Romans 7 argument that our hope for perfection lies in the resurrection, and is to be achieved in the eschaton.

However I think it is clear that Paul's hope for perfection and righteousness is in the resurrection in this life/mortal body, and NOT the eschaton. This is for two reasons.

1. The consistent theme throughout Romans and the other pauline epistles is taking Christ's death and resurrection as a metaphor to death to sin, and a resurrected life in Christ, and not a death to our mortal inherently sinful bodies in the hope of a resurrected glorified perfected body in the eschaton. We see this in Romans 8:9 and 13 where we are instructed to live in the spirit currently, and God gives us the ability to do so. We see this in Romans 8:11 where Paul specifically says that God will give life to our mortal bodies, and we see it in Romans 8:14 where we are made children of God currently, and in other NT writings like 1 John we see to be a child of God is to cease sinning, and being made alive in the resurrected Christ.

2. Paul in Phillipians 3 explains the righteousness that comes ~through~ faith, and is granted to him on the ~basis~ of faith. This righteousness he explains is to share in the death and sufferings of Christ and a life in Christ, which explained elsewhere is a life of good works of love in obedience to Christ. Phillipians 3:10-11 explains how he desires to die to sin in Christ, and be alive with the resurrected Christ like he does in Romans. In phillipians 3:12-13 he explains he has not yet attained this resurrected life in Christ, just like he did in Romans, but then in phillipians 3:14 he explains how he will achieve this resurrected life in Christ. By straining, and pressing on for it, distinctly by working for it, and not by passively receiving it in the eschaton based on his faith.

In summary, In Paul and other NT writers the resurrected life in Christ refers to a current achievable state in the mortal body that consists in ceasing to sin and good works of love and obedience, Paul has not yet achieved this state, but is striving to achieve it, by the grace of God communicated through and on the basis of faith which infuses the righteousness of Christ to share in his life on earth, which then makes us righteous before God and saves us.

[trustchristnotmyselfextran]

Greetings, Brother Cooper. Can you do a more thorough video/podcast on Word and Sacrament and Assurance of Salvation? Thank you, God bless.

[reydemayo]

Godbless sir....you try to expose some philosophical detail of Justification, Sanctification and last the final side of Salvation which is Glorification but There are lots of works to be it is very challenges if you come up atleast the Idea into a full blown Doctrinal Stand....what i mean from the Sanctification into Glorification point of View ....that theologically sound....hope soon....
Shalom and Godbless.

[peterbengtsson]

Thanks Cooper! I'm looking forward to your coming video on Romans 7. The one thing that makes me doubt that Paul is talking about his present state as a Christian is v. 14. "For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin." I don't see a born again believe refer to himself as someone sold into bondage of sin, and I can't find anything similar to that through out the NT. What we on the other hand see is us Christians being refered to as "dead to sin", "glorified", "saints", "holy" etc. Maybe I'm missing something here and I'm happy for you to show me that. Thanks again for your vids, a lot of interesting stuff! Christ love, Peter