A Debrief on my Two Debates on Justification

This is a live discussion of my recent debates on the topic of justification.

[vngelicath]

The reason for the cognitive dissonance is that there are two Romes living in one Catholicism. Trent and V2.

On the one hand, many liberal/ecumenical-minded Lutherans often forget to take into consideration the binding nature of Trent and only embrace Rome in view of the 1960s.
On the other hand, many confessional/polemical-minded Lutherans are stuck in the 16th-Century and forget that Rome has developed.

We need to keep both in mind and let those who are within the Church explain how the two are reconciled.

[samuelholm]

Hi, Dr. Cooper. I'm a Swedish evangelical/pentecostal (our denominations and concepts don't fully correspond to the ones in the USA) and I really like your videos! Although I don't always share your view on something, they for sure make me think. Oftentimes, however, I just feel inspired and better equipped defending and explaining core parts of my faith. Gud välsigne dig, as we say in Sweden! #Godblessyou

[rockjock]

Appreciate this content and you taking time to explain this. God be with you.

[lc-mschristian]

Thanks for sharing. I listened after the live video. God's peace be with you.

[kenmcguire]

The great thing about discussions/debates between Lutherans and Roman Catholics is that there is so much common territory. It means that there indeed CAN be an interesting discussion - and that we can actually stand together against many other views on this topic floating around. But a hard thing is that Luther - and to a large extent Lutheranism - view Roman Catholic teaching through the lens of Luther's teacher Biel - whose views are by no means normative for Roman Catholicism. And then there are the various ways the parties involved understand their history. Speaking as a Lutheran, there is a wide variety in "Lutheran" views on the topic. Lutherans who are primarily shaped by pietism say one thing. And those shaped by various Lutheran renewals of the 19th and 20th centuries say other things - and even those renewals that emphasize going back to Luther and the Confessions have different focuses. And those who want to listen to the Lutheran Scholastics will have yet other voices...

And as much as American popular culture views Roman Catholicism as a theological monolith, it is nothing of the sort. Unlike Lutherans, their definition is not premaritally theological. And so so there are prominent voices - like Pope Benedict XVI - who to my Lutheran ears sound more Lutheran than too many who wear the Lutheran label. But there are other Roman Catholic voices who, putting this as kindly as I can, are less aware or interested in "Lutheran" concerns. As frustrating as this is for Lutherans, we can only discuss things with the person with whom we are discussing. But this does bring up differences in the centrality of Justification between Wittenberg and Rome.


As a Lutheran, I rejoice that so many Augustinian voices have a prominent voice in the Roman Catholic Church. This allows us to have a much more productive discussion. But I keep on going back to thesis 28 of the Heidelberg Disputation where Luther offered, IMHO, an important clarification/corrective to medieval Augustinianism - "The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it."

Almost certainly your focus on Romans 4 is better for debate, but in the passage I quoted above I see a very important seed for all we Lutherans have said about Faith and Works. For a brief moment in your discussion with Jimmy Akin, it sounded like you were going to talk about how even our Love/Charity has to be "formed" by having a restored good-faith relationship with God. But the discussion went elsewhere. It was a good discussion, but like all things mortal was incomplete.

[eggmann]

Galatians 2:21 "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

[ewene]

I’m about 50 minutes into the Jimmy Akin debate on Pints with Aquinas. I thought you started off nervy (understandable as you were on a popular Catholic podcast and your interlocutor was an experienced, veteran Catholic apologist); however you grew into the discussion and I thought Akin was very respectful. Looking forward to watching the rest of the debate.

[SacredHeart]

It's so good to watch a polite and civil discussion like this without all that polemicizing climate that not only often bears no fruit, but also is quite annoying.

[luisdizon]

We need a Catholic-Lutheran-Reformed-EO four way fight on soteriology. It'll be so much fun.

[vituzui]

Yes, the default rule is that we must confess every mortal sin. However, as any Catholic will tell you, if you forgot some sins simply by a non-culpable weakness of memory, then God will still forgive you those mortal sins in confession. So it's not a problem. Confession removes all sins, even those you forgot. The only time when confession doesn't remove your sins is if you deliberately avoid confessing a mortal sin that you know about.

[judithtaylor]

Thanks very much Dr Cooper. I’m pondering your statement ‘justification by faith is not the conversion experience’.

[severalstories]

Dr. Cooper, I have a question that comes up for me in all of these discussions and if you could either answer the question or maybe simply point me to the most thorough resources to answer it I'd be so thankful. My question is this: what is the good in remembering one's baptism if the Spirit cannot coexist with mortal sin (sorry I forgot the correct formulation of that), and if it is at least not unheard of that we mortally sin? I understand the venial/mortal distinction is at least given a nod by Lutheran theologians, but I can't get my head around what happens to the Holy Spirit in a man when he sins mortally--or, for that matter, how often the relationship is repaired. Is it sort of like the Roman Catholic system of being in and out of a state of grace? Isn't that the consequence if forgiveness is given at (but not before) the absolution during divine service (or elsewhere?) Basically my questions all swirl around the interactions between the new man, the old man, the Holy Spirit, mortal sin, and absolution. What is the most thorough explanation of how those elements interact you know of? What is a sample timeline for a life with regard to each of them? When is the person forgiven? Are they not forgiven before? And if not, then why gratitude? Etc. You can imagine the questions that spin out of this are endless.

[vngelicath]

The sufficiency of Scripture goes along with the issue of perspicuity. In both cases, there is widespread confusion.

This is why I love the language of the 39 Articles, " _Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation_ ."

This is really all Sola Scriptura meant for the Reformers (of all confessions). Scripture is sufficiently clear concerning any and all things pertaining to our salvation, and that Tradition may not add anything to the articles of faith, if Scripture is obviously silent (wiggle room for pious opinions, etc). This is a generous concession to Tradition, just with a huge caveat to keep it in line.

[danielfawcett]

On the created grace issue, Jenson mentions that Luther is one of the few western theologians that agrees with Lombard that the Holy Spirit himself dwells in the believer, not just His gifts. This is then mentioned in the Formula. Personally, I prefer infused righteousness to inherent righteousness, because it is clearer. Inherent righteousness sounds like its origin is me, rather than God. I know that isn't what it means, but that's how laypeople will hear it.

[Stormlight]

Dr. Cooper, would you be willing to explain the assurance of salvation in Lutheran thought in depth sometime? I am having a hard time seeing how this is even possible on a sola fide conception of justification without ending up in an antinomian position or a contradiction caused by the living vs dead faith distinction?

Point of clarification (for anyone reading this):
I am not taking about assurance in the sense that one cannot ever lose their faith, I am talking about assurance in the sense that if I believe I have saving faith then I cannot be mistaken that I do. Lutherans definitely believe it is possible to lose your salvation. The question as it pertains to the dispute with Catholics is whether one can only lose their salvation through apostasy (losing their faith) or if there are sins that are so grave that their *inherit nature* causes one to lose their salvation, regardless of whether they have faith or not? The latter is the Catholic position on mortal sins and how they destroy the life of grace inside of us even if we still believe Jesus is the Lord and died for our sins. The Bible seems to also indicate it is possible to have faith and yet fall into mortal sin (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.).

Context:
It seems Luther sometimes claimed sola fide means if we have faith there is no sin that can separate us from God:

“Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone." (On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church)

This seems like antinomianism (whether Luther said it was or not) and it contradicts the Bible (1 John 5:16-17, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.). On the other hand, Melanchthon seemed to advocate for a view that a saved person with a living faith wouldn't ever commit a grave/mortal sin:

“Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV, 115; cf. Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article III)

This seems more biblical, in calling for a living vs. dead faith distinction (James 2:17), but it also seems to remove the possibility of having assurance of salvation because then you have to look at your own works for evidence of having a living faith or not. Since sin clouds our judgment (Psalm 36), you could easily be mistaken about having a living faith and blind yourself to the fact you may be committing mortal/grave sins, for example a church going alcoholic.  

Finally, if you simply say that a mortal sin destroys our faith and drives the Holy Spirit out, then you are basically affirming the Catholic position (except we say mortal sin destroys charity/grace and drives out the Holy Spirit). You also have something that seems to directly contradict the assurance of salvation because again you may be committing a grave sin without being fully aware of it. We have an infinite capacity for self deception!

"As to their effect, sins are divided into mortal sins and venial sins. Mortal sins are those which result in the death of the sinner. This term takes in all the sins of the unbelievers. In the case of the believers those sins are called mortal which force the Holy Spirit to depart from one’s heart, which destroy faith. " (Francis Pieper. Dogmatics Vol. 1)

I just don't see how one could be certain they have a living faith at any time. It seems to me you can only have assurance of salvation on a pure antinomian view, which most Lutherans and Martin Luther, himself, are ardently against (see Luther's "The Antinomian Disputations"). Anything less than antinomianism appears to contradict sola fide + assurance of salvation, though.

I realize there are some very fine distinctions when you drill into the weeds on the nature of saving faith and assurance. I would find it very helpful to see where I am misunderstanding Lutheran thought on assurance of salvation.

Thanks and God bless!

p.s. Please, don't take this as a hostile question, I am very much wishing to understand Lutheran thought on this better.

[scottforesman]

Is salvation then being DECLARED or MADE righteous? (Philippians 3.8-9/Ezekiel 36.26-27)

[jacobstefanec]

It would be great if you did a program on the texts that deal with the last judgment, as you mentioned.

[evangelineclark]

Hi Dr. Cooper, what is the best Lutheran commentary volume on the book of Romans? I’m wanting to do a deeper dive into the book as a whole. It would be great if there was a course on Romans in the Weidner Institute!

[killingtime]

34:00 Jimmy Akin saying that this ongoing in justification or whatever you wanna call it, is perfect because it’s Christ, did surprise me, if it’s perfect, if one is perfectly sanctified wouldn’t that make you perfectly sinless?

[christianf]

Hi, Dr Cooper,

Do you have any videos or works tackling the book and issues that Alister McGrath brings up in Institutia Dei?