Justification in Rome and Wittenberg | Conversation with Dr. Jordan B Cooper and Erick Ybarra

Today on Catholic Family News, Murray Rundus hosts Dr. Jordan B Cooper and Erick Ybarra to discuss the differences and similarities between Catholics and Lutherans on the topic Justification.

Remember to support CFN by purchasing books from:

#catholic #christian #cfn

[Steadfast-Lutheran]

I love Dr. Jordan Cooper! Great conversation.

[jess]

Great discussion! I'm glad y'all put this together. I have a lot of respect for Erick and Jordan.

[rickdockery]

Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Ortodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a
Lutheran Lord's Supper."
JOSEPH RATZINGER
(POPE BENEDICT XVI)

[rubysstorytime]

Great video! Both guests were very respectful and interesting. The interviewer was great too. Thanks

[AJMacDonaldJr]

Great conversation! Thanks gentlemen! 😺

[RSungenis]

Gentlemen, good discussion. A patron of mine sent it to me, and I’m glad he did. I would like to say a couple things to help.

I think the whole issue pivots off of James’ question in James 2:14, which is “Can the faith save him?” Notice that James does not say, “Can the faith justify him?” Obviously, he cannot say “Can the faith justify him?” since in 2:23 James admits that Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15:6.

His point, then, is that even the justification by faith does not save Abraham. This is because “justified” in Scripture is used to describe a process in which someone can attain salvation, whereas assured salvation is what one obtains only at the final judgment. Hence one can be justified but not yet saved. It is only those who endure to the end who will be saved (cf. Mt 10:22; 2Tm 2:10-12).

This is why Abe has to not continue to have faith in God, he must also complete or perfect his faith by obeying God and doing good works, and whenever Abe does so, he is justified in God’s sight.

The one man who didn’t preserver in doing good works—even though he believed in God—was David, the next example Paul gives of justification in Romans 4. If David had not repented of his mortal sin and received back his justification, then he could never be saved in the end.

Also, I disagree that there is an inequality between Abraham’s faith and the righteousness that was credited to him. The works of Christ don’t give sufficient value to Abe’s faith and works; rather, the works of Christ make it possible for God to be appeased from man’s sin and thus have grace when he views Abe’s faith and works. If God were to look at us through law, we would all be condemned. But when he looks at us through grace—the grace provided for us by Christ’s atonement—then we can be accepted by God.

Lastly, regarding the Greek word logizomai that Eric made reference to, if you check with Not By Faith Alone, you will see that the Protestants are completely wrong about this verb. The typical Protestant understanding of this verb is the following:

“This verb most often indicates ‘what a person, considered by himself, is not, or does not have, but is reckoned, held or regarded to be, or to have. It is clear then that when Abraham was justified by his faith, the righteousness which was reckoned or charged to his account was a righteousness not his own but that of another, namely, the righteousness of Christ.” (Joel Beeke, Justification by Faith Alone, p. 56).

But this analysis presents a false premise which leads to a false conclusion. Logizomai does not “most often indicate” what someone or something is merely “considered” to be but is not so in reality. The New Testament uses logizomai 41 times. Ninety-five percent of these refer to what someone is thinking as a mental representation of the REALITY they are witnessing (Mt 11:31; 15:28’ Lk 22:37; Ac 19:27; Rm 2:3, 26; 3:28; 4:3-24; 6:11; 8:18, 36; 9:8; 14:14; 1Co 4:1; 13:5, 11; 2Co 3:5; 5:19’ 10:2, 7, 11; 11:5; 12:6; Gl 3:6; Ph 3:13; 4:8; 2Tm 4:16; Hb 11:19, Jm 2:23; 1Pt 5:12).

In only two out of forty-one instances is the word possibly used as a mental representation of something that does not exist in reality, and there is good reason for such a use since they are dealing with someone’s imagination, that is, Rm 2:26; and 2Co 12:6.

Hence, the preponderant evidence shows that the word “credited” denotes more of what is recognized or understood intrinsically of a person or thing than a mere crediting to the person or thing something that is not intrinsic to it. In the case of Abraham, for example, we can understand the phrase “his faith is reckoned as righteousness” in Romans 4:5 such that God is recognizing or viewing Abraham’s faith as righteousness, or that God interpreted the faith Abraham demonstrated as righteousness, or both. This is very different from saying that God merely “credited” Abraham with righteousness as if to say that Abraham was not really showing any righteous qualities when he demonstrated his faith but that God, because of the alien righteousness of Christ, merely gave him the label of righteousness.


God be with you, Robert Sungenis.

[Ben_G_Biegler]

Great conversation, I would have been interested to hear you guys talk more about assurance, maybe a futre conversation. I also have the privilege of taking a class on Pauline epistles with Dr. Seifrid right now, glad his work came up in the discussion. His view of union with Christ reminds me alot of Dr. Cooper's work.

[nelsonang]

“Now Adam was created righteous and upright and without sin by God so that he had no need of being justified and made upright through his tilling and keeping the garden; but, that he might not be idle, the Lord gave him a task to do, to cultivate and protect the garden. This task would truly have been the freest of works, done only to please God and not to obtain righteousness, which Adam already had in full measure and which would have been the birthright of us all.” - Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty

[dariusclovis]

CANON I: If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Cited from the 33 Canons of The Counci of Trent Concerning Justification
Sixth Session: January 13, 1547

[cronmaker]

Interesting talk. I think Christopher Malloys book which critiques the Joint Declaration from an RC perspective summarizes well the ongoing core differences - "denial of the character of remnant sin as worthy of damnation, the real ontological character of divine filiation, possibility for satisfactory obedience to the commandments, an increase in justifying grace through cooperation with God, the loss of this grace through every mortal sin, and the capacity to merit eternal life."
Most of these topics were just briefly mentioned in the talk so a more focused followup could be useful. I think too often RCs try to paper over differences appealing to the Joint Declaration - its a good doc to get baseline misconceptions out of the way but isnt a panacea as Malloys work (and Anthony Lane's book from a Protestant perspective) show.

[RealityConcurrence]

I’m the 667th viewer. Your welcome world

[gregorypizarro]

I think, it was St. John Henry Newman Who said that the reformed are much closer to the Catholics in justification than they are with the Lutheran and I think the reason for that was for the reformed scholastics Christ merited our salvation, but we must take possession of it by Goodworks.

[antoniomoreira]

Thank you for the video. Not sure it's the right niche but if anyone's very much into Traditional Catholic history I strongly recommend Schwerpunkt's history of Christianity playlist.

[MrJohnmartin]

Some questions for Dr Jordan and our Lutheran friends to consider

A poet uses the instrument of the pen to write a poem. The pen does not receive anything other than the human motion, moving the pen to write. How is faith an instrument that receives justification when an instrument must be used to perform an act and is never receptive to any divine gift?

If faith is an instrument receptive of God's gift of justification, how does faith receive the gift when the man who has faith receives the imputation of righteousness?

If faith and justification occur in a courtroom setting and St Paul gives the example of Abraham's justification by faith, why believe a couret room setting applies to the Christian when Abraham's justification is contextualised by Melchizedek's covenant and the covenant of pieces?

Faith is both an act and habit. Why believe faith is an instrument when there are no bible verses that teach faith is an instrument?

If faith and justification occur in a courtroom setting tied into a penal substitution theory involving a double exchange at the cross. The father imputes sins to Jesus whilst Jesus remains sinless, and the Father imputes Jesus righteousness to the sinner, whilst the sinner remains a sinner. Why believe in penal substitution theory and the accompanying legal exchange theory involving faith when a double lie occurs?

Why believe a courtroom setting for justification when the great OT themes are the kingdom, covenant, Exodus and creation? 
If the gospel fulfills the OT themes, the gospel must be the new  kingdom, new  covenant, new   Exodus and  new  creation. How can the Lutheran doctrines ignore the prominent four NT themes and promote the miniscule, almost non existent courtroom scene for justification?

If the Lutherans insist upon a courtroom scene and the four major NT themes are incorporated into the courtroom scene, how is justification by faith alone described without absurdity? If the courtroom  is tied into the new Kingdom, justification occurs in a kingdom courtroom. Or if tied into the other three themes, justification occurs in a courtroom new covenant, or a courtroom new Exodus, or a courtroom new creation. Each  possible outcome tends to make the courtroom scene a disproportionate melding of very different themes without any OT or NT precedent. Please comment.

If St Paul uses Psalm 32 in Romans 4:6-9 describing justification by faith, why believe St Paul is describing a courtroom scene when Psalm 32 was never used in the OT in a court room scene, but was utilised liturgically within the temple todah sacrificial system?

Faith is a spousal act towards God known as the divine bridegroom expressing divine love within the covenant. How can faith be tied into a legal exchange when faith is spousally tied to the divine bridegroom, within a covenant setting and not a courtroom setting?

If St Paul's example of Abraham in Romans 4 is a prominent example of justification by imputed righteousness, how does the Lutheran know Abraham did not have an infused righteousness some time prior to his justification in Gen 15:6?

If Abraham did have an infused righteousness before Gen 15:6, the Lutheran claim of distinct extrinsic, imputed righteousness occurs with an infused righteousness. Therefore,   imitation and infusion are If so, Abraham's justification is part of the new creation, with infused grace granting new life, contrary to the Lutheran claim of St Paul using a courtroom scene in Rom 4:1-25.

If Abraham was not infused with grace before Gen 15:6, when was Abraham infused with grace, knowing Abraham left Ur with the gift of faith inferring Abraham had the three infused virtues of faith, hope and love in Gen 12?

Why make a distinction between justification and sanctification if Abraham was already sanctified in Gen 15:6 by an infusion of grace?

If Abraham was not infused with grace in Gen 15:6 why does St Paul summarise Rom 4:1-25 again in Rom 5:1-9, speaking of love poured into the believer (Rom 5:4)?

If the faithful are justified within a courtroom scene, why is there no courtroom scene at Pentecost, but rather a celebration of Jesus final New Exodus ascent and the Church's celebration of baptism and the Eucharist?

[cronmaker]

Not sure why Cooper thinks infused divine love/charity which fulfills the law is just more law. The shadow is not the same as fulfillment, Christ was not just "more of" what He fulfilled. This then colors his view of perfection and what can (or cannot) withstand judgment.

[aajaifenn]

Mr Erick position seems to be similar to Martin Bucer who held that both imputed and infused righteousness under the scope of the term justification . However for him only imputed righteousness could get us an acquittal from the demands of God's holy law.. ...as does Mr Erick

[starlightatdusk]

Catholic: Do you think Erick did a good job describing the Catholic position on justification?

[Silverhailo]

Set theory would improve Jordan's interpretation of the faith.

[karlthomas]

Dr. Cooper, praying for your conversion to the Catholic Church. What happened on 13 October, 1917, in Fatima, Portugal? What happened during 1968 in the Zeitoun district of Cairo, Egypt? What about Eucharistic miracles, other Marian apparitions, and all of saints, all associated with the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church? In reference to sola scriptura, what does John 20:30&31 and 21:25 say? Food for thought.

[macbride]

Is this accurate:
Gift of Salvation
is not a one time deal of saying you believe something and saying a specific or generic prayer.... nor is it a thing you're given and you carry it around never to drop it or lose it...salvation of your soul is not a gift you just receive.

The gift of God that brings about salvation of your soul is an act, a process, the necessary thing to happen for his holy demands of justice against sinful rebellion...it is the death of your sin nature without you actually physically perishing in your sins... the OC was about innocent animal blood sacrifices to cover sin, but it was a temporary cleansing and only the High Priest offered it according to the commands and law of God at an altar, and it was weak in the flesh because it could not put to death the worshippers sin nature.

But Jesus came, the lamb of God, to be the perfect sacrifice once and for all SO that we may die with him, in baptism, and rise a new creature born of the spirit.... that is the gift of God that brings salvation. Rom 6