The Great Justification Debate - Robert C. Koons & Jordan B. Cooper

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.

[HosannaInExcelsis]

Fantastic debate. After reading Dr Koons book a couple of years ago I got totally convinced of Catholicism. I think his arguments are very compelling.

[leeorrose]

This wasnt really a debate felt more like a discussion really enjoyed and barely any interruptions. thank you !!

[Stormlight]

This is such a great conversation. Thank you Dr. Cooper and Dr. Koons for being willing to engage in a very cordial dialogue that is so filled with substance. I felt like each point and counterpoint was dialed directly into some of the bottom level disagreements between the two sides.

At the end of the day, like Dr. Koons, after I learned that the imputation model of forensic justification was novel to the Reformation and was not found in the early church fathers, I just could no longer believe that Luther was simply trying to return the Church back to its proper teaching on justification but he was instead trying to rework a new systematic theology on top of his own novel ideas from the Bible. After seeing the early Church Fathers only ever talk about justification in terms of the inner transformation of the believer and infused charity and grace, I couldn't then believe that God would have allowed his Church to teach such a grave error on what is arguably one of the most important doctrines of Christianity. I just can't believe Luther's imputation model of justification was right when he also admitted:

"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 am so happy to finally hear such a learned Lutheran, like Dr. Cooper, getting the Lutheran voice into the ecumenical mix on YouTube. I really feel like all these conversations will bear so much fruit for God's kingdom as so many people have direct access to some of the best voices on these topics today. I pray you both continue to seek out more opportunities for productive dialogues like this.

And thank you for such great content, as usual, Suan!

God bless!

[fujiapple]

This is epic! I am amazed at the conversations you are able to pull off Suan! God bless you!

[christusvictoris]

This wasn't a debate as much as it was Jordan teaching Dr Koons what the Lutheran views ACTUALLY ARE...followed by Dr. Koons repeatedly attacking his own misunderstood views of Lutheranism.

[mikeparker]

Suan you are awesome man putting together a respectful and professional debate i.e. discussion as this. Great work guys!

[mikeparker]

Yeah reading the church fathers also brought me out of Calvinism

[severalstories]

Dr. Cooper’s argument at 49’ is dead on.

[EricBryant]

Wow. As a UT Alum who studied Philosophy, I now wish I had taken a course with Dr. Koons. Great to see he is still teaching.

Two heavyweights going at it. Two Philosopher-Theologians engaged in an incredible discussion. I can see both sides of this.

Would love to know why Prof Koons went RCC instead of Eastern Orthodoxy though.

Fantastic conversation!

[gilsonrocks]

Excellent discussion! Thank you all for doing this!

[cranmer]

Sanctification is synergistic but such cooperation is impossible without the preceding monergistic effectual call. John 3:3-8; Philippians 2:12-13. 2 Peter 3:18

[samuelrosenbalm]

Good works are a necessary effect of saving faith, but not a necessary cause. It is written in Genesis 15 that Abraham believed God and was justified, and this was before he brought forth his sacrifices in obedience to God.

[iVideosTech]

This is my first exposure to Rob, really like him. Fan of both of these guys

[collin]

It seems with justification it would need to begin as forensic because Romans 4 says God "justifies the ungodly." But also James chapter 2 clarifies the righteousness was more was only actual in the future, not when the declaration was made. That is, not until Abraham offered up his son was "the scripture was fulfilled that 'Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness." So in the beginning it was simply declared and fulfilled decades later. Same thing in Romans 4 where God called Abraham father of nations before his son was born, since God "calls into existence the things that do not exist." (Romans 4:17) It's all about declaring things in the present that will happen in the future.

[kjhg]

Cooper is impressive here. Koons basically admitted that his view is not in Romans 4, and that he had to rely on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. He tried to support this authority by appealing to the canon as an example of a place where we need to rely on the Church's authority, but he ultimately admitted that Cooper was right in dismissing that argument.

Basically, Koons keeps using phrases like "maybe it could mean" when trying to interpret what "works" are in Romans 4. Rather than taking the text in its most natural meaning, he tries to find an interpretation that doesn't technically contradict the text, and fits with the Catholic doctrine. Cooper was right to press him on where he found this distinction--that Paul means some works but not others--and Koons came up empty.

[Stormlight]

While Dr. Cooper brought up some great questions about Rom. 4, ultimately, they don't create problem for the Catholic position of justification. There are multiple options that Catholic scholars take, none of which require this passage to support imputed righteousness.

Even if Dr. Cooper doesn't find any of these interpretations as compelling as his own, given sola scriptura, how can he say with any certainty that his is correct and the Catholic is wrong? It is like it is just an exegetical preference at best.

First, one could see Romans 4 in the context of Paul showing circumcision is not necessary for justification as can be seen by Scott Hahn's commentary here:

"4:4 Paul’s commentary on the righteousness of Abraham, like his remarks on the righteousness of God in 3:24–26, stresses the gratuitous nature of the blessing. Justification is not a wage paid out to an employee as due compensation for his labors. Rather, God confers it as a gift that he is not obligated to bestow. That Paul felt the need to clarify this suggests that some had come to view circumcision in precisely these terms—as a work that God credits as righteousness."

**Hahn, S. W. (2017). Romans. (P. S. Williamson & M. Healy, Eds.) (p. 59). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A division of Baker Publishing Group.**

Second, the word faith ("pistis" in Greek) can often mean faithfulness. This would dramatically change the implications of Romans 4.

"As Teresa Morgan has demonstrated in a recent study, ancient Greek writers used pistis to signify more than simply an intellectual assent to propositions or mere trust in persons. Morgan shows that pistis is used to signify belief, trust, and faithfulness in a wide range of interpersonal contexts, ranging from familial to political and cultic settings.s 7 On the whole, Morgan is able to conclude that pistis is never employed " purely in instrumental terms. It is always a virtue: an intrinsic good; an end as well as a means."

...While Paul does employ pistis to signify belief in particular propositions as well as trust, he also employs the term to signify true faithfulness or fidelity. 60 In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul speaks about the coming of Christ and the revealing of faith almost interchangeably such that the person of Christ is not only the object of faith but also the revelation of what faithfulness constitutes. 61 This broader meaning is also evident when Paul speaks of " the faithfulness of God [ten pistin tou theou]" (Rom 3:3). Paul's point is not that God "believes" in some specific datum but that he is "faithful." As we shall see below, Paul tells the Galatians that living by faith in Christ defines the believer's entire existence (Gal 2:20-21)-anything that does not come from faith is a sin (Rom 14:23). Pauline 'Jaith, " then, is a radical, all-encompassing virtue. 62 Many scholars agree that the word has this fuller sense for Paul. 63 Matthew Bates uses the helpful language of " embodied fidelity." 64

*Therefore, we suggest that when Paul states that Abraham's faith was accredited as righteousness, it is Abraham's faith(fulness) that provides the basis for the reckoning to be realistic rather than merely imputed.* Just verses before Paul says that God "justifies" Abraham (Rom 4:5), he indicates that faith(fulness) upholds rather than nullifies the law (Rom 3:31). The reason Abraham is righteous is his faith(fulness). Because of this, when Paul states that God "justifies" Abraham in Romans 4:5, it is realistic rather than is not a substitute for righteousness; it is righteousness. This account of Pauline faith allows for a realistic account of Paul's use of the term " to justify" (dikaioo), since whether it is employed in reference to faith(fulness) 65 or in reference to the works that reveal one's heart, Paul's uses it in a realistic sense.

**Pitre, B. J., Barber, M. P., Kincaid, J. A., & Gorman, M. J. (2019). Paul, a new covenant Jew: rethinking Pauline theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 184-186**

Again, while Dr. Cooper's reading of Romans 4 seems logically possible, it certainly isn't the only seemingly valid interpretation. When I compare the very few verses like Rom. 4 that are used to support an imputation model of justification, and then realize that 1) Catholics have valid interpretations of all the same verses too, but more importantly 2) can account for all the verses that speak of a final justification that includes works (Mt 25:31-46, Mt 7:21-23, Rm 2:6-11, Rev 20:11-15, Rev 2:23, Jm 2:24-26, Rm 2:13, 2 Cor 5:10, Mt. 16:27) I just don't see how Protestants can claim Catholics hold to a heretical view of justification. The Catholic position of infused righteousness and initial vs. final justification actually has more textual support, let alone is the historical position of the Church. This is something that Luther could not say:

"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).*

God bless!

[shostycellist]

At the time of the Reformation "regeneration" was often used as a synonym for "sanctification" and was therefore seen as following justification or faith. Melanchthon spoke this way and Calvin himself in the Institutes places regeneration after faith.

[mikeparker]

QUESTION: CAN IT NOT BE BOTH AND INSTEAD OF EITHER OR? WHAT I MEAN IS CAN IT NOT BE IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND INFUSED RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE WALK OF HOLINESS?

[killingtime]

Great conversation, being a Lutheran myself these discussions are great to see, I’ve learnt so much from Jordan’s work on youtube.

It is interesting to see how much Lutherans and Roman Catholics agree on, you really need to get into the nitty gritty details to understand what the disagreements are.

[Jenny-qfgq]

How does justification work for the Lutheran position then when a believer apostatizes/falls away? I think the Catholic point is that the sanctification after initial conversion DOES play a part in ultimate justification because if one does indeed fall away, they did not persevere in the faith (synergism in sanctification process) and therefore are not justified on behalf of their failure to continue in the faith.