As a Reformed person, here is my response to whether Christ's personhood can be communicated from His divinity to His humanity: when we say there cannot be a communication of attributes, we are speaking of attributes of Christ's NATURES, but personhood is different than nature. If personhood were an attribute of nature, that would make no sense, as God is one nature but 3 distinct persons.
@FosterDuncan1
Жыл бұрын
How do you respond to the claim penal substitution is Nestorian
@ryanmunro4438
2 жыл бұрын
I would enjoy an entire program on Torrance and his view of Christ’s human nature and the non-assumptus. I was pretty swayed by your summary of his argument in Union with Christ, but would love to learn more, especially to help me decide if he’s worth reading.
@AdamRTNewman
Жыл бұрын
I see that indeed it makes sense to say that Christ as a man would never sin, given the divine nature possessed by one and the same person. Would it be fair to say then that Christ's human righteousness is the communication of His divine righteousness to His human nature? In fact, what if we go a step further and suggest that Christ's divine righteousness was *the* thing that made the difference between His sinlessness and our sinfulness, without any contribution in this respect coming from His virgin birth - so it's not the virgin birth that blocked the *law of sin* (term as taken from Romans 7) from being passed down to Jesus, but that in His own divine righteousness, He perfectly broke the law of sin that would have otherwise manifested in Him?
@Catholic_Papalist_Hunter
2 жыл бұрын
Only Nestorians thinking that Jesus was tempted by the devil and could sin.
@mosesking2923
2 жыл бұрын
They believed that Jesus the human and the divine Logos were separate persons.
@benmizrahi2889
2 жыл бұрын
Well, hidden Nestorianism helps explain many of the problems in Reformed theology.
@leef_me8112
2 жыл бұрын
I'm not a Nestorian, but the rest of your sentence is correct. Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
@AnUnhappyBusiness
2 жыл бұрын
Quick correction here: The Lutheran confessions affirm with Basil, Gregory the Great, and Chrysostom, that Jesus did indeed know the day and hour of Judgement. Article VIII of the Formula, paragraph 75, Basil’s letter 236, and Gregory’s letter from collection 10 on the Agnothe sect(which the writing referenced by the Lutheran confessions), Chrysostom’s commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
@eddieck123
13 күн бұрын
If the virginal birth was necessary because of the so-called prophecy of the seed of the woman, so why is Jesus called over and over son of David? Also, considering that circumcision is related with the sin of Adam, is historically absurd due to the fact that the practice is way older than the myth of Adam and Eve Thanks for this summarise, because the simlissness of Jesus has been always a question for me
@marilynmelzian7370
4 ай бұрын
I have known people in mainline churches who rejected Jesus’s sinlessness because they felt they could not relate to someone who did not sin like them.
@ephremgetachew6975
Жыл бұрын
Hello Dr. Jordan Cooper I have a question. Did Jesus pass all temptation because he couldn't fail, as in he is INCAPABLE of sinning? If so, then how can we say Jesus was tempted if there isn't any ablity to fall? How can we say he PASSED the temptations if he never could fall them?
@kingharry6368
2 ай бұрын
Great video, learned a lot. Thanks!
@willkietzman1121
Жыл бұрын
I love what you talk about. It is really refreshing to hear theology from the Lutheran perspective. I think it shows how fractured and little the modern church understands about our own history. I hear from the evangelical side that tradition is wrong but tradition helps us understand why we do the things we do. That goes for almost every aspect of life. Tradition is an inante part of the human experience and is not something to be shunned or discounted.
@willkietzman1121
Жыл бұрын
Dr. Cooper, I wonder if you could touch on dreams. I have had numerous dreams that tell me to keep praying and to trust God; however, these messages in the dreams are given by people that have died. I haven't found a clear theological answer that balances the extremes, one being that it is always demonic and the other is that is good. I have kept to the belief that if it leads me toward God then it is okay. If it doesn't lead me toward God, then I should rebuke it, so to speak. If you could point me in a good direction or even touch on it in a future episode I would greatly appreciate it. As I previously said, I enjoy what you talk about and enjoy the diversity. I pray that God keeps on blessing this part of your ministy.
@AdamRTNewman
Жыл бұрын
As a currently existing “Nestorian” church was mentioned in this video, namely the Assyrian Church of the East, I did have a bit of a look into it. While “Nestorianism” tends to get conveyed as the idea that Christ is two persons, a divine person and a human person, it’s been made pretty clear that this Assyrian Church teaches that Christ is *one person*. One particularly interesting thing is that, it would seem perhaps, Nestorius himself also did *not* teach Christ as two persons. Rather, it was perhaps something more like *two hypostases* united in *one prosopon* (or equivalent terms in another language maybe), where prosopon, not hypostasis, corresponds to person. I’ve also interestingly seen on a site by a *miaphysite* (Oriental Orthodox Christology), that in the miaphysite Christology, there is a distinction between hypostasis and prosopon, with prosopon, not hypostasis, corresponding to person. From what I gather, the Chalcedon-affirming churches, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, while holding different technical Christologies, nevertheless all confess that Christ is *one person* who is both truly God and truly man.
@psylegio
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for the clarifications. How does Isiah 53:2 relate to the physical appearance of Jesus? Does it at all? Also how can one relate to dyothelitism vs monothelitism. I think William Lane Craig has debated someone on the(lack of/) simplicity of God recently and also made some videos on this subject, as well as against the three divine persons having one shared will. Somehow I get feeling that these are related topics but I can not quite grasp the whole picture. Particularily not concerning who thinks what and how it all is related. I would very much appreciate having this made clearer if you find it an interesting topic.
@mosesking2923
2 жыл бұрын
Hello Dr. Cooper, I had some questions for you on this topic: 1. On the idea of Christ restoring by assuming, how does this theory deal with the notion that Christ will not merely redeem humans alone, but will redeem all of creation too? Does Christ assuming a material body suffice for redeeming the entire created universe? 2. You explained that Christ’s person is entirely divine but what about his personality? If Christ was sanguine, choleric, melancholic, or phlegmatic did that personality come from His divinity too?
@toddvoss52
2 жыл бұрын
Your first question is a very interesting one. Will be interested in Dr Coopers reply
@toddvoss52
2 жыл бұрын
Actually so is your second . I would assume this must be an “affect” of his human nature
@mosesking2923
2 жыл бұрын
@@toddvoss52 how can personality be an “affect?” If the person of Christ is entirely divine, his personality would have to be divine and perfect too. And a perfect personality has serious implications.
@AdamRTNewman
Жыл бұрын
@@mosesking2923 I imagine that when he speaks of the "person" being entirely divine, he means that Christ's state of personhood (i.e. the state of being a person) and the identity of His person came entirely with His divine nature, without any contribution or alteration coming along with the formation of His human nature. But as for what you say about "personality", that would be characteristics that a person may exhibit, and there, I'd expect Jordan Cooper would say that such things can come from Christ's human nature.
@ChristianCombatives
2 жыл бұрын
Do you believe that any temptation to sin arose internally in Christ? Even the temptation of bread in the wilderness, while it was working off of the otherwise normal desire to eat, was suggested externally to Him. I see temptation as coming from the world, the devil, and our sinful nature, but if Jesus didn't have a sin-corrupted human nature, doesn't that mean that all temptation that came to Him was externally sourced?
@leef_me8112
2 жыл бұрын
SINCE Jesus didn't have a sin-corrupted human nature, ALL temptation that came to Him was externally sourced. Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
@Occhiodiargento
2 жыл бұрын
Dr. Cooper, is it posible to talk about the Minor Catecism of Luther? I notice something interesting about the 10 commandments. If I compare it to the other catecism like the Wenstminster or the baptis catecistm there is a different order. The 2nd if different and the 9 and 10 too. Maybe is not worthy for a whole episode but I wonder why is the way it is.
@harryedmon380
2 жыл бұрын
By the way, we call it the "Small Catechism", not the "Minor Catechism". Luther followed the Augustine and Roman Catholic numbering of the commandments in both his Small and Large Catechism
@Occhiodiargento
2 жыл бұрын
@@harryedmon380 In Spanish is "Catecismo Menor", I didn't check and assume it was right. Sorry.
@benmizrahi2889
2 жыл бұрын
It is because Lutherans, like Roman Catholics*, follow the Augustinian order of the commandments, so what you would term the "2nd copmmandment" would be part of our first, and your 10th would be our 9th+10th. *I have just heard from someone that Roman Catholics do not follow the Augustinian numbering, but every single other source I have read , or heard, on the topic (both Lutheran and Roman Catholic) says otherwise.
@benmizrahi2889
2 жыл бұрын
@@Occhiodiargento No you are right to assume that, "menor" in Spanish would better be translated as "small" in English (or "younger" when it comes to people, as in my younger brother, "mi hermano menor"). Minor in English implies lesser importance. Beware of falsos amigos (:
@bjw8806
2 жыл бұрын
The reason why churches of the east comes use Theotokos is not for a nature issue but because they want keep in line the humanity of Mary. They were worried that saying Mary , Mother of God would eventually lead to wrongful Marian worship and attributes assigned to her that was not in line with the apostolic teaching. They use Christotokos because it properly assigned her role and that Christ is also the God / Man. It seems they ended up being right as we see some off Marian devotion even today
@Outrider74
2 жыл бұрын
That was my thought as well. I do not reject the term Theotokos in and of itself, but it does need to be clarified so that misuses and misunderstandings like the ones you brought up do not develop
@arthurbrugge2457
2 жыл бұрын
Loved the argument about Jesus being one hunky dude😄 And the rest of the video was interesting as well🙂
@newreformationapologetics4953
2 жыл бұрын
I would say that Progressive Christianity has very similar issues in their Christology.
@tiptupjr.9073
2 жыл бұрын
I'm not convinced either way on Christ's peccability. If he didn't sacrifice his divinity but willingly gave up some of his divine knowledge, memories, and authorities for the purpose of the incarnation then we can't just invoke divinity to say he couldn't have sinned, because as part of his humiliation he could have also voluntarily given up his divine ability to not sin. However, I found something interesting: “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” - John 5:30 KJV This seems to imply some restriction on Christ's agency insofar as he is seeking and potentially beholden to his Father's will, and the Father would obviously never will him to sin. This could relate to why he ASKED the Father to take the cup from him according to his will, and didn't throw the cup down of his own volition. The nature of Christ's will is something I've been thinking a lot about actually, would be neat to see a more in-depth discussion.
@leef_me8112
2 жыл бұрын
Jesus was tempted, but without sin. Jesus could forgive sins and heal the sick, but he did not "save himself" from the cross. Jesus KNEW he was supposed to die, he prophesied of it. Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Matthew 9:1-6 And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city. 2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. 3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. 4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. Mark 15:31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
@randomdad1234
2 жыл бұрын
I can’t remember where I read this (I believe one of the fathers) but I think the parallels between Adam being born of “virgin soil”, and Christ being born of a “virgin womb” would lead me to think His humanity, although fully God and fully man, was obviously something quite different than man-in-Adam. As Adam (being fully man) was a new creation, so too Christ was a sort of new creation at birth - the difference of course being fully God and man; hence I would say He was incapable of sin. . . But who knows, I still haven’t finished my first cup of coffee yet. Love the show ☕️
@toddvoss52
2 жыл бұрын
My two cents - I would say not - what is not assumed is not redeemed .
@randomdad1234
2 жыл бұрын
@@toddvoss52 Well, I’m not implying that he didn’t assume a human nature, simply that the virgin birth has to be viewed as different than our birth. Just an assumption though.
@toddvoss52
2 жыл бұрын
@@randomdad1234 ok.
@Χριστιανός-ο1η
2 жыл бұрын
Your comment is interesting. Is like saying that, not only is Christ the second and last Adam, but he is also the new Adam. However, it also reminds me of the Belgic Confession's condemnation of the Anabaptist heresy that stated that the assumed human flesh of Jesus was specially created by God IN Mary's womb and not that the assumed nature IS from Mary herself - like Dr. Cooper mentioned about the "heavenly flesh" around 16:00. Check the Belgic Confession Chapter 18.
@randomdad1234
2 жыл бұрын
@@Χριστιανός-ο1η yeah, I wouldn’t ever assume His flesh and blood to be different from human flesh and blood, but categorically one has to identify that He was “different” - while being very man. The Holy Spirit was over Mary (Lk 1:35) just as it was over the waters in the beginning (Gen 1:2), and just as God spoke lights into darkness immediately after that (Gen 1:3), so too St. John tells us that the Word (Jesus) was the true light that came into the world (Jn 1:4,14) at His birth. . . The examples of comparative creation language are so exhaustive in regards to the incarnation (as well as the resurrection) that one can only ponder what it means. I simply assume (loosely, as I haven’t looked to deep into it) that Christ was not capable of sin because He was not brought into being by two corrupted beings, instead he was fully divine while being fully man. The Shekinah of God was not less “divine” in Tabernacle vs. the Temple; that being the case and seeing that Christ was the fulfillment of the Temple, one would say that the outer covering of Gods Shekinah had no effect on its inward divinity. Hence why Christ could cry, hunger, thirst, sleep etc. but not sin. . . Or something along those lines 🤷♂️
@TheNathanMac
2 жыл бұрын
I've always thought of it in light of Exodus 20, where it says "visiting the sins of the fathers to the 3rd or 4th generations of those who hate me". It's always the sin of Adam and not Eve. I wonder if there's a point in which Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit so that Jesus would be born without the sins of the Fathers? And now because of this God is faithful to thousands of generations who love Him and obey Him. I hope I'm getting that across right and not sounding like a looney.
@leef_me8112
2 жыл бұрын
> I wonder if there's a point in which Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit so that Jesus would be born without the sins of the Fathers? You got that right!
@joshualeibrant3443
Жыл бұрын
Luther taught Jesus died a sinner, he did not have a sinless Lamb, but a sinful one who "became sin" and was "accursed" so he was neither at that time Holy, nor in fellowship with GOD the Father. Then their was no Trinity at that time since one head of "God" killed another head of GOD, or you have a human person who was cut off and then you have Nestorian or an Appolinarian human person in Jesus instead of the Divine person of the Logos. Not to mention you have a Jesus and a holy spirit who is less holy than the Father and does not need payment for sins. You are irrational if you are reformed. I should know, I was one of you!
@ready1fire1aim1
2 жыл бұрын
In antiquity, south-eastern Canaan was a very important centre for copper smelting. While it is likely that there existed a patron deity of metallurgy, the identity of the Canaanite god of smelting remains unknown. Although some biblical writings suggest a south Canaanite origin of Yahweh, no details are provided concerning his worship prior to him becoming the god of Israel. This study explores whether Yahweh was formerly the Canaanite god of metallurgy. The following observations corroborate this hypothesis: (1) Yahweh was worshiped by the Edomites, and especially by the Kenites, a small tribe regarded as the Canaanite smelters; (2) the Israelite cult of Yahweh was associated with copper and with a bronze serpent, a typical symbol of metallurgy; (3) the melting of copper is considered in Exodus 4 as the specific sign of Yahweh; (4) a parallel exists between Yahweh and the god of metallurgy worshiped in Egypt (Ptah), Mesopotamia (Ea/Enki) and Elam (Napir), all of them being a mysterious lonely deity; (5) fighting the (other) gods is common to Yahwism and to ancient metallurgical traditions. This data suggests that, before becoming publicly worshipped in Israel, Yahweh was formerly the god of the Canaanite guild of metallurgists. Keywords Cain, copper smelting, Yahweh, Edom, Kenite, origin of monotheism.
@benmizrahi2889
2 жыл бұрын
What is the name of the source you are quoting from?
@ready1fire1aim1
2 жыл бұрын
@@benmizrahi2889 history
@benmizrahi2889
2 жыл бұрын
@@ready1fire1aim1 Unless you invented this history from your own mind, you must have come across these bits of information somewhere. So let me ask again, what are the sources your claim is based upon?
@leef_me8112
2 жыл бұрын
@@benmizrahi2889 It is simply Diarrhea of keyboard. If you NEED to know, just google a line of text from the "quote"
Пікірлер: 54