Luther's One True Church
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- Martin Luther called fellow Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli a "heretic," who was "seven times worse than a Papist" and "no Christian at all." Zwingli's offense was saying that in the Lord's Supper, "the true body of Christ is present by the contemplation of faith." For Luther, Christ wasn't truly present unless he was physically present in the elements. Conservative Lutherans still refuse to share communion with non-Lutherans, and some "boldly assert" that "Zwingli is in Hell." In spite of such invective, the Reformed position on Christ's presence is the historic and Biblical one. This video was produced by Christ Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in Magna, Utah. (www.gospelutah.org)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
As a point of clarification, I believe Lutherans stray towards Monophysitism, but, in spite of being called a "Nestorian" many times, I am not trying to hang the label of Monophysite on them.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
There are heresies that seek to be conciliatory only within their own framework, without yielding in the essentials of their errors. The Reformed, in yearning for "union" with the Lutherans, do not compromise their doctrine of the Supper; rather, they seek to have us yield in our understanding of the real presence of Christ in the elements. In that sense, a Lutheran who abandons this doctrine ceases to be Lutheran and becomes Reformed. The risk is more on our side than on yours. The Reformed, with their emphasis on the separation between the divine and the human in all doctrines, come dangerously close to a position reminiscent of Nestorianism, by dividing what Christ has united.
That is why, from the beginning, the condemnation of their heretical doctrines was necessary, not out of a desire for division, but out of commitment to pure and sound doctrine. You do not call us "monophysites" because the accusation is unfounded; we do not mix natures to the point of making them indiscernible. The union of natures that we preach implies that they are always together, humanity is always present because divinity allows it, humanity is ubiquitous not by its own merit but because of divinity.
Another argument is that if we believe in absolute divine simplicity (and i bemieve Lutherans do), it would not be possible for the omnipresence of the divine nature to be communicated to Christ's human nature without the communication of all the other attributes of the divine nature.
Incomprehensibly based video. Please keep up the good work dude, this channel is amazing as are all of your videos.
Thanks! Soli Deo Gloria!
This was excellently laid out! Whenever I hear, "I'm just reading it plainly," I don't hear an argument, I hear a confession of bias.
Wow, both this and Gavin’s video on Lutheran Christology in one day! Great stuff Ancientpathstv, this is a high quality video.
Luderans ain't gonna recover from this
Spent hours watching your videos just Monday night. Glad to see a new one.
Great video and use of both scripture and church history to correct consubstantiation errors, specifically Brain Cooper. Two obvious verses that destroy Cooper are: John 6:41-59, that is Christ is speaking metaphorically of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Furthermore, if Mr. Cooper is going to argue the Pascal lamb means that body of Christ is physically present in the bread of the Eucharist, then necessarily by the same Lutheran principle of the communication of attributes in Christ's hypostasis the Church, which is also called Christ's body, must have Christ physical present in her at all times, which to my knowledge nobody has ever said.
Please post more! This is the only good Presbyterian apologetics channel
Specifically, young men in the OPC need more resources on EO, specifically countering arguments against it from the likes of Fr. Josiah Trenham
I'm currently working on The Patristic Roots of the Reformed Faith. 🙂
Josiah Trenham may well be a good man, and I don't doubt he is my brother in Christ even if he doesn't think I am because of all the anathemas he has to ascribe to, but his youtube soundbite apologia for EO has driven a wedge into my marriage by casting doubts into my wife's mind, and I have to pray all the time to forgive him. I know he didn't personally do it so it isn't his fault, so I know I am just bitter about it.
@@Arkeo36 Please watch our free videos at www.orthodox.video.
Amen - more of that kind of content is always excellent.
@@ancientpathstv I appreciate all the resources, and believe me I've watched and listened many times. My wife won't listen to me explain the positions and the best we can do is avoid the topic as much as possible. Prayers are always appreciated on this point.
I live in St. Louis and did a historical research project on Trinity Lutheran Church in St. Louis which C.F.W. Walther was the pastor of for over 40 years in the 1800s. Pretty cool to see him mentioned in the video (although for unfortunate circumstances)
As a proud Lutheran, I regard this as reverend Luther's greatest mishap. Thankfully, reverend Calvin did not hold him in contempt, and even more thankfully, there have been several confessions of faith and church-movements uniting us together. For me, the Reformed are nothing but true brothers, God bless.
Thank you! If you're ever in Salt Lake, I'll buy you lunch. 🙂
Brother Jason, another great vid! I look forward to the next one should God permit.
As a conservative Lutheran, He said "This is my body." Simple. He did not say "This is my spirit."
Please watch the video. When your "plain reading of the text" was rejected by Athanasius and Augustine, it's not as plain as you think it is. When you denounce anyone who disagrees with you as "no Christian at all," it's not just a matter of whether your reading is possible, but whether any other is impossible.
In the last video you mentioned to me you were serious about making this video, and lo and behold you did so. I respect your position and enjoyed the video which was good. There are a few comments that me as a Lutheran have to address:
1. How Christ is physically present at the Lord's Supper is in a mysterious way, and this is supported by Scripture by Christ showing that He can present himself physically in ways that manifest beyond human physical form (ie, walking through doors, teleportation). The issue with the claim of monophysitism is the reformed denouncement of us claiming a physical presence in a way which is not revealed to us, but we see in Scripture that Christ's physical presence is ultimately not subject to human reasoning and limitations. While Cooper's video was good, it didn't touch on this.
2. Patristic writers calling the sacrament a "figure, symbol" is not mutually exclusive with real presence
3. Lutherans don't argue from John 6 for the real presence. Luther didn't believe this spoke of the Eucharist. Augustine's commentary aligns on how we see it, and we call this "capernaitic eating" because they saw it literally as eating His flesh like a slab of meat. We don't profess transubstantiation so we don't say that.
If you are going to argue for spiritual presence in the Eucharist, then you should present Scripture that supports your position on this. The issue with the reformed position in my opinion is that it leans too heavily on reasoning. Christ cannot be in the sacrament because He is human and at the right hand of The Father, ergo, He cannot be present on earth. But then Paul says he saw Christ on the road to Damascus. The reason Lutherans don't accept a spiritual presence over a physical one is because there is no evidence in Scripture to support a spiritual presence but ample to just trust in His Word and call it what it is.
Good video nonetheless, despite my disagreements. It's a pretty respectable and good summary of the whole issue from the reformed perspective. I agree with you and think Lutherans should try to be more ecumenical on other matters instead of just the insular culture we've built, but it's a matter of doctrine that we don't commune with others.
Thank you for the kind words, even in disagreement. Remember, Luther is not claiming that Jesus' body was omnipresent after His death and resurrection, but before. He said Jesus was physically present in the elements in the Upper Room. There's no Biblical support for that, and it creates huge theological issues on the nature of the incarnation.
I hesitated to bring up the issue of Monophysitism, but I have been accused of being a Nestorian too many times. Though I think belief in physical presence is an error, I don't see it as a soul-damning heresy, but Luther saw the opposite to be true. My purpose in this video wasn't to thoroughly exegete all the Scriptures in question, but to demonstrate that Lutheran assertions to "plain reading" and to the "consent of the Fathers" simply aren't true. The burden is not on those who stand with the historic church, but those who reject its testimony in favor of medieval speculation.
@@ancientpathstv Lutherans are open to disagree when Christ is omnipresent according to His human nature. Chemnitz and Gerhard hold that it is at the Resurrection Christ began to be omnipresent according to His human nature.
@LukeBowman08 The problem with that is that the Last Supper is qualitatively different from the Lord's Supper today. The default Lutheran argument of, "This is my body" falls apart.
@@ancientpathstv in what way though? you could say the nature of Christ's omnipresence according to His human nature is different today under Chemnitz's view, but the mode of presence of Christ's human nature in the Supper is different from the omnipresence of Christ according to His human nature. This quote from article 7 of the Formula is helpful: "The one body of Christ [says Luther] has a threefold mode or all three modes of being anywhere.
99 First, the comprehensible, bodily mode, as He went about bodily upon earth, when, according to His size, He vacated and occupied space [was circumscribed by a fixed place]. This mode He can still use whenever He will, as He did after the resurrection, and will use at the last day, as Paul says, 1 Tim. 6:15: “Which in His times He shall show, who is the blessed God [and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords].” And to the Colossians, 3:4: “When Christ, who is our Life, shall appear.” In this manner He is not in God or with the Father, neither in heaven, as the mad spirits dream; for God is not a bodily space or place. And this is what the passages how Christ leaves the world and goes to the Father refer to which the false spirits cite.
100 Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases [according to His most free will]; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board and wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like, and also do not vacate or occupy space; and much more of the like [many comparisons of this matter could be adduced]. This mode He used when He rose from the closed [and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother [the most holy Virgin Mary].
101 Thirdly, the divine, heavenly mode, since He is one person with God, according to which, of course, all creatures must be far more penetrable and present to Him than they are according to the second mode. For if, according to that second mode, He can be in and with creatures in such a manner that they do not feel, touch, circumscribe, or comprehend Him, how much more wonderfully will He be in all creatures according to this sublime third mode, so that they do not circumscribe nor comprehend Him, but rather that He has them present before Himself, circumscribes and comprehends them! For you must place this being of Christ, who is one person with God [for you must place this mode of presence of Christ which He has by His personal union with God], very far, far outside of the creatures, as far as God is outside of them; and again as deep and near within all creatures as God is within them. For He is one inseparable person with God; where God is, there must He also be, 102 or our faith is false. But who will say or think how this occurs? We know indeed that it is so, that He is in God outside of all creatures, and one person with God, but how it occurs we do not know; it [this mystery] is above nature and reason, even above the reason of all the angels in heaven; it is understood and known only by God. Now, since it is unknown to us, and yet true, we should not deny His words before we know how to prove to a certainty that the body of Christ can by no means be where God is, and that this mode of being [presence] is false. This the fanatics must prove; but they will forego it.
103 Now, whether God has and knows still more modes in which Christ’s body is anywhere, I did not intend to deny herewith, but to indicate what awkward dolts our fanatics are, that they concede to the body of Christ no more than the first, comprehensible mode; although they cannot even prove that to be conflicting with our meaning. For in no way will I deny that the power of God may accomplish this much that a body might be in many places at the same time, even in a bodily, comprehensible way. For who will prove that this is impossible with God? Who has seen an end to His power? The fanatics indeed think thus: God cannot do it. But who will believe their thinking? With what do they make such thinking sure? Thus far Luther." (Source: bookofconcord.org/solid-declaration/the-holy-supper/#sd-vii-0098 )
"Great video! I love that you highlight the differences between 'transubstantiation' and 'consubstantiation.' In other words, the Roman Catholic position and the Lutheran position. All while simultaneously clarifying Ulrich Zwingli's (fairly). Thank you, brother. Soli Deo Gloria!
(Edit) 'The Lord's supper' and 'communicatio idiomatum,' is where the differences really show between the Reformed and Lutheran I've been maintaining this for years. I also believe this is why C.F.W. Walther said "it is a denial of a true intercommunion between the natures."
I think your concerns here are well put and entirely valid. I think the concern that Lutheranism strays into monophysitism is overstated though. The biggest issue I see is that Lutheranism brings up a novel Christology and then insists that it, and its consequences, be dogmatically binding to all Christians for any unity to exist among them, rejecting and excommunicating those who differ with them in often the most vile and uncharitable terms.
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I do not accuse Lutherans of being Monophysites, but when Walther claims Lutherans alone have the correct doctrine of the incarnation and calls the Reformed Nestorians, I don't think the concerns about straying towards Monophysitism are unwarranted.
@@ancientpathstv I can agree that there is a concern of it straying in that direction. I would recommend making a pinned comment though that you did not intend to say that they are actual monophysites, both for clarity's sake and lest we be accused of leveling the same invective against them which some of them have against us.
1/2
Thanks for the video. I'll respond to a few of your points with time stamps:
6:00 As a former Reformed Baptist and now confessional Lutheran, I've already been accused of monophysitism. But there isn't evidence that the attendees at the Council of Chalcedon believed in only a "spiritual presence" of Christ in the supper. If you can find a father that says this, I would be interested to hear it. But by the 5th century, there really was no dispute about whether Christ was bodily present. Of course, we Protestants hold to "Sola Scriptura," so Scripture is what is the final arbiter of truth. By the time of Chalcedon, the church had basically unanimously believed in a bodily presence of Christ in the Supper, so to accuse Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics, and some Anglicans of "going too far into Nestorianism," it means one of two things of those who attended Chalcedon:
1) They either condemned all of themselves in anathematizing monophysitism,
or
2) The bodily presence of Christ doesn't require monophysitism.
I leave each individual to come to his or her own conclusions, but Lutherans make it clear that the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper doesn't require monophysitism. This requires understanding our Christology and the three genera of the "communication of attributes," where Christ's human body has received certain essential properties of his divine nature which are communicated as (not essential but) accidental properties to his human nature. In this way, it doesn't change his human nature into something else entirely, but retains its essential attributes, but by virtue of the hypostatic union, has properties belonging to his divine nature. The common analogy used by Martin Chemnitz and others is that of a piece of steel; it does not naturally give off light or heat, but when exposed to a furnace or flame, it gains heat and light. It remains steel, yet it gains properties from the flame. Obviously, this is just an analogy, so it doesn't reflect Christ perfectly, but it is a good illustration.
Here is what was written by Cyril of Alexandria in his third letter to Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus just 20 years before the Council of Chalcedon:
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, and professing his return to life from the dead and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody worship [sacrificii servitutem] in the churches and so proceed to the mystical thanksgivings and are sanctified having partaken of the holy flesh [corpus] and precious blood of Christ, the saviour of us all. This we receive not as ordinary flesh, heaven forbid, nor as that of a man who has been made holy and joined to the Word by union of honour, or who had a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and real flesh of the Word [ut vere vivificatricem et ipsius Verbi propriam factam.]. For being life by nature as God, when he became one with his own flesh, he made it also to be life-giving, as also he said to us: "Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood" . For we must not think that it is the flesh of a man like us (for how can the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature?), but as being made the true flesh [vere proprium eius factam] of the one who for our sake became the son of man and was called so."
Just to make sure he isn't saying that Jesus' body remains in heaven and this "bodily presence" is not some kind of remote communication as the Reformed doctrine teaches, Cyril also wrote:
"Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): 'This is My Body,' and "This is My Blood," in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ's Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ." (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.)
You can find quotes from contemporary fathers such as Leo (~400-461 AD), Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), and Jerome (347-420 AD) that similarly speak of Christ being bodily present and the body and blood of Christ in the Supper as not merely figures but realities on the altar.
6:25 Lutherans also believe that Jesus' local bodily presence ascended to the right hand of the Father. We don't deny that. There's only a problem if one admits that Christ's body has only one mode of bodily presence. If that were the case, then yes, Lutherans would have a contradictory belief. But there's nothing to say (other than our own biases and presuppositions) that Christ cannot have more than one mode of bodily presence.
Jesus both said he would go away, and yet that he would remain. Reformed understand this to mean his divine presence remained but the human nature ascended, and Lutherans take this to mean that all of Christ would somehow remain with believers. Reformed extrapolate this to the Lord's supper to mean he has no bodily presence anywhere on earth, whereas Lutherans believe Jesus's local bodily presence ascended while his illocal presence exists in the Supper.
That's why we admit there are different forms or modes of Christ's bodily presence, where Luther and the Book of Concord teach three types: local (as in his incarnation), the incomprehensible/spiritual mode, aka illocal, (where, as being united to the divine essence, Jesus' body penetrates all things and exists everywhere, and this is the presence of Christ in the Supper according to the Formula of Concord), and the divine/heavenly mode, aka supernatural. The Formula of Concord Article VII discusses this in detail.
8:30 Technically speaking, Christ's presence in the Supper isn't "physical" but a "bodily" presence. This is to distinguish the illocal mode of Christ's presence in the Supper as opposed to his local/physical presence; we don't believe that Jesus's body and bloody take up mass or space in the Supper as he did in his local presence during the Incarnation.
We more frequently use terms like "sacramental presence" or "real presence" of Christ's presence in the Supper and don't try to explain how it gets there; that's why Lutheranism doesn't affirm "consubstantiation" or "impanation" (even though we are told by Reformed and Catholics, respectively, that we do). Jordan Cooper has a video where he talks about this: ruclips.net/video/dgHKo64KzXk/видео.html
10:50 I think the point is missed from Jordan Cooper's video; he isn't saying that God can **only** curse those who disobey if they're literally touching God or something. We don't deny that God can curse people for offering "strange fire" or touching the Ark when it is not allowed. But in the instance of the unworthy participation in the Lord's supper according to 1 Corinthians 11, it doesn't just say that God will curse them for disobeying or being unworthy: it says they are "guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." We don't have this same kind of language with touching the Ark; the Supper is a unique circumstance where Christ is present, and those who take it but shouldn't are guilty against taking his blood and body. This is why it was so serious to take the Supper unworthily, and this is why Lutherans don't commune with other Christians; we believe that if they take the Supper and deny the bodily presence, they could (possibly) be bringing this curse against them.
As Reformed teach and believe that only those who worthily take the supper have any kind of spiritual benefit or connection to Christ's body, and those who take it unworthily are simply eating plain bread and wine and nothing more, it is a weaker case to claim they are "guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." They are simply being disobedient to God's command; they have no connection to Christ's body and blood whatsoever in the Reformed view.
15:00 The problem with taking these quotes is that "symbol" back then and "symbol" today don't have the same connotation. We have a modern, post-Enlightenment understanding of "symbol" to mean "something which is completely disconnected from what it represents." But that's not really how the ancients saw it: something could both be a symbol of something but be actually connected to that same thing.
Similarly, when you point to them saying they eat "spiritually," this is understood in modern times to be saying "there is no bodily presence whatsoever." However, even Lutherans have used the term "spiritual eating" of Christ. We say this not because Christ isn't bodily present, but because he **is** bodily present. However, we don't use this often because it is misunderstood by the Reformed to be saying something we aren't. When we say we are eating Christ "spiritually," it means we are supernaturally united to Christ's body and blood; we are not physically chewing or gnawing on Jesus' body and blood. It isn't a carnal or Capernaitic eating (reference to John 6 at Caperneum where they thought Jesus was saying we need to physically chew on his body); it is a spiritual communion and a mystical union with Christ's body and blood, but his body and blood are still there on the altar.
2/2
As a demonstration that saying Christ is "spiritually" present doesn't preclude a bodily presence in the elements, you can find quotes from the same fathers given in the video which show pretty plainly that they also believed Jesus was truly, body and blood, present on the altar.
Examples:
Augustine says that the blessed elements on the altar *are* the body and blood of Christ, not merely representing them, and also not connecting us spiritually to his absent body and blood in heaven:
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
He also contrasts what you see with what it is:
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
He also taught to adore the Supper containing Christ's body and blood; if his body and blood were not truly there, he would be committing idolatry:
“Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it” (Explanation of the Psalms 99).
"He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. . . . We do sin by not adoring” (ibid).
Athanasius is also quoted as saying that the Word comes down into the bread and wine once consecrated:
"'The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:' You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. 'And again:' Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected." ("Sermon to the Newly Baptized" ante 373 A.D.)
As for saying his "corporeal" presence left the church, I don't know exactly what he meant by this, but this could be speaking as to his local presence. This would line up with his saying we need to have faith, because we don't see Jesus (and only the local presence can be seen), but we still accept and embrace him and his illocal presence in the Supper completely by faith (not by sight). But, even if that's not what he's saying, the focus might have been on Christ being the Savior of the whole world and making himself known to all. But I really don't know.
Those are my thoughts. I still have a lot to learn, and I appreciate videos like this that get people thinking. Hopefully it leads to more Reformed and Lutheran dialogue.
@@daric_ I appreciate your tone, even if I disagree with your arguments.
I don't have time to engage everything, but you're arguing against a straw man in terms of the Reformed. We do not deny that someone sins against the body and blood of Christ in profaning the Lord's Supper. Your assumed logic is wrong. I'm tired of Lutherans caricaturing what we believe to dismiss it.
Athanasius and Augustine explicitly deny we are eating the physical body and blood of Christ, but they insist that we are truly feeding upon His body and blood. Simply offering statements from fathers that we "truly" or "really" feed upon his flesh and blood do not negate that. Where is an explicit denial of what Athanasius and Augustine taught?
I brought up Monophysitism only because I have been called a Nestorian heretic by Lutherans more times than I can count. To insist that Jesus was physically present in the elements in the Upper Room (before His death and resurrection) is a serious issue. It is completely speculative, finds no real support in Scripture, and raises serious questions on what Walther called the "true doctrine of the incarnation."
Christ's body being omnipresent before His death and resurrection is not the "plain reading" of Scripture, nor the historic faith of the church. The Reformed are not the ones upon whom the burden of proof lies, but those who stand against Athanasius and Augustine and call the rest of us "no Christians at all."
@@ancientpathstv
Thanks for your reply. I'll respond to some points.
//We do not deny that someone sins against the body and blood of Christ in profaning the Lord's Supper. Your assumed logic is wrong. I'm tired of Lutherans caricaturing what we believe to dismiss it.//
In my original comment, I'm not saying you deny this entirely. What I was saying is that, when we say they are "sinning against the body and blood," this is a strong indication from the text that it isn't speaking of pure symbolism and that the body and blood of Christ are truly present.
By contrast, Reformed teach that the body and blood are not present for those who take it unworthily, but they are mere bread and wine. This is because they teach the only communion with his body and blood are spiritually through the worthy taking of the Supper. This is what I was taught and read, so if I am misrepresenting, please correct me.
With this interpretation, Reformed certainly can interpret that phrase in 1 Corinthians 11 ("sinning against the body and blood") in a way that it is speaking of the body and blood of Christ that remains in heaven, or that they are sinning against the symbols of his body and blood in the elements, or in some other way, sure. But I think that isn't the easiest or most plain reading of the text. We believe that this warning from Paul is a strong indication of bodily presence in the bread which explains why it's so dangerous to take it unworthily (as Christ's holy body and blood is dangerous to those who shouldn't take it).
//Athanasius and Augustine explicitly deny we are eating the physical body and blood of Christ, but they insist that we are truly feeding upon His body and blood. Simply offering statements from fathers that we "truly" or "really" feed upon his flesh and blood do not negate that. Where is an explicit denial of what Athanasius and Augustine taught?//
Again, I point to the quotes in my previous comments from Augustine where he seems to indicate that the elements themselves are changed, and that those who take it adore the elements and do not sin in adoring them. My quote from Cyril, one of the attendants of the Council of Ephesus which condemned monophysitism, also strongly indicated that the bread and wine are truly Christ's body and blood.
When Lutherans talk about communing with the body and blood of Jesus "spiritually," it's to counter the claim that we are using the natural, physical processes of eating and chewing to literally chew up Jesus' body and blood (I mentioned this also in my first comments). It's a spiritual eating, but his bodily presence is still there. And I think it is in this similar sense that these fathers are speaking based on other quotes where they say the elements are truly Christ's body and blood.
If we take all of these quotes together, and not just one on its own, it seems clear Augustine isn't saying there is only a "spiritual" presence in the bread and wine. I understand that Reformed believe they commune with the body and blood of Jesus, but it's not in the same way that I think these fathers are indicating.
//I brought up Monophysitism only because I have been called a Nestorian heretic by Lutherans more times than I can count. To insist that Jesus was physically present in the elements in the Upper Room (before His death and resurrection) is a serious issue. It is completely speculative, finds no real support in Scripture, and raises serious questions on what Walther called the "true doctrine of the incarnation." //
I don't think Reformed are "Nestorian heretic[s]," but as I mentioned, I've been called a monophysite. And I don't think either label is helpful to further the conversation. This would also mean that one side sees the other as outside the Christian faith, which I don't hold to.
I mentioned the three genera of the "communication of attributes." As I understand it, Reformed and Lutherans agree on two of the three genera, the "genus idiomaticum" (where each nature has essential properties inherent to itself) and the "genus apotelesmaticum" (where the properties of the human and divine natures of Jesus work together in his works, and, in particular, his redeeming work, such that we can say we are saved by the blood of God).
The omnipresence of Christ prior to his ascension is related to the third one that Reformed deny, the "genus majestaticum," whereby certain divine attributes are communicated to his human nature as accidental (not essential) properties, but there are no human properties communicated the other direction to the divine. We see these divine properties operating in the human nature of Jesus in his incarnation when he knows things he doesn't normally know (omniscience), has power over the elements, heals the sick, raises the dead, etc. (omnipotence), and is able to miraculously escape the crowds who attempted to stone him, appeared instantaneously to the disciples in a closed room, and yes, is present in the Lord's supper (omniscience).
So I disagree that it finds no support in Scripture, as we see Jesus' human nature doing many things it normally can't do, including moving through solid objects and people instantaneously, and Jesus stating in the Lord's supper institution that "this is my body" and "this is my blood" that this alone indicates he is bodily present there in a mysterious manner.
@@daric_ I'm busy with other duties and projects, so I don't have time to debate you, but you keep making assertions, but not offering specific evidence. Lutherans don't get to denounce the Reformed as "no Christians at all" and argue for the "possibility" of an interpretation; they'd better prove it beyond all reasonable doubts. You personally may not being making such accusations, but unless you're prepared to denounce Luther, Walther, and Rosebrough, I don't care what your individual perspective is. Your church has spoken and refuses to allow Reformed to its communion.
wow i just read through your comment and it is literally exactly what i was thinking!
I am glad that, as you illustrate with the final quote from Calvin, the Reformed tradition has never been helmed by anyone who made the sorts of claims that Luther did and that all the confessional and official documents I've seen leave abundant room both for them to be full brothers in the faith, and many others also.
Great video as always bro ❤
Could you make a video about Unity between classical protestants against the claims of disunity of RC and EO?or maybe one about defending the accusations of RC and EO about reform being the fall of the Western Christianity
I'm currently working on The Patristic Roots of the Reformed Faith. 🙂
@ancientpathstv I can't wait to watch, it's always good to see reformed channels as yours
😂 i was looking into lutheranism and suddenly saw you uploaded this. Must be a sign 😅.
Hey! Keep looking man!
But whatever you do, stay Protestant!
Soli Deo Gloria
Lutheranism is pretty based, grounded in the fathers and most importantly Holy Scripture.
Keep looking - go to a LCMS Bible study and service.
Pastor, great material again. Could you do a video about Newman's theory and his defense of Roman doctrines, unknown to Scripture, fathers and doctors?
I recorded the introduction yesterday. 🙂
@ancientpathstv if I could help in any way, I think constitution Filius Dei destroys all ideas of "they mean something diffrent, but we don't have to accept the reason of dogma, just dogma alone", since constitution says, that we are not obligated only by dogma alone, but also by original understanding! So in some cases, like icons, Newmanists argumentation gets obliterated.
I think this might be the earliest I’ve ever been
Congratulations 🎉
Same
We have the same pfp :D
As a Bible-Presbyterian Church member from Singapore. Thank you for your pedagogical content. 🙏 [Carl Mcintyre should not have split from the OPC]
I love it how you created voices with their correspondent accents, could you please teach me how to do it too?
Fiverr.com
Jason, i love your channel and continue to recomend it even though i am a former Presbyterian turned Lutheran. I have no ill will towards the Reformed faith as I really believe we are much closer than both sides historically and presently like to admit. It seems that many times we simply talk past one another trying to be right in explaining the deep things and mysteries of God. Thank you for this video and your continued work in Christ! 🙏
You have a very Christian outlook on the relationship between our denoms and I'm glad we are brothers in Christ!
@@tategarrett3042Thanks brother! It's been an interesting journey. I lost many friends leaving my Presbyterian church. Most of them do not want to even talk to me anymore. It's like they took it personally that I left the Reformed faith even though I never said a cross word about it. Then, making friends at my Lutheran Church is sometimes a challenge as if I defend Calvin in anything or say anything positive about the Reformed, I get get scoffed at. Oh well. I am ok with it. It is what it is as they say...
One question for clarification from a layman Lutheran, is there a difference between Jesus’ body and blood being spiritually present? If it’s just a spiritual presence, what’s the distinction between body and blood?
Im not done watching yet but you only showed part of coopers first point without showing the rest. I would recommend that people watch the whole cooper video. He does a great job explaining his 5 points.
The video is 20 minutes long. It's not intended to cover every possible argument, but simply to demonstrate that Lutheran claims that the Reformed reject the "clear reading of Scripture" and the "clear consensus of the fathers" are simply wrong. We are excluded from Lutheran communion and called "no Christians at all" because of something based in medieval speculation, not the Word of God or the testimony of the early church.
The Lutherans I know today would say that reformed folks are christians. Thanks for the video.
@@Earthdog777 Do they admit Reformed people to their communion? Not all use the rhetoric of Joshua Rosebrough, but many of the Lutheran pastors I've known do not recognize Reformed as Christian brothers.
@@ancientpathstv It depends on the Synod. My sister goes to a non liturgical Lutheran Church where all are welcome. The LCMS doesn't. The reason they don't is because they believe that you must believe what they do to receive the sacrament.
@@ancientpathstv Jordan Cooper used to be reformed and does videos with reformed folks and treats them as brothers.
The problem is with the question of why we should listen to Luther.
Exactly and ignore the actions, words and promises of God in 33AD. Jesus confers authority on the apostles with Peter having primacy. Jesus Christ’s actual words and promises: “BUILD MY CHURCH - the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, with authority to bind and loose between heaven and earth, tell it to the church, teach all nations, I will send the Spirit of Truth to guide you FOREVER.”
I am currently presbyterian but find Lutheran Christology to be (seemingly) more developed than reformed Christology, particularly in the articulation of the three genera for the communicatio idiomatum. I appreciate the doctrines of the Genus idiomaticum and the genus apotelesmaticum but have a hard time accepting the genus majestaticum or the communication of divine attributes to the human nature. I hope you could help deal with the distinctives between reformed and lutheran christology since it seems both sides make good points. For example can the human nature of Christ be adored sincd it is created? Lutherans do well at answering these questions even if im not fully convinced at their position.
Speculation is not necessarily development and, as shown in the video, can easily lead us unwittingly into heresy.
I recommend Gavin Ortlund's video on this too. The Lutheran view here seems to be simply aninovation.
I will check it out! Thanks!
I understand. This can certainly be the case with any denomination so thank you for the reminder. So far what i have seen is a reformed critique of the lutheran position but have had trouble finding an extensive reformed view of what reformed do believe on the subject of Christology. So far the arguments ive seen are apophatic rather than cataphatic. Are there any sources you recommend?
@ Hmm, I'm not sure, but I can look into it and see if I can find any good ones.
I think it should be noted that the term "sign" and "symbol" are even terms Philip Melanchthon used, however we would just clarify to say they aren't merely signs and them being signs doesn't exclude the reality of Christ's bodily presence in the Sacrament.
I love this channel! This is one of my new favorite resources!
I agree with that sentiment! Jason's channel is awesome.
12:40 - I'm a Baptist here who would love to dismiss the letter to the Smyrneans. 😂But most scholars seems to affirm the "middle recension" (that is 7 of his letters) because it is found in Eusebius and some of our best Greek manuscripts. Do you have any good arguments for why only the "short recension" (Rom, Eph, Tral, Mag) is the only accurate letters?
Campos (his book is shown in the video) argues that the three disputed epistles bear the names of legitimate epistles, but are later pseudepigrapha. Since its published by the Pontifical Institute, it comes in handy in dealing with Roman Catholics.
Calvin's position was closer to Luther's than Zwingli's and was/is the Reformed position laid down in the Scots' and Westminster Confessions. I recommend KA Mathison's, 'Given for you' to understand the difference.
Calvin did better articulate the Reformed position, but Zwingli is too often caricatured as holding to a memorial view. He didn't. As demonstrated in the video, Luther dismissed all the Reformed, not just Zwingli.
Agreed. Calvin rejected the Sacramentarians very boldly in the Gallican (French) confession of 1559 and in other writings.
“Zwingli’s concept of the presence of Christ in communion was certainly not corporeal (either by transubstantiation or consubstantiation), yet he did maintain a Eucharistic presence in the Holy Spirit (“… but Christ is present in the Supper by his Spirit, grace, and strength, ” Works [1828-42], VI, i, 758.33- 36).”
Source: Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation. Compiled with Introductions by James T. Dennison, Jr.
Œcolampadius was considered by Beza to be in agreement with Calvin on the Lord's Supper. Œcolampadius and Zwingli went to Marburg preaching the same position. You are wrong in your assertation.
Pastor, how about doing a program on Jehovah’s Witnesses?
While I love and respect my Lutheran brothers and I think we can learn from them in many ways, I’m also glad to see a critique of their doctrine from a reformed perspective. Have you ever considered doing a video on the Lutheran view of Baptism? Most modern reformed works on Baptism focus on responding to credo-baptists and not baptismal regeneration. Really appreciate this channel!
Lord willing, I'll be dealing with baptismal regeneration in the video I'm currently working on, "The Patristic Roots of the Reformed Faith."
I highly recommend Rev Don Baker's channel - he actually has a video pretty much targeting this exact question.
Apostle Paul’s epistles are clear. We are baptized by in fair of Christ’s death, burial & resurrection. The Holy Spirit baptized a person believes IN Christ not in water. Paul’s epistles as Peter stated in 2nd Pe last chapter near end Paul’s scriptures are hard to believe. Peter is recognizing Paul’s writings as scripture & ALL others are twisting truth given by the Holy Spirit. Religion deceives in not giving God all the glory in His truth.
We are baptized by the Holy Spirit IN CHRIST not in H2O the Bible states in Paul’s 12 Epistles ✝️🙏⛄️
Keep these videos up. Everyone video you make is high quality and very educational.
This was great Amen!
Excellent video!
It was resolved by the end of their life and dragged on by their predecessors, I truly believe so:
"I believe that the real body of Christ is eaten in the Supper sacramentally and spiritually - Zwingli, Fidei Expositio.
“We confess that by virtue of the words ‘This is my body, this is my blood’ the body and blood are truly present and distributed in the Lord’s Supper. Since we have so far held the opinion that our dear sirs and brethren Oecalampadius, Zwinglius, and their adherents totally reject the real presence of this body and blood, but now in a friendly colloquy have found it to be otherwise, we now declare and state that the arguments and reasons found in our books concerning the sacrament are not directed against and do not apply to Oecalampadius, Zwingli, and their adherents, but against those who totally reject the presence of the body in the supper.” - This is My Body, Sasse, p. 266-267 -> Statement written by Luther at the end of Marburg.
The Luther quote given in the video was from after Marburg. The quote given by Sasse sounds a lot more like Melancthon. He ultimately changed the Augsburg Confession to allow a Reformed understanding of Christ's presence, but other than Luther's silence, I'm not aware of him ever agreeing. Clearly Walther and modern conservative Lutherans do not agree with that and insist they hold to the original Augsburg Confession.
@@ancientpathstv It could be that I confused Sasse as referring to Luther instead of Melancthon, but my point is that this was at once point resolved, and Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans should seek the side of one another.
To me, those are the only real Protestant denominations anyway, I call them Triumvirate Protestant faiths.
@@agentclol Sadly, I've seen far too many Lutherans, like Joshua Rosebrough, who demonize the Reformed, and few that seem willing to denounce such conduct.
I did not know about the theory of Josep Rius-Camps that only four letters of Ignatius were genuine. Vigiliae Christianae Vol. 35 has a critical review of his theory and I'm not convinced by it. Otherwise, I enjoyed the video as someone who has read Zwingli and agrees with his position on the Eucharist.
I don't take a hard position on the letters, but when one of the disputed ones is cited as unquestioned, I think it's worth noting. 🙂
Many of your videos are spent criticizing non Calvinists. Are you not being theologically inconsistent since, according to Calvinism, God ordained that they should be that way? All those Christians who reject Calvinism couldn't help it. Are you suggesting that man can resist God or have free will?
You're arguing against a caricature. The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 9 reads,
Of Free Will
1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.
2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.
3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.
@@ancientpathstv Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your quoting the Westminster Confession of Faith because at least that tells me where you stand theologically. To be honest, I have not read the Westminster Confession in its entirety. I have read articles and watch several videos by proponents of Calvinists and Reformed Baptist (Yes, I know you made a video opposing the RBs). Having said that, your accusation of my arguing against a caricature is unfounded. I could quote you several prominent Calvinists, Including John Calvin himself, who would affirm that God ordained whatever comes to pass. I guess, my question then is how do Calvinists define preordain? A second question I have for you is that are there points within the Westminster Confession that you don't hold? In other words, do you agree with everything that is stated in the Confession? If your answer is "no", then which point(s) do you not agree with?
Based on your point, I will study entire the Westminster Confession in order to have a better understanding of your view.
@@교원JohabAlexis Calvinism isn't fatalism. William Carey, the father of the modern missions movement, was a Calvinist. He went to India, counting on the promise that God would redeem a multitude no man can number (Rev. 7:9). When asked whether he was ready to give up after 8 years and only one convert, he said, "the God who saved one can save a continent."
At the night on which Christ was betrayed, the new testament was not effective yet, as the 'testator' was still alive. Jesus was remembering the Passover on the night itself. The 'new testament' took effect after the 'testator' died. Not only the 'testator' had already died, the 'testator' had already resurrected and seated at the right hand side of God in the Heavenly realms.
Man love your videos you help me see the lies of EO and RC keep it going brother you are in my prayers!
How are the body and blood of Christ eaten from the reformed view? If it isn’t with the mouth then how can you truly eat them? Besides from taking the body and blood as metaphors for spiritual comfort
We take them by the mouth. We believe that by faith, we truly feed upon the body and blood of Christ.
@ so basically the mechanism of how that works is mystery
@@CMartin04 Yes. Here's the Larger Catechism answer, "As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death."
The reformed believe that in the eucharist we feed on the true body and blood of christ present in heaven . The manner of eating is spiritual and it is in the power of the holy spirit that the distance between his body in heaven and us on earth is bridged .
Bro appeared in the 16th century
As shown in other videos on this channel, the Reformed hold to the Biblical and historic faith. The videos addressing Eastern Orthodoxy are most easily accessed through www.orthodox.video.
Forgive me, but I cannot understand how anyone can still take Luther seriously after his Table Talks have been long accessible
While I agree Luther had some rude and disrespectful words for some people. If you read his treatises and his books you will see he was a very wise person. Also I must point out he is the one that began the reform and set out the basic groundwork for all Protestant Christian’s today.
@ He galvanized what was begun long before him by Jan Hus, Peter Waldo, Wycliffe and others, but he by no means invented reform. He taught that disabled people are possessed by the devil and should be “done away with.” Perhaps he was psychologically unwell. In any case, any wise and competent session today would have someone of his behavior put under church discipline immediately.
Justin Martyr equates the changing of the bread and wine with the Incarnation. You didn’t address that argument. The Early Church believed the bread and wine changed to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Lutherans seem unable to conceive of us "really and truly" partaking of Christ's body and blood without a miraculous physical transformation of the elements. They thus read every mention of partaking of his body and blood as supporting their position. Even if Justin Martyr could be shown to have believed exactly as Luther did, what does it prove? Athanasius and Augustine clearly believed otherwise. Many more examples can be given. Luther was not simply declaring Zwingli "seven times worse than a Papist" and "of the devil," but Calvin, Athanasius,, Augustine, and a host of others. Luther's position is not the obviously Biblical and historic one Lutherans insist it is.
@@ancientpathstv There is an equation with the Incarnation, just as Christ incarnated and had flesh and blood -not in a spiritual way- the bread and wine also have that, so unless you wanna argue for gnosticism you are not following Justin’s argument.
And Justin’s argument matters most because he claims to have been received this doctrine, so this is apostolic tradition, unlike Athanasius and Augustine who were later church fathers and introduced a personal innovation
@@LibertadEnMarcha So you believe Athanasius and Augustine were "heretics" and "no Christians at all"?
@@ancientpathstv I do not. Just as many lutherans I don’t follow Luther on this. Augustine and Athanasius simply went too far with their speculations and we know that’s the case by just seeing the early church fathers like Justin Martyr claiming to have received this by apostolic tradition
@@LibertadEnMarcha But Zwingli is a heretic because he said the same thing Athanasius and Augustine said?
Many thanks (again and always).
I always thought Zwingli had a memorialist/mere symbol view. I probably should read his writings and not just read about him.
I was always of the opinion that no view of the Eucharist is bad as long as it isn't a simple symbol.
As long as one can profess the true presence of Christ in some shape or form as the paschal lamb then it's fine. We should stop arguing on "how" and focus on "why" and "what". It is indeed a shame that many Lutherans don't commune with those who don't hold to consubstantiation. But I agree with them that we should avoid the language of "symbol" and "represents" simply because that can lead to not taking it seriously, which I have seen personally.
It is my single biggest issue with Lutheranism actually. The fact that they excommunicate all Christians who don't subscribe to their view, and their church is frankly unbiblical.
Your channel is a blessing and the Lord Jesus Christ is giving you great wisdom, thank you so much for all the labor you put forward to edify the saints your labor is not in vain in the Lord
All things are made through Christ. Christ death is the foundation of the world. Atemporal creation through Jesus. Genesis is high Christology . The Adamah rises out of the death waters and produces grass (bread) and fruit (vine ) on the third day.
He meant it symbolically, do this in remembrance of me.
How do you know it was meant symbolically?
@reformedcatholic457 the same as when Jesus said I am the door to the sheep he wasn't saying he was literally a door, and when he said about plucking out eyes and cutting off hands regarding sin he was speaking metaphorically not literally, we eat his flesh and drink his blood spiritually by continuing to follow him walk with him and believing in him and trusting in the atoning sacrifice he made.
Thank you for yet another great video!
Thank you brother! Greetings from germany
Great video as always. A shame that Lutherans do not want to commune with us, may the Lord have mercy on us all!
No, we absolutely desire you to commune with us, but to first leave behind any false doctrine.
@ Ball’s in your court then!
Holy cow- I was in here in less than a hour. 😅
Great video, it showed my greatest reason by not being Lutheran, i cannot bear such strict and close communion
Bread is a way of referring to Law. "this is my body"
If Lutherans are so wrong on the Supper than why are you so bent on communing with them? Would you not be partaking in their error?
You seem to be portraying this as an attack on Lutherans. They're the ones calling us heretics over something they can't back up from Scripture or the early church. As shown in the video, Calvin considered Luther a brother, even though Luther considered the Reformed heretics.
1 Cor 10: 16 & 17 go together. Are we believers true bread & blood? No. I was a German Lutheran in MI 42 years & so as you living/believing in the Jewish Gospel of the Kingdom before Christ was sacrificed on our behalf & rose again. Christiandom religion misses the meat of the gospel of the Grace of God (1Cor.. 15:1-4) Apostle Paul’s epistles. 4 Gospels on into Acts 3/4’s forward is still for the circumcised. Kingdom gospel for the the peoples of todayisn’t the gospel for anyone today. The risen & ascended Christ chose Paul specify to bring another gospel today 🥳🎉✝️
I'm confused, you were ex Lutheran and now you're what?
The LDS persuasion is the closest to the ancient church.
No. We demonstrate the lies of the Mormon church here: ruclips.net/video/PxqV5uJBsm8/видео.html
😂😂😂
@@ancientpathstv Lies?
@@RichardHolmes-ll8ii Go watch the video.
@@ancientpathstvWhat is your response to the reality of Paul Gregersen debunking the arrogant Egyptologist opinions against Joseph Smith? Smith was right, the arrogant Egyptologists were wrong. How do you respond?
What a wicked man Luther was!!!!
Did you see Calvin's praise for him at the end of the video? He was thankful for what God did through him, even though Luther should call him a "devil."
@@ancientpathstv Praise from a murderer is dubious at best.