Hey Jordan I hope you read this and seriously consider it. Could you do a Bible in a year maybe in 2025? I would love to have a Lutheran Bible in a year that I could follow along with and if you could also just add commentary along with the readings from some of the many resources and knowledge that you have. I know you are busy and it could take a lot of time to prepare notes for every day so maybe doing one in 2026 would be more viable. I think it would be an awesome resource for Lutherans to have something similar to what the Catholic Church did with their Bible in a Year with Mike Schmitz. Thank you!
Pastor Will Wheedon does a 15 minute Bible study everyday which might not be the entire Bible in a year, but does cover a ton. He adds commentary and quotes a ton of Fathers so I highly recommend it. It’s called the Word of the Lord Endures Forever
Dr. Cooper: 1. Which Augsburg Confession do you profess and why? Is it? A. the original Augsburg Confession of 1530 that contains: "Touching the Supper of the Lord they teach, that the body and blood of Christ are there present indeed, and are distributed to those that eat of the Lord's Supper; and they condemn those that teach otherwise." Or - B. the 1540 Altered Augsburg Confession of Philipp Melanchthon that contains: "Touching the Supper of the Lord they teach, that, TOGETHER WITH THE BREAD AND WINE, the body and blood of Christ are truly exhibited to them that eat of the Lord's Supper." 2. The 1530 Augsburg Confession is the fourth document of the 1580 Book of Concord which is the historic doctrinal standard of the Lutheran Church. 3. The 1540 Altered Augsburg Confession was signed by: A. John Calvin twice, once at Strasbourg and once at the Conference of Ratisbon in 1541 B. William Farel and Theodore Beza at the 1557 Colloquy of Worms C. Frederick III of Simmern, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, at the 1561 convent of Princes in Naumburg 4. Wasn't there a later 16th century Protestant controversy involving Lutherans and Reformed over the meaning of the Lord's Supper that centered on an exchange of letters between Joachim Westphal of Hamburg (1510-1574) and John Calvin of Geneva (1509-1564), respectively? 5. Doesn't Westphal's Apologia confessionis de Coena Domini of 1558 contain a chapter "De adoratione Christi in Eucharistia" where he defends elevation of the elements and ringing of the bell during consecration?
To me it seems like Lutherans hold to the same view as Catholics, but are unwilling to clearly define it in such scientific terms. I can appreciate that. It seems reasonable.
The main difference between Lutheran and Reformed is the mode. How do we receive Christ? Through the mouth-Lutheran-or by faith-Reformed. Both parties receive all of Christ. If you want a great treatment of the Reformed view of The Supper please read The Mystical Presence by John Williamson Nevin.
I'm not convinced of the claim that Zwingli was a "mere memorialist", as Dr. Cooper & others claim. But I guess it depends on how one defines "mere memorialism". For example, in Zwingli's last work written shortly before his death (1531), dedicated & addressed to King Francis I of France, later republished in 1536 by Bullinger with the title: "Christianae fidei a Huldrycho Zvinglio praedicatae, brevis & clara expositio", Zwingli among other things writes: "That in the Lord's Supper this natural and substantial body of Christ, which also suffered here, and now sits in heaven at the right hand of the shepherds, is not eaten naturally and by essence, but only SPIRITUALLY." "But when you come to the Lord's Supper with this SPIRITUAL EATING and give thanks to the Lord for such a benefit, for the liberation of your soul, by which you have been freed from the destruction of despair, and for the pledge, by which you are certain of eternal blessedness, and at the same time partake of the bread and wine with the brethren, which are now symbolic of Christ's body, you are now properly eating sacramentally, that is, you are doing inwardly the same thing that you are performing outwardly, as the mind is refreshed with this faith that you testify through symbols." "We maintain, therefore, that the body of Christ is not eaten carnally and coarsely in the supper, as these people do, but we believe that the true body of Christ is eaten in the supper SACRAMENTALLY & SPIRITUALLY, by a religious, faithful, and holy mind, just as Chrysostomus feels." I don't see how one could incontestably reconcile such passages with the opinion that Zwingli held to a "mere memorialism".
Sir, what are your thoughts on Catholic Eucharistic miracles? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20reported%20Eucharistic%20miracles,even%20sustaining%20people%20for%20decades.
As someone looking into the various high church traditions, I, too, would be very interested in Dr. Cooper's insight and opinion on the topic of Eucharistic miracles.
“My doctrine is not to be judged by any man, nor even by the angels; because I am certain of it, I will judge you and the angels likewise, as St. Paul says (Gal. i. 8), and whosoever does not accept my teaching will not arrive at blessedness. For it is God’s and not mine, therefore my judgment is God’s and not mine.”(Martin Luther, 1522)
"I AM the Door" (made of wood?), "Father, please take this cup from Me" (coffee cup or tea cup?) - Jesus did talk in terms of figures of speech. But if the Lord's supper did truly did transform, so long as a believe isn't held that there's an increase in merit, or if it's a good work, or that 'by taking it' guarantees 'eternal life' (when it is by faith) - there wouldn't be a problem. Or that's how Evangelicals hold to it.
Up until the 1500’s reformation is was Christian consensus and Christian tradition that the bread and wine became the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. The term transubstantiation was officially applied in 1215 because it means to change one form or substance into another. This is what Jesus Christ taught His Apostles. Every Priest in the Catholic and Orthodox Church has been taught this and has practised this going right back to the Apostles who ordained the first Priests by the laying on of hands/ Sacrament of Holy Orders - almost 2,000yrs ago. 1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.” (Catholic Catechism) Anglican and other protestant Pastors have not been ordained by a Bishop of Apostolic Succession with the Sacrament of Holy Orders and therefore do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine - so they remain bread and wine. Also, protestant Pastors between them teach three notably different false doctrines on the Lord’s Supper - symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/ comingling of bread and wine with the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Whilst all three notably different protestant doctrines claim they are founded on Scripture the reality is none of them are founded on Scripture. Our one true God is most gracious and wise and one should lovingly accept His divine gift because “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jesus Christ). If you want to obey God and eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox. Protestant Churches do have the option of joining the Catholic Ordinariate. God bless you
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
Why are there no Eucharistic miracles in protestants Churches. But thousands throughout the centurys and even to this day in Roman Catholic Churchs????? Look it up Eucharistic miracles..
To me, no discussion of the Lord’s Supper is complete without mentioning the fraction, which is the breaking of the bread. This event is specifically mentioned several places in the Bible, and a good example of this is found in Luke 24:30, where this caused men to become aware of the identity of the risen Jesus. It is interesting to note that this breakage is a point in space and time. Mathematically, this is dimensionless. This point can have an infinite number of occurrences, but is still a single point when joined together. The upper room events of the Last Supper in the Holy Week can therefore become connected to each Holy Communion service in a 21st century church. This explains part of my beliefs in the real prescience of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Hey Jordan Would you consider doing a program on John Barclay's "Gift Perspective" on Paul? I think he's got much of value to add to the conversation on Paul, but it would be beneficial to hear your take on it. I'd recommend looking into "Paul and the Power of Grace" or perhaps "Paul and the Gift" for his fuller treatment.
I am a Pentecostal considering Lutheranism, but one of the issues that is holding me back is the Roman Catholic Church's eucharistic theology, specifically the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ to God. Just how the preparation of the sacrifice and the eating of the sacrifice were one sacrifice in the Old Testament, so the re-presenting of Christ and eating his Body and Blood seems to be something we should do in the New Covenant. Malachi 1:11 talks about the Gentiles everywhere offering a "pure offering", and St. Augustine explains for this verse that the "great and divine sacrament...is offered as the prophets foretold, and as a sacrifice of praise to God,...but now the sacrifice of our time is the Body and Blood of the priest himself."
What is your Discord? I can also help you on your travel to Lutheranism. That’s in the Old Testemente. Today we do the Holy Eucharist where Christ is truly present for the forgiveness of sins.
Transubstantiation compared to a Lutheran view of sacrifice are significantly less different than I've seen in most charismatic and Pentecostal circles I know, so I will say your current tradition is most likely at odds with either option to the point Luther even at one point said "I'd rather drink blood with the pope than wine with Zwingli". That said, there are ways we can talk about sacrifice in a Lutheran sense depending on context and Dr. Cooper has awesome podcasts in this exact thing. That said, the main reason Lutherans reject the Transubstantiation view is multifaceted to which you brought up one. 1. It gets too specific with the accidents/essence distinction to explain the transformation aspect of wine into blood and bread into body. Paul refers to these elements as bread and wine in 1 Corinthians 11 suggesting that we do maintain both bread and body as well as wine and blood. 2. The view of a re-presentation of the sacrifice. Dr. Cooper mentions this as a key distinctive between the OT sacrifices and NT sacrifices in other podcasts in that Jesus's was the perfect lamb who only needed to be sacrificed once for all sins and there is no need to resacrifice Christ. Hebrews 10:1-18 refers to Jesus this way indictating we are not repeating any sacrifice because it was perfect because Jesus lived perfectly. This is the point of why God sent Christ so he could die once for all and all sin would be forgiven. These are the main theological reasons as to what we actually believe differently between the two. I was Catholic once myself and there were much bigger theological differences than the Lord's Supper that caused me to leave and actually choose Lutheranism because they retained the historic views of real presence many other Protestant groups don't maintain while getting topics like justification and how we source authority much better. There are a few other practical differences like Catholics often practice eucharistic adoration whereas almost no Lutherans ever would. Catholics also store the body in a tabernacle if unconsumed for the next week and Lutherans do not do this. I think you'll find most Lutherans and Catholics agree much more than they disagree on this topic and Lutherans are a little more okay with leaving things a mystery if we don't believe the Bible gives us the answer and that's absolutely okay 🙂.
@@CJ2345ish Love this comment. As a Southern Baptist that’s currently considering LCMS Lutheranism, this is really helpful to understand Holy Communion better. All I’ve ever done is a symbolic communion with bread and grape juice.
@@sean9920 Also, the Passover was a remembrance of the lambs saving in Egypt, so I wonder if one could say by continuing to sacrifice lambs (multiple, yes) and feast, they partake of that same saving grace~but when all is fulfilled in Christ, we are remembering and partaking in his saving (the meal always being a part of the one true Lamb), feasting on and communing with God.
I don't know any protestant tradition that believes like the Catholics and even the Eastern Orthodox, that Christ is resacrificed in Holy Communion. Like another has pointed out in this comment section it is God who has in the past and in the New Covenant provided the sacrifice and atonement. [speaking of the New Covenant to come] that you may remember and be confounded, and never open your mouth again because of your shame, when I atone for you for all that you have done, declares the Lord GOD.” - Ezekiel 16:63 By the way I'm from the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition like you and am strongly interested in Methodism and particularly in the Global Methodist Church. They are not cessationist like most Lutherans and are big on holiness (at least officially). The Methodist believe in real presence, that baptism saves, and that infants ought to be baptized. They are a lot like Lutherans in many ways. Remember though the spiritual gifts are for the "common good" of the Church to take it to "the full stature of Christ." And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers ... until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, - ephesians 4:11-13 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. - 1 Corinthians 12:7 The point is spiritual gifts are here to stay for the good and maturity of the church til Christ returns.
If you believe that the Body and Blood of Jesus cannot be present because Jesus is physically in heaven taken to its logical conclusion means that you don’t believe that Jesus is all powerful. If he’s not all powerful then how can he be God?
All-powerful does not mean “able to do things that are definitionally impossible.” God cannot make a bigger rock than he can lift. Jesus, if we take the incarnation and physical body of Jesus seriously, cannot be in 2 places at once. Jesus’ human body is not omnipresent.
@@Cornelius135 But the body he has after the resurrection is a glorified body with unrestrained divine power, prior to that his human body was temporarily emptied of full power so he could be in total submission to the Father. But Christ is fully God so he is also omnipresent, just as God the Father and God the Spirit are. To further prove this he clearly hears and interacts with all his flock when they pray, He is fully God and fully man and is fully present in the Eucharist as well as when two or more are gathered in his name.
@@ianflanagan209 the glorified post-resurrection body of Christ was most certainly not omnipresent. Having *access* to every is not the same thing is simultaneously *being* everywhere. Jesus appeared to his disciples *where they were gathered,* such that Thomas didn’t see him because he wasn’t at that specific location and time. Having scars in his hands, feet, and side necessarily bind him to a specific location in space. His ascension indicates that his body *went* somewhere (namely, up)
@@Cornelius135 Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”NKJV When Christians gather in church is this not the case? Furthermore Jesus seems to really reiterate that he really is the bread and the wine in John 6:53-58 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[a] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” ESV. Jesus turned water into wine he can turn wine into blood and bread into flesh. He is seated at the right hand of the Father but is fully God and is therefor omnipresent. He can be in one location and many at the same time, it is a mystery just as the incarnation and the Holy Trinity are mysteries. They are true regardless of if we understand them or not. Furthermore the Bread and Wine carry with them wrath for those who eat improperly and forgiveness of sins for those taking it truly mere bread and wine cannot do that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
@@Cornelius135 If you define human nature as always having locality, then either Christ cannot be in us and we in Him or His humanity is not with us. This latter understanding brings up the same questions regarding Christ's intercession and redemption that were brought to Nestorius. Lutherans answer this by saying that the Incarnation Glorified/Divinised humanity, so that all things are under His feet (including space and time, and spacetime); also why all humans will rise from the dead, some to torment others to Eternal Life. After all, Adam was made in His image. Now you can call us Eutychian (or apparently Eastern Orthodox), but yes, Lutherans teach a different Christ to Calvin (and Nestorius). That's the basic reason for theological Lutherans distaste of the rest of Protestants.
Might I recommend studying John 6 especially verse 53 onwards (best to read basically the whole chapter). This was something that pushed me towards the Lutheran understanding
@@diewollsocke2674while I hold to the Lutheran real presence, I'd argue that John 6 isn't about communion but about faith in Christ. However, 1 Corinthians 10 mentions the Supper when talking about food given to idols. Verse 16 convinced me. From what I've heard, the Reformed view is more of a communuion with the divine nature by faith.
I think you are wrong about Zwingli. For example, Philip Schaff in Volume 7 of “History of the Christian Church.” Chapter 7 section 111: “This passage [from Zwingli] comes so near the Calvinistic view that it can hardly be distinguished from it.”
I went from being a former JW ( cult ) to Calvin back in the ‘90’s ! I’m currently attending as a non member a local Lutheran Church ( LCMS) in S. California, as a Calvinist view of soteriology, while allowed to take communion (without affirming or denying the Lutheran view) as an exception of the Lutheran doctrinal confession…while learning more about the Lutheran’s scholastics period regarding doctrinal positions, especially like watching your YT channel, etc. !!
I'm interested in joining a Luthern Church. I'm a Calvinist leaning Christian that holds to Predestination view of it, but hold to the Lutheran view regarding the Sacrements. Is it normal for someone like me to join a Confessional Lutheran Church and is it acceptable?
@@jonahhanson38 Jonah, it may depend on the primary Lutheran denomination and pastor! My experience worshiping now as a non member at a local Lutheran Church ( LCMS) was after subsequent interviews with the primary Pastor regarding my Calvinist soteriology and sacrament differences I.e., Baptism and Lords Supper: spiritual vs real bodily presence? Fortunately the primary pastor judged that we both share the same gospel: saved by faith, not by works. Therefore as I regularly worship there (as a Calvinist ) while reciting the creeds, confessing our sins, I’m allowed to take communion in good conscience as a mystery( neither denying nor affirming ) the real bodily presence !
Very interesting that you bring up that the Reformed perspective believes in the only divine nature of Jesus being "provided" to a believer rather than being both natures.
Wouldn't the reformed argue the other is a monophysite or whatever? Lutherans accuse the reformed of separating the two nature's two much The reformed accuse Lutherans of mixing the two nature's into one nature.
@@P-el4zd it was not my intention to strike a nerve with you. I was only framing the other sides argument from a christological view point. One side says attributes of deity can be communicated to His humanity. The other side says being truly human means being local (in human body) to the Father in heaven only while His deity is omnipresent. Saying "cope" doesn't really flesh out your point I was just trying to bring up both sides of the issue. The internet sort of makes people brash.
I would love to hear more on this (especially lutheran vs reformed view as far as the historic controvery between the two in more details). David Noe gave an excellent lecture at Calvin College touching on some of this topic.
"Just a memorial" ignores how powerful memorial can be. You speak of memorial as meaning "nothing is really going on" I think a LOT is going on when i partake of communion. Of course there is, but i put a high value on the physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of ritual and memorial. Rituals are powerful.
As an Anglican minister who was formerly continental Reformed, I don't think anything substantive is said about the 16th century Reformed view of the Eucharist here. Perhaps this video was over-cut and there was more substantial dialogue on this topic to share, but (respectfully) I think it falls a little flat. Reformed historically maintained a real/true presence, but emphasized that the mode of presence was spiritual (rather than material) in nature. And yes, the reception of benefits of that presence are by faith. Someone who receives in an unworthy manner receives not the blessings and grace of the presence of Christ, but His justice. It is certainly more nuanced than presented here. Often the word "spiritual" is thrown around as if spiritual isn't "real" or is somehow less real than the material world-obviously this isn't Biblical or perceptively true. And yes, the contemporary Reformed (and especially Presbyterians) prevailingly have an anemic view of the Eucharist on a good day. But I find it interesting that Lutherans tend to fixate upon this language when they themselves do not affirm a "material," Capernaitic, or consubstantive presence either. At best, the presence is undefined in the Lutheran schema, and I'm fine with that. I can affirm the unaltered Augsburg all day long while concurrently affirming Article 28 of the English Articles of Religion (which employs Reformed language in the vein of Bucer): XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."
I don't think Lutherans deny a material presence of Christ's body, in that we cannot touch/hold His Body; rather we deny a fleshly/Capernaic understanding. The way it's been taught to me is that without annihilating the bread Christ's Risen and incorruptible Body is there and eaten, yet according to the fleshly way we would break down His Body and submit it to our head. Instead, as His Body is incorruptible, His Risen Body and Blood consume us, incorporating us into His flesh. This is part of why we affirm consecrationism and reject receptionism, also honouring His words on the matter and ordinarily consuming the remnants.
Please read some of the teachings of the early Catholic/Orthodox Church fathers on the Eucharist ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH “the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." ("Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.) "I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed." ("Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.) "Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons." (Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.) ST. JUSTIN MARTYR "This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." ("First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155) ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA "The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!" ("The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D) ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?” ("Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1] c. 350 A.D) ST. HILARY OF POITERS "When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: 'My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.' As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God." ("The Trinity" [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D.) ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA "The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."("Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.) ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO "You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ." ("Sermons", [227, 21] ca. 400A.D.) MARCARIUS THE MAGNESIAN "[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth." ("Apocriticus" [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.) ST. LEO I, THE GREAT "When the Lord says: 'Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,' you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. ("Sermons" [91,3] ante 461 A.D.) “Blessed rather are they who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Jesus Christ (Luke 11:28)) God bless you
In John 6 Jesus Christ asked us to eat His flesh and drink His blood for compelling reasons. Later, at the Lord’s Supper, Jesus Christ showed us how to obey His request to eat and drink of Him via blessed bread and wine that becomes His body and His blood. God made this straightforward to understand. Please read the core relevant passages on the Lord’s Supper. John 6:51-56 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” John 6:60-68 excerpts 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? …64 But among you there are some who do not believe.”… 64 For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe…. 66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Note: The disbelieving Jews clearly understood that Jesus was speaking plainly by the plainly speaking reply of “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” These disbelieving Jews refused to accept that Jesus Christ could give us His flesh and blood to eat and drink and they turned their backs on Him. Mark 14:22-24 The Institution of the Lord’s Supper 22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 1 Corinthians 10:15-16 - St Paul 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 1 Corinthians 11:19 -20 & 29 - St Paul 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper… 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. God is the creator of all things visible and invisible and with God all things are possible. Therefore God is perfectly capable of taking bread and wine and changing them into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Therefore there is absolutely no point for Jesus Christ to have employed a cryptic meaning regarding His request to “eat my flesh and drink my blood” and after blessing the bread “Take; this is my body” and after blessing the wine “This is my blood”. God bless you
Up until the 1500’s reformation is was Christian consensus and Christian tradition that the bread and wine became the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. The term transubstantiation was officially applied in 1215 because it means to change one form or substance into another. This is what Jesus Christ taught His Apostles. Every Priest in the Catholic and Orthodox Church has been taught this and has practised this going right back to the Apostles who ordained the first Priests by the laying on of hands/ Sacrament of Holy Orders - almost 2,000yrs ago. 1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.” (Catholic Catechism) Anglican and other protestant Pastors have not been ordained by a Bishop of Apostolic Succession with the Sacrament of Holy Orders and therefore do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine - so they remain bread and wine. Also, protestant Pastors between them teach three notably different false doctrines on the Lord’s Supper - symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/ comingling of bread and wine with the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Whilst all three notably different protestant doctrines claim they are founded on Scripture the reality is none of them are founded on Scripture. Our one true God is most gracious and wise and one should lovingly accept His divine gift because “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jesus Christ). If you want to obey God and eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox. Protestant Churches do have the option of joining the Catholic Ordinariate. God bless you
“For the flesh and blood of Christ is the true food and drink unto life eternal; and Christ himself, since he was given for us and is our Savior, is the principal thing in the Supper, and we do not permit anything else to be substituted in his place.” (Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter XXI) We, reformed christians do believe in real presence.
Based on your name I assume you're Hungarian. Out of curiosity, are you a member of the Reformed Church in Hungary, maybe even from the region in & around Debrecen? If so, how liberal is the Reformed Church in Hungary? I know they allow & practice female ordination, but other than that, are ministers at their ordination bound to teach in accordance with the Second Helvetic Confession & in your experience do they faithfully do so? I ask you these questions, bc I'm actually from Zürich, the city in which Bullinger wrote the 2HC, & unfortunately the 2HC was officially abolished in the Canton Zürich by its omission from the ordination vows in the synodal order of 1803 & subsequently fell out of use in the course of the early to mid 19th century. So it would be nice to hear if your Hungarian ministers in general still faithfully cling to & teach in accordance with the 2HC, while its place of origin has sadly long abandoned this great confession of faith.
No, only believers recieve Christ in the Lord’s supper through the Holy Spirit (so we don’t believe in physical presence, only in real spiritual presence).
@@dvinbYes, Hungarian Reformed Church ordains women, but I think is confessionally based (for example there is no congregation which affirms mainstream sexual sins). In my opinion, our problem is that we don’t deal enough with theology, so our believers are theologically less educated than in other countries’ reformed churches. Basically this could be because our church’s unique history (35 yrs ago Hungary was still a socialist country, with restricted freedom of religion). 2nd HC is used in our church, but I think mostly our pastors use it.
The only thing that's missing from this discussion is the fact that Luther was determined to break fellowship over this and wouldn't treat the Swiss Reformed as brothers. All the points you're making are accurate (speaking as a Reformed and considerably less-well-read person), but the idea that on the basis of disagreement about this Christ would approve of casting off Reformed Christians - even if the Reformed position is completely wrong - is completely unbiblical.
but it comes down to the nature of Christ himself. plus, if fellowship is partially defined by communion, its not unreasonable to not be in fellowship with people who disagree about the nature of the meal itself
Zwingli's position was "memorial only", but later Swiss Reformation rejected this view too. The Swiss Reformed's view (Reformer's view) was/us the Spiritual or Real presence. Zwingli took it too far and I can understand why Luther concerned with gnosticism creeping into the Church had such a strong admonishment toward Zwingli. As a Presbyterian, without Luther's accusation, I think the Swiss Reformation may have strayed like Anabaptists did.
That's not true, the conclusion of the Marburg articles assumes both sides to be Christians "And although we have not been able to agree at this time, whether the true body and blood of Christ are corporally present in the bread and wine [of communion], each party should display towards the other Christian love, as far as each respective conscience allows, and both should persistently ask God the Almighty for guidance so that through his Spirit he might bring us to a proper understanding. Amen."
Jesus is God. God is truly present everywhere. So by default, Jesus is really present in the bread and wine, just like Jesus is present in your big mac and fries.
Hey Jordan I hope you read this and seriously consider it. Could you do a Bible in a year maybe in 2025? I would love to have a Lutheran Bible in a year that I could follow along with and if you could also just add commentary along with the readings from some of the many resources and knowledge that you have. I know you are busy and it could take a lot of time to prepare notes for every day so maybe doing one in 2026 would be more viable. I think it would be an awesome resource for Lutherans to have something similar to what the Catholic Church did with their Bible in a Year with Mike Schmitz. Thank you!
Chad Bird does a Bible in a year daily devotional. Not sure if that's what your looking for.
@@user-jj4iz4nq2h I just checked it out and it seems good but each day is very short. I would like something even more in depth
@@user-jj4iz4nq2hexactly what I wanted to write. Chad Bird is great
@@user-jj4iz4nq2hjust came here to say this, so I'll second it
Pastor Will Wheedon does a 15 minute Bible study everyday which might not be the entire Bible in a year, but does cover a ton. He adds commentary and quotes a ton of Fathers so I highly recommend it. It’s called the Word of the Lord Endures Forever
Dr. Cooper:
1. Which Augsburg Confession do you profess and why?
Is it?
A. the original Augsburg Confession of 1530 that contains:
"Touching the Supper of the Lord they teach, that the body and blood of Christ are there present indeed, and are distributed to those that eat of the Lord's Supper; and they condemn those that teach otherwise."
Or -
B. the 1540 Altered Augsburg Confession of Philipp Melanchthon that contains:
"Touching the Supper of the Lord they teach, that, TOGETHER WITH THE BREAD AND WINE, the body and blood of Christ are truly exhibited to them that eat of the Lord's Supper."
2. The 1530 Augsburg Confession is the fourth document of the 1580 Book of Concord which is the historic doctrinal standard of the Lutheran Church.
3. The 1540 Altered Augsburg Confession was signed by:
A. John Calvin twice, once at Strasbourg and once at the Conference of Ratisbon in 1541
B. William Farel and Theodore Beza at the 1557 Colloquy of Worms
C. Frederick III of Simmern, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, at the 1561 convent of Princes in Naumburg
4. Wasn't there a later 16th century Protestant controversy involving Lutherans and Reformed over the meaning of the Lord's Supper that centered on an exchange of letters between Joachim Westphal of Hamburg (1510-1574) and John Calvin of Geneva (1509-1564), respectively?
5. Doesn't Westphal's Apologia confessionis de Coena Domini of 1558 contain a chapter "De adoratione Christi in Eucharistia" where he defends elevation of the elements and ringing of the bell during consecration?
To me it seems like Lutherans hold to the same view as Catholics, but are unwilling to clearly define it in such scientific terms. I can appreciate that. It seems reasonable.
Correct, the difference is that we are content to leave it as a "mystery" where as catholics want to "define" it.
...first...?
...the first shall be last...
…and the last shall be first…
...and the middle shall be the middle...
And the under shall be the forsaken
The main difference between Lutheran and Reformed is the mode. How do we receive Christ? Through the mouth-Lutheran-or by faith-Reformed. Both parties receive all of Christ. If you want a great treatment of the Reformed view of The Supper please read The Mystical Presence by John Williamson Nevin.
I think you cut your video off a little early.
I'm not convinced of the claim that Zwingli was a "mere memorialist", as Dr. Cooper & others claim. But I guess it depends on how one defines "mere memorialism". For example, in Zwingli's last work written shortly before his death (1531), dedicated & addressed to King Francis I of France, later republished in 1536 by Bullinger with the title: "Christianae fidei a Huldrycho Zvinglio praedicatae, brevis & clara expositio", Zwingli among other things writes:
"That in the Lord's Supper this natural and substantial body of Christ, which also suffered here, and now sits in heaven at the right hand of the shepherds, is not eaten naturally and by essence, but only SPIRITUALLY."
"But when you come to the Lord's Supper with this SPIRITUAL EATING and give thanks to the Lord for such a benefit, for the liberation of your soul, by which you have been freed from the destruction of despair, and for the pledge, by which you are certain of eternal blessedness, and at the same time partake of the bread and wine with the brethren, which are now symbolic of Christ's body, you are now properly eating sacramentally, that is, you are doing inwardly the same thing that you are performing outwardly, as the mind is refreshed with this faith that you testify through symbols."
"We maintain, therefore, that the body of Christ is not eaten carnally and coarsely in the supper, as these people do, but we believe that the true body of Christ is eaten in the supper SACRAMENTALLY & SPIRITUALLY, by a religious, faithful, and holy mind, just as Chrysostomus feels."
I don't see how one could incontestably reconcile such passages with the opinion that Zwingli held to a "mere memorialism".
"Mere memorialism" reveals a great lack of understanding and respect for what a memorial is.
@@langreeves6419I disagree. I think “mere memorialism” is fairly respectful. Far more than something like “just memorialism” or “only memorialism”
Sir, what are your thoughts on Catholic Eucharistic miracles? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20reported%20Eucharistic%20miracles,even%20sustaining%20people%20for%20decades.
As someone looking into the various high church traditions, I, too, would be very interested in Dr. Cooper's insight and opinion on the topic of Eucharistic miracles.
“My doctrine is not to be judged by any man, nor even by the angels; because I am certain of it, I will judge you and the angels likewise, as St. Paul says (Gal. i. 8), and whosoever does not accept my teaching will not arrive at blessedness. For it is God’s and not mine, therefore my judgment is God’s and not mine.”(Martin Luther, 1522)
"I AM the Door" (made of wood?), "Father, please take this cup from Me" (coffee cup or tea cup?) - Jesus did talk in terms of figures of speech. But if the Lord's supper did truly did transform, so long as a believe isn't held that there's an increase in merit, or if it's a good work, or that 'by taking it' guarantees 'eternal life' (when it is by faith) - there wouldn't be a problem. Or that's how Evangelicals hold to it.
Up until the 1500’s reformation is was Christian consensus and Christian tradition that the bread and wine became the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. The term transubstantiation was officially applied in 1215 because it means to change one form or substance into another. This is what Jesus Christ taught His Apostles. Every Priest in the Catholic and Orthodox Church has been taught this and has practised this going right back to the Apostles who ordained the first Priests by the laying on of hands/ Sacrament of Holy Orders - almost 2,000yrs ago.
1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.” (Catholic Catechism)
Anglican and other protestant Pastors have not been ordained by a Bishop of Apostolic Succession with the Sacrament of Holy Orders and therefore do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine - so they remain bread and wine. Also, protestant Pastors between them teach three notably different false doctrines on the Lord’s Supper - symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/ comingling of bread and wine with the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Whilst all three notably different protestant doctrines claim they are founded on Scripture the reality is none of them are founded on Scripture.
Our one true God is most gracious and wise and one should lovingly accept His divine gift because “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jesus Christ).
If you want to obey God and eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox. Protestant Churches do have the option of joining the Catholic Ordinariate.
God bless you
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
Why are there no Eucharistic miracles in protestants Churches. But thousands throughout the centurys and even to this day in Roman Catholic Churchs????? Look it up Eucharistic miracles..
To me, no discussion of the Lord’s Supper is complete without mentioning the fraction, which is the breaking of the bread. This event is specifically mentioned several places in the Bible, and a good example of this is found in Luke 24:30, where this caused men to become aware of the identity of the risen Jesus. It is interesting to note that this breakage is a point in space and time. Mathematically, this is dimensionless. This point can have an infinite number of occurrences, but is still a single point when joined together. The upper room events of the Last Supper in the Holy Week can therefore become connected to each Holy Communion service in a 21st century church. This explains part of my beliefs in the real prescience of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
for the forgivness of sins? like do you believe you lose forgivness status when you dont partcipate and regain it when you do?
Hey Jordan
Would you consider doing a program on John Barclay's "Gift Perspective" on Paul? I think he's got much of value to add to the conversation on Paul, but it would be beneficial to hear your take on it.
I'd recommend looking into "Paul and the Power of Grace" or perhaps "Paul and the Gift" for his fuller treatment.
Do we need a perfect score on the final exam to get into heaven or does God's Grace imply he grades on a curve?
You need a perfect score. But Jesus aced the exam for you!
@@jevonmatthews8616 Amen
I am a Pentecostal considering Lutheranism, but one of the issues that is holding me back is the Roman Catholic Church's eucharistic theology, specifically the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ to God. Just how the preparation of the sacrifice and the eating of the sacrifice were one sacrifice in the Old Testament, so the re-presenting of Christ and eating his Body and Blood seems to be something we should do in the New Covenant. Malachi 1:11 talks about the Gentiles everywhere offering a "pure offering", and St. Augustine explains for this verse that the "great and divine sacrament...is offered as the prophets foretold, and as a sacrifice of praise to God,...but now the sacrifice of our time is the Body and Blood of the priest himself."
What is your Discord? I can also help you on your travel to Lutheranism. That’s in the Old Testemente. Today we do the Holy Eucharist where Christ is truly present for the forgiveness of sins.
Transubstantiation compared to a Lutheran view of sacrifice are significantly less different than I've seen in most charismatic and Pentecostal circles I know, so I will say your current tradition is most likely at odds with either option to the point Luther even at one point said "I'd rather drink blood with the pope than wine with Zwingli".
That said, there are ways we can talk about sacrifice in a Lutheran sense depending on context and Dr. Cooper has awesome podcasts in this exact thing. That said, the main reason Lutherans reject the Transubstantiation view is multifaceted to which you brought up one.
1. It gets too specific with the accidents/essence distinction to explain the transformation aspect of wine into blood and bread into body. Paul refers to these elements as bread and wine in 1 Corinthians 11 suggesting that we do maintain both bread and body as well as wine and blood.
2. The view of a re-presentation of the sacrifice. Dr. Cooper mentions this as a key distinctive between the OT sacrifices and NT sacrifices in other podcasts in that Jesus's was the perfect lamb who only needed to be sacrificed once for all sins and there is no need to resacrifice Christ. Hebrews 10:1-18 refers to Jesus this way indictating we are not repeating any sacrifice because it was perfect because Jesus lived perfectly. This is the point of why God sent Christ so he could die once for all and all sin would be forgiven.
These are the main theological reasons as to what we actually believe differently between the two. I was Catholic once myself and there were much bigger theological differences than the Lord's Supper that caused me to leave and actually choose Lutheranism because they retained the historic views of real presence many other Protestant groups don't maintain while getting topics like justification and how we source authority much better.
There are a few other practical differences like Catholics often practice eucharistic adoration whereas almost no Lutherans ever would. Catholics also store the body in a tabernacle if unconsumed for the next week and Lutherans do not do this.
I think you'll find most Lutherans and Catholics agree much more than they disagree on this topic and Lutherans are a little more okay with leaving things a mystery if we don't believe the Bible gives us the answer and that's absolutely okay 🙂.
@@CJ2345ish Love this comment. As a Southern Baptist that’s currently considering LCMS Lutheranism, this is really helpful to understand Holy Communion better. All I’ve ever done is a symbolic communion with bread and grape juice.
@@sean9920 Also, the Passover was a remembrance of the lambs saving in Egypt, so I wonder if one could say by continuing to sacrifice lambs (multiple, yes) and feast, they partake of that same saving grace~but when all is fulfilled in Christ, we are remembering and partaking in his saving (the meal always being a part of the one true Lamb), feasting on and communing with God.
I don't know any protestant tradition that believes like the Catholics and even the Eastern Orthodox, that Christ is resacrificed in Holy Communion. Like another has pointed out in this comment section it is God who has in the past and in the New Covenant provided the sacrifice and atonement.
[speaking of the New Covenant to come] that you may remember and be confounded, and never open your mouth again because of your shame, when I atone for you for all that you have done, declares the Lord GOD.”
- Ezekiel 16:63
By the way I'm from the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition like you and am strongly interested in Methodism and particularly in the Global Methodist Church. They are not cessationist like most Lutherans and are big on holiness (at least officially). The Methodist believe in real presence, that baptism saves, and that infants ought to be baptized. They are a lot like Lutherans in many ways. Remember though the spiritual gifts are for the "common good" of the Church to take it to "the full stature of Christ."
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers ... until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
- ephesians 4:11-13
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
- 1 Corinthians 12:7
The point is spiritual gifts are here to stay for the good and maturity of the church til Christ returns.
If you believe that the Body and Blood of Jesus cannot be present because Jesus is physically in heaven taken to its logical conclusion means that you don’t believe that Jesus is all powerful. If he’s not all powerful then how can he be God?
All-powerful does not mean “able to do things that are definitionally impossible.” God cannot make a bigger rock than he can lift. Jesus, if we take the incarnation and physical body of Jesus seriously, cannot be in 2 places at once. Jesus’ human body is not omnipresent.
@@Cornelius135 But the body he has after the resurrection is a glorified body with unrestrained divine power, prior to that his human body was temporarily emptied of full power so he could be in total submission to the Father. But Christ is fully God so he is also omnipresent, just as God the Father and God the Spirit are. To further prove this he clearly hears and interacts with all his flock when they pray, He is fully God and fully man and is fully present in the Eucharist as well as when two or more are gathered in his name.
@@ianflanagan209 the glorified post-resurrection body of Christ was most certainly not omnipresent. Having *access* to every is not the same thing is simultaneously *being* everywhere. Jesus appeared to his disciples *where they were gathered,* such that Thomas didn’t see him because he wasn’t at that specific location and time. Having scars in his hands, feet, and side necessarily bind him to a specific location in space. His ascension indicates that his body *went* somewhere (namely, up)
@@Cornelius135 Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”NKJV When Christians gather in church is this not the case? Furthermore Jesus seems to really reiterate that he really is the bread and the wine in John 6:53-58 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[a] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” ESV. Jesus turned water into wine he can turn wine into blood and bread into flesh. He is seated at the right hand of the Father but is fully God and is therefor omnipresent. He can be in one location and many at the same time, it is a mystery just as the incarnation and the Holy Trinity are mysteries. They are true regardless of if we understand them or not. Furthermore the Bread and Wine carry with them wrath for those who eat improperly and forgiveness of sins for those taking it truly mere bread and wine cannot do that. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
@@Cornelius135 If you define human nature as always having locality, then either Christ cannot be in us and we in Him or His humanity is not with us. This latter understanding brings up the same questions regarding Christ's intercession and redemption that were brought to Nestorius.
Lutherans answer this by saying that the Incarnation Glorified/Divinised humanity, so that all things are under His feet (including space and time, and spacetime); also why all humans will rise from the dead, some to torment others to Eternal Life. After all, Adam was made in His image.
Now you can call us Eutychian (or apparently Eastern Orthodox), but yes, Lutherans teach a different Christ to Calvin (and Nestorius). That's the basic reason for theological Lutherans distaste of the rest of Protestants.
I like to hear different perspectives explained so I can see where my understanding is. It seems I am firmly Reformed on that issue.
Might I recommend studying John 6 especially verse 53 onwards (best to read basically the whole chapter). This was something that pushed me towards the Lutheran understanding
@@diewollsocke2674while I hold to the Lutheran real presence, I'd argue that John 6 isn't about communion but about faith in Christ. However, 1 Corinthians 10 mentions the Supper when talking about food given to idols. Verse 16 convinced me.
From what I've heard, the Reformed view is more of a communuion with the divine nature by faith.
I think you are wrong about Zwingli. For example, Philip Schaff in Volume 7 of “History of the Christian Church.” Chapter 7 section 111: “This passage [from Zwingli] comes so near the Calvinistic view that it can hardly be distinguished from it.”
I went from being a former JW ( cult ) to Calvin back in the ‘90’s !
I’m currently attending as a non member a local Lutheran Church ( LCMS) in S. California, as a Calvinist view of soteriology, while allowed to take communion (without affirming or denying the Lutheran view) as an exception of the Lutheran doctrinal confession…while learning more about the Lutheran’s scholastics period regarding doctrinal positions, especially like watching your YT channel, etc. !!
I'm interested in joining a Luthern Church. I'm a Calvinist leaning Christian that holds to Predestination view of it, but hold to the Lutheran view regarding the Sacrements. Is it normal for someone like me to join a Confessional Lutheran Church and is it acceptable?
@@jonahhanson38 Jonah, it may depend on the primary Lutheran denomination and pastor!
My experience worshiping now as a non member at a local Lutheran Church ( LCMS) was after subsequent interviews with the primary Pastor regarding my Calvinist soteriology and sacrament differences I.e., Baptism and Lords Supper: spiritual vs real bodily presence?
Fortunately the primary pastor judged that we both share the same gospel: saved by faith, not by works.
Therefore as I regularly worship there (as a Calvinist ) while reciting the creeds, confessing our sins, I’m allowed to take communion in good conscience as a mystery( neither denying nor affirming ) the real bodily presence !
Very interesting that you bring up that the Reformed perspective believes in the only divine nature of Jesus being "provided" to a believer rather than being both natures.
The reformed view is Nestorian the other is not.
Wouldn't the reformed argue the other is a monophysite or whatever?
Lutherans accuse the reformed of separating the two nature's two much
The reformed accuse Lutherans of mixing the two nature's into one nature.
@@Gondor149 Cope. It just not Lutheran that think Calvinist/Zwinglians are Nestorians, Orthodox and Catholics as well.
@@P-el4zd it was not my intention to strike a nerve with you. I was only framing the other sides argument from a christological view point. One side says attributes of deity can be communicated to His humanity. The other side says being truly human means being local (in human body) to the Father in heaven only while His deity is omnipresent. Saying "cope" doesn't really flesh out your point I was just trying to bring up both sides of the issue. The internet sort of makes people brash.
I would love to hear more on this (especially lutheran vs reformed view as far as the historic controvery between the two in more details). David Noe gave an excellent lecture at Calvin College touching on some of this topic.
Who is allowed to say the words of institution and make it happen?
Only Catholic and Orthodox ordained by Apostolic succession
"Just a memorial" ignores how powerful memorial can be.
You speak of memorial as meaning "nothing is really going on"
I think a LOT is going on when i partake of communion. Of course there is, but i put a high value on the physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of ritual and memorial.
Rituals are powerful.
As an Anglican minister who was formerly continental Reformed, I don't think anything substantive is said about the 16th century Reformed view of the Eucharist here. Perhaps this video was over-cut and there was more substantial dialogue on this topic to share, but (respectfully) I think it falls a little flat. Reformed historically maintained a real/true presence, but emphasized that the mode of presence was spiritual (rather than material) in nature. And yes, the reception of benefits of that presence are by faith. Someone who receives in an unworthy manner receives not the blessings and grace of the presence of Christ, but His justice. It is certainly more nuanced than presented here. Often the word "spiritual" is thrown around as if spiritual isn't "real" or is somehow less real than the material world-obviously this isn't Biblical or perceptively true. And yes, the contemporary Reformed (and especially Presbyterians) prevailingly have an anemic view of the Eucharist on a good day. But I find it interesting that Lutherans tend to fixate upon this language when they themselves do not affirm a "material," Capernaitic, or consubstantive presence either. At best, the presence is undefined in the Lutheran schema, and I'm fine with that. I can affirm the unaltered Augsburg all day long while concurrently affirming Article 28 of the English Articles of Religion (which employs Reformed language in the vein of Bucer):
XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."
I don't think Lutherans deny a material presence of Christ's body, in that we cannot touch/hold His Body; rather we deny a fleshly/Capernaic understanding. The way it's been taught to me is that without annihilating the bread Christ's Risen and incorruptible Body is there and eaten, yet according to the fleshly way we would break down His Body and submit it to our head. Instead, as His Body is incorruptible, His Risen Body and Blood consume us, incorporating us into His flesh.
This is part of why we affirm consecrationism and reject receptionism, also honouring His words on the matter and ordinarily consuming the remnants.
Please read some of the teachings of the early Catholic/Orthodox Church fathers on the Eucharist
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
“the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." ("Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.)
"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed." ("Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.)
"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons." (Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.)
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." ("First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155)
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
"The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!" ("The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D)
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?” ("Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1] c. 350 A.D)
ST. HILARY OF POITERS
"When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: 'My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.' As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God." ("The Trinity" [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D.)
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA
"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."("Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.) ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO "You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ." ("Sermons", [227, 21] ca. 400A.D.)
MARCARIUS THE MAGNESIAN
"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth." ("Apocriticus" [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.)
ST. LEO I, THE GREAT
"When the Lord says: 'Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,' you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. ("Sermons" [91,3] ante 461 A.D.)
“Blessed rather are they who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Jesus Christ (Luke 11:28))
God bless you
In John 6 Jesus Christ asked us to eat His flesh and drink His blood for compelling reasons. Later, at the Lord’s Supper, Jesus Christ showed us how to obey His request to eat and drink of Him via blessed bread and wine that becomes His body and His blood. God made this straightforward to understand. Please read the core relevant passages on the Lord’s Supper.
John 6:51-56
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.”
John 6:60-68 excerpts
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? …64 But among you there are some who do not believe.”… 64 For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe…. 66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Note: The disbelieving Jews clearly understood that Jesus was speaking plainly by the plainly speaking reply of “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” These disbelieving Jews refused to accept that Jesus Christ could give us His flesh and blood to eat and drink and they turned their backs on Him.
Mark 14:22-24 The Institution of the Lord’s Supper
22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”
23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
1 Corinthians 10:15-16 - St Paul
15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 11:19 -20 & 29 - St Paul
19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper… 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.
God is the creator of all things visible and invisible and with God all things are possible. Therefore God is perfectly capable of taking bread and wine and changing them into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Therefore there is absolutely no point for Jesus Christ to have employed a cryptic meaning regarding His request to “eat my flesh and drink my blood” and after blessing the bread “Take; this is my body” and after blessing the wine “This is my blood”.
God bless you
Up until the 1500’s reformation is was Christian consensus and Christian tradition that the bread and wine became the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. The term transubstantiation was officially applied in 1215 because it means to change one form or substance into another. This is what Jesus Christ taught His Apostles. Every Priest in the Catholic and Orthodox Church has been taught this and has practised this going right back to the Apostles who ordained the first Priests by the laying on of hands/ Sacrament of Holy Orders - almost 2,000yrs ago.
1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.” (Catholic Catechism)
Anglican and other protestant Pastors have not been ordained by a Bishop of Apostolic Succession with the Sacrament of Holy Orders and therefore do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine - so they remain bread and wine. Also, protestant Pastors between them teach three notably different false doctrines on the Lord’s Supper - symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/ comingling of bread and wine with the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Whilst all three notably different protestant doctrines claim they are founded on Scripture the reality is none of them are founded on Scripture.
Our one true God is most gracious and wise and one should lovingly accept His divine gift because “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jesus Christ).
If you want to obey God and eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox. Protestant Churches do have the option of joining the Catholic Ordinariate.
God bless you
“For the flesh and blood of Christ is the true food and drink unto life eternal; and Christ himself, since he was given for us and is our Savior, is the principal thing in the Supper, and we do not permit anything else to be substituted in his place.” (Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter XXI)
We, reformed christians do believe in real presence.
Based on your name I assume you're Hungarian. Out of curiosity, are you a member of the Reformed Church in Hungary, maybe even from the region in & around Debrecen? If so, how liberal is the Reformed Church in Hungary? I know they allow & practice female ordination, but other than that, are ministers at their ordination bound to teach in accordance with the Second Helvetic Confession & in your experience do they faithfully do so? I ask you these questions, bc I'm actually from Zürich, the city in which Bullinger wrote the 2HC, & unfortunately the 2HC was officially abolished in the Canton Zürich by its omission from the ordination vows in the synodal order of 1803 & subsequently fell out of use in the course of the early to mid 19th century. So it would be nice to hear if your Hungarian ministers in general still faithfully cling to & teach in accordance with the 2HC, while its place of origin has sadly long abandoned this great confession of faith.
So if someone with no faith partakes are they receiving the body and the blood of Christ ? Are they receiving “Christ himself”?
No, only believers recieve Christ in the Lord’s supper through the Holy Spirit (so we don’t believe in physical presence, only in real spiritual presence).
@@dvinbYes, Hungarian Reformed Church ordains women, but I think is confessionally based (for example there is no congregation which affirms mainstream sexual sins). In my opinion, our problem is that we don’t deal enough with theology, so our believers are theologically less educated than in other countries’ reformed churches. Basically this could be because our church’s unique history (35 yrs ago Hungary was still a socialist country, with restricted freedom of religion). 2nd HC is used in our church, but I think mostly our pastors use it.
@@csanadritter57 right . That is why from a Lutheran and Catholic (and Orthodox) perspective you don’t confess the Real Presence as we do.
The only thing that's missing from this discussion is the fact that Luther was determined to break fellowship over this and wouldn't treat the Swiss Reformed as brothers. All the points you're making are accurate (speaking as a Reformed and considerably less-well-read person), but the idea that on the basis of disagreement about this Christ would approve of casting off Reformed Christians - even if the Reformed position is completely wrong - is completely unbiblical.
but it comes down to the nature of Christ himself. plus, if fellowship is partially defined by communion, its not unreasonable to not be in fellowship with people who disagree about the nature of the meal itself
Zwingli's position was "memorial only", but later Swiss Reformation rejected this view too. The Swiss Reformed's view (Reformer's view) was/us the Spiritual or Real presence. Zwingli took it too far and I can understand why Luther concerned with gnosticism creeping into the Church had such a strong admonishment toward Zwingli.
As a Presbyterian, without Luther's accusation, I think the Swiss Reformation may have strayed like Anabaptists did.
That's not true, the conclusion of the Marburg articles assumes both sides to be Christians
"And although we have not been able to agree at this time, whether the true body and blood of Christ are corporally present in the bread and wine [of communion], each party should display towards the other Christian love, as far as each respective conscience allows, and both should persistently ask God the Almighty for guidance so that through his Spirit he might bring us to a proper understanding. Amen."
Jesus is God.
God is truly present everywhere. So by default, Jesus is really present in the bread and wine, just like Jesus is present in your big mac and fries.