The Reformed View: The Lord's Supper
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 авг 2024
- In this video, I describe the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper. We will look at the words of institution, participation, fencing the table, and the real (spiritual) presence of Christ.
BOOK LINKS BELOW:
Salvation Belongs to the Lord: amzn.to/3qwIcxO
Hold Fast the Faith: amzn.to/3qwJLf8
Love God with All Your Mind: amzn.to/2JsbOMp
I see many baptists/evangelicals who want to be re-baptized or re-dedicated to Christ, because of struggle with sin, somehow not knowing that this is just what the supper is for.
Wellllll, I think a lot of those people are just going to churches were the main mission is to convert people rather than teach, so they are constantly bombered with the 'are you sure you'll go to heaven when you die' sermon so often that they begin doubting what Christ has already done for them on the cross.
The Baptist mantra is "doctrine divides, missions unite." That's the take from a lot of SBC congregations anyway. The attitude that I have observed online as well is that we should not discuss or be divided over differing doctrines. So I guess the idea is to be completely unable to discuss the difference between a Christian and a LDS and when confronted with challenges to one's faith the only answer is some pablum that doesn't answer or persuade in the face of heresy.
@@blchamblisscscp8476 doctrine is supposed to divide lol
Realy appreciate this clear and concise summary. Thanks brother!
A Presbyterian friend sent me a couple of your videos, and now I’m making my way through every one in the Reformed View series. You have an obvious gift for teaching and I’ve been learning a lot, so thank you for these videos and keep up the good work!
Awesome! Thank you! kind words my friend.
Thank you for your program.very helpful.
Im from the philippines.
Reformed church too
This was very interesting and informative. You’ve given me much to think about. Thank you!
This was awesome Pastor Matt!!!
Thank you so much!
Excellent !!!!. Thanks and God bless you Matthew Everhard. Glory to God !!!!
Excellent pastor Matt . I like how you took the high road on your explanation of the sacrament. I also thought your emphasis of the need of self examination before we partake was great . Folks too often give this little or no thought before approaching the Table.
Thank you pastor.
Blessings
This helped me affirm my view. Thank you brother.
Your videos are just perfect as they are. I greatly appreciate all your videos and have learned much. I highly recommend your books you showed here. Good explanation of the Lord's Supper. It's a serious matter and I've been in churches where the reverence for it was lost in ritual.
Best reformed explanation I’ve came across so far.
Thank you sir for your content here on RUclips. Would you please consider making a video on sin; how can we hate sin not ourselves?
I love this..
Thanks Doc. We do well to consider carefully whether we are bringing any "baggage" with us to His Table.
Wonderful...
I really enjoy your videos, thanks for the content! I know this video is a couple years old so I’m late to the comments. I’m newish to reformed theology and just recently began attending a PCA church. One thing I appreciate is the emphasis on the seriousness of communion as compared to the mega church I was attending. A question I have though is shouldn’t we be relying solely on the imputed righteousness of Christ for our worthiness to come to the table instead of looking at our own personal performance? I think communion is a great time to look at ways we are not conforming to Christ, however if I have to make sure I am personally worthy of communion I don’t think I would ever be able to partake. Thanks!!
Excellent explanation of the different views of the Lord's Supper. For a deep dive into the subject check out the book Given for You by Keith Mathiason.
Very good
Pastor Matt - this was extremely helpful. Thanks so much! BTW - Steve Brown was my pastor in Miami for 20 years. I still trade emails with him now and then. Grateful for you brother.
Thank you so much Pastor. I have been haunting your channel for about a year. I was raised Lutheran and after moving have been having a hard time finding a church. I have visited a PCA church that I have a great feeling about. I feel very conflicted about Calvinism. I found this video so helpful. Do you have a similar video explaining Calvinism? I can’t decide if this is an “in-family” fight between denominations or if it speaks directly to wether a person is saved based on their theology. I take all this very seriously. Thank you for all you do, God bless
I believe Confession Lutherans are brothers & sisters in Christ. I listen to Chris Rosebrough all the time (Fighting for the Faith) & he is good friends with many Reformed folks - Justin Peters, Phil Johnston, Owen Strachan.
They definitely have a difference of opinion on baptism and the other sacraments but are on the same page as far as the gospel goes.
Carry on. Content is excellent. Production stuff is for video epicureans.
Loved this explanation! Any chance we could get a tour of the current office? I'm easily distracted by the collection of books behind you!
And pictures too!
“Lutherans take the most mysterious understanding of the Lord’s Supper, one they have a hard time getting their mind around.” This is the way.
Appreciate your video on the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper. A quick clarification on the Catholic theory of Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation articulates that the SUBSTANCE not the FORM of the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ. Thus, you would NOT find DNA in the host after the concecration...that would be a transFORMATION.
Great explanation! Ever thought of teaching through your theological outlines book here on the channel?
I am Presbyterian, but I don't know if this video goes far enough in explaining what really happens in the Lord's supper. Calvin's view was that, by faith, in the receiving of the bread and wine, our souls actually feed on the body and blood or Christ so that we really become more like Christ (you are what you eat). Reformed people will say "it strengthens your faith" but often fail to explain exactly how/why
Was thinking the same thing
😂Wait you’re literally Redeemed Zoomer I didn’t notice
I know this is an d video, but I love your perspective. I am struggling to know when to include my children in communion. My husband does not attend church with us or understand the significance of this. My children are young, and I know that very young children mimic Christianity and I want to be sure that they understand what this means before bringing them into this. Is there any Biblical reference for when a child ought to be able to join? Is it when they become an adult? Or when they have walked and grown in grace for years? I just don’t know.
Hi Mr. Everhard, I have a quick question.
Isn’t Christ always spiritually present anyway, since He is the Word/Logos? What makes the Holy Communion bring about (a higher) spiritual presence different than at any other occassion, say during a regular service or even in our daily activities? Thank you!
A downside to these video podcasts is that they often raise as many questions as they answer and rarely is there any response to questions. You ask a good question and its similar to mine. If Christ already indwells us as Paul says, what is this Presence in the bread and wine?. I'm guessing it must be like getting an infusion of Christ as opposed to merely getting him in pill form. But I could be wrong. After much research and prayer I'm convinced that the Lord's Supper is much more than a memorial of His sacrifice. It's a much bigger deal than it's made out to be by most Protestant denominations. I found Keith Mathiason's book, Given for You, very helpful.
@@jerseyjim9092So what would be your answers to this question now?
Thanks for the video! Regarding 37:40 - 38:12, I can’t see how it could be prohibitive. The scripture says “let a man examine himself, then, AND SO EAT of the bread and drink of the cup” (emphasis mine). If somebody is aware of and grieved by a sin in their life, I think that’s evidence that they have examined themselves and are therefore partaking appropriately. It seems me that this scripture is saying it’s wrong to partake without examining oneself. Not that we should examine and then only partake if we find.. something that’s not specified in the text. Hope that’s helpful, or let me know if I’m missing something in my approach!
More great content, thank you brother. Having come to the reformed faith late in life I am very often intrigued by some of the theology on the fringes. One area that has been of interest to me is the subject of Paedo-Communion. In some senses it seems reasonable from a covenant theology perspective and its relationship to the Seder. One argument I have heard against is the command not to take it in an unworthy manner. This assumes of course that at least one sense of unworthy that is in view is partaking as an unregenerate person. However it seems to me that the context is more that of treating it with disdain as in the gluttonous and selfish party approach that the church was having treating the holy thing as if it were profane.
I wonder if you might consider taking a look at this controversy as well?
I tend to think that anyone below the age at which they can legally enter into a contract is too young for baptism let alone communion and no one not so baptized should partake. But that is an admittedly extreme stance.
I'm still a little unclear on what a Presbyterian would say differentiates the presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper from the presence of Christ in a normal church service "where 2-3 are gathered".
The “2-3 are gathered” passage is actually referencing church discipline.
How can I get your books
Also breaking of bread
The topic of the Lord’s supper starts at 4:19
22:09 Thank you Pastor for this video. Unfortunately, the priest in training’s information is incorrect here. This is not the Catholic Church’s teachings on the Eurcharist. It would be better if you looked at the Catechism of the Catholic Church to get this information.
24:43 Both Catholics and Orthodox, both Christian Church’s that can trace their origins to the Apostles, believe and profess the Real Presence. This has been a Christian belief since the beginning of the Church.
27:13 an interesting take, but aren’t you then dividing Christ?
This would also go against the earliest Church Father’s like St. Ignatius of Antioch.
28:43 when Jesus was resurrected his human body could walk through locked doors. His human body disappeared right in front his two of his disciples in the breaking of the bread. So again, with all due respect to Calvin, while this is difficult to grasp, you can not separate Christ’s divine and human will.
30:23 AWESOME!!! AMEN!!
30:55 You say an error in doctrine on the Eurcharist here. I would simply push back and say an error according to whom? Most other non-Reformed Churches would say that you are in error in your belief on the Eurcharist. So by what authority do you have that everyone else is in error?
33:11 AMEN!!!
35:28 Fantastic Job!
Thank you again for the video pastor.
Why should I as a devoted and serious Christian be in a Reformed Church, as opposed to any other mainline evangelical church? Is it merely esoteric points in your doctrine that makes you different or are there practical daily matters that you believe make the Reformed Church the place to be? Were you raised in a Reformed Church?
Hello Brother Randall, as devoted and serious Christians we are not just dedicated to our praxis (our good works) but also to the obtaining of Truth. It’s not a matter of whether one is more esoteric, more gnostic, or more ‘edgy,’ but it’s a matter of how dedicated we are to obtaining and proclaiming the Truth.
Confessional churches (Reformed, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) hold to confessions, creeds, and doctrines that are consistent and taught throughout history since the time of the Apostles. I personally believe the Reformed church has been consistent with its teachings, as being both biblical and apostolic.
Sadly, many mainline churches have left the historic creeds and confessions in favour of contemporary reinterpretations and recontextualisations that (sometimes) may be so far away from the orthodox/historic teachings.
@@hokalos Thank you. That makes sense now. I did not know what a "Confessional Church" was. Now I know. One would find the beliefs of the church then in their Statement of Faith, if they have a Statement of Faith. I would imagine that a lot of churches do not even have a Statement of Faith. I grew up in a Methodist Church and do not remember ever hearing about or seeing a Statement of Faith. If they had one at all, I would imagine I would have seen it in confirmation classes. So this is why I hear Pastor Matt talk about the Westminster Standards so often.
Great stuff. I don’t think as a Wesleyan I believe much different on this heavy topic as you explained.
I disagree with Wesley and other Methodists that the table should be open to non baptized persons.
As a Lutheran, perhaps I can assist with your understanding of our view relative to those of others: Catholic view: the bread and wine cease to be present, only body and blood are present, and they are present physically. Lutheran view: the bread and wine continue to exist physically, and the body and blood physically exist also. The Reformed view: the bread and wine exist physically while the body and blood exist only in a spiritual sense. The Zwingli view: the bread and wine physically exist, but there is no body and blood neither physically or spiritually. A big difference between the Catholic and Lutheran views is that the Catholics tend to believe that the bread and wine cease to exist. If it is body and blood, it cannot be bread and wine. Lutherans believe that the physical presence of Christ's body and blood does to cause the bread and wine to cease to exist. Christ said this is my body, not this is my body and the bread which formerly existed no longer exists. On the flip side, neither does he say this is my body but only on a spiritual sense. I would suggest that "the right hand of God" is not a physical place but a phrase denoting authority, such as an important noble being described as the king's right hand.
Hooked on phonics is not helping me on this one. I can't find that name Oreck Swinley or . . .
Ulrich Zwingli
Is he saying Orrick Swinley or Orreck Zerwinly?
He is saying Ulrich Zwingli. There is another spelling of his name, but I can't remember for the life of me.
I emphasize verse 30 even more: "GOD STRUCK SOME OF YOU *DEAD* FOR NOT TAKING COMMUNION SERIOUSLY ENOUGH." And I put especial focus on it.
I come from a church (United Methodist) that practices open communion, but I do not subscribe to it; nor did my family, who raised me in the same church. I actually hold myself to clear restrictions, that, if I have not fulfilled those restrictions at the time I would partake of the elements, I refuse them, because I seriously believe that to do otherwise is actually a MORTAL SIN. (I do not know of anyone else from my faith tradition who is as extreme as me in this regard.) And if I were to be present in another church which offered communion, I would have to ask some questions before accepting it (for example, do I qualify under THEIR rules as well? Not every church will allow a Methodist to partake, whether or not that person has been baptized, as an adult believer capable of entering into contracts, in a body of living water, by an ordained minister, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - which is only one of my prerequisites. My other prerequisites include: must be actively in a state of fast, must not be guilty of any sin that requires the forgiveness of another human being, and must not be holding any open grudges which I should instead forgive; if not all of those are fulfilled, then to partake of the elements could quite seriously cause me to be damned to hell.)
Our eucharistic theology is generally the Real Presence sort: the elements "become" the body and blood of Christ, but not in a literal sense, and it is not explained; it is simply considered a mystery beyond our comprehension.
Ok - Ulrich Zwinli???
Agreed. Zwingli wasn't a mere memorialist. This view in the video is almost exactly what Zwingli taught. Calvin's view, on the other hand, was that the Spiritual presence of Christ has to do with the *manner* in which we receive the real body and blood of Jesus. He didn't disagree with Luther over receiving the literal body of blood of Jesus, but how we receive it.
He's trying to figure out who Zwingli is.
If you remove the fact that the reformers came from the Roman church and were influenced to some degree by their heritage, the word doesn’t give an implication of the Spiritual presence. The plain reading of 1 Corinthians is that it’s in remembrance of the Lord’s work. The corporate act is because we are the body of Christ. Why would there be any extra sense of Christ at this moment than in worship? or the teaching of the word? or in prayer?
It strikes me as wanting to imbibe a Catholic element that semi appeases the detractors of the reformers.
In regards to a supposed person, elsewhere, speaking publicly in varied venues no one can know them well as someone that has sat locally under their teaching. For instance the supposed leader placed a playboy icon on their website as a manipulative sick joke knowing people would click on it and it took them to a worldwide Christian parachurch website. This person was corrected & admonished by local Christian leaders, this person's apology wasn't heartfelt. This is only 1 example. I'm in the PCA and there is not enough discernment of supposed leaders because they are so widely accepted & popular. I don't have a doubt this person's odd teaching would not last in many Presbyterian churches as a staff person or pastor although they are PCA and fit pretty well in a non-denominational evangelical church. This person preached and taught in one. It's obvious discernment is lacking and a blind eye. God believes wolves dress up very very well theologically and only He sees the intent of the heart.
The argument that Jesus is at the right hand of God, therefore his body and blood can’t be really present to me isn’t that great of an argument. God created matter from nothing. Can he not create the body and blood’s real presence? Further Acts 2:38 and onward says that we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost at baptism. By virtue of the same argument how can the Holy Ghost then be divided into over a billion parts?
Suprasubstantiation
Can you send me hold fast for free
*Oh, man! You read the following, and you meditate on whether your concept about the Lord is correct or not:*
The Lord of the worlds is the One Who created seven Heavens, seven earths, and all things (including mankind) in between them within six days. Then He established on the Throne, you have no protector or intercessor besides Him.
Lord is the Three-Time-Knower, He knows the past, present, and future of everything. He is the Impartial Who taught Adhikr to the whole of mankind while they were created in Paradise. Lord is the One Who created everything in pairs from the earth produces, from themselves and the other things they do not know.
Lord is the One Who created you from a single soul, and He made its mate from it so that he may dwell with her in love.
Lord is the One Who created pairs of male and female from the sperm of the male and ovum of the female when it is emitted from the father and the mother.
He is the One Who created male and female from the embryo, and made love and mercy in between.
Lord is the One Who created man from water, and made blood relationships of lineage and marriage, He is capable of everything.
He is the One Who shaped mankind in the womb as He wishes, He is capable of everything.
He is the One Who has not been comprehended by visions, while He comprehends all visions, He is the Knower of the inner feelings of the soul, Well-Acquainted.
He is the One upon Whom neither a thing on the earth nor in Heaven is hidden, He is the All-Hearing, All-Knowing.
He is the One with Whose remembrance will cause no disaster from whatever is on the earth or in the sky, He is the All-Hearing, All-Knowing.
He is the One who taught everything the mode of praying and glorifying Him.
He is the One to Whom whatever in Heavens and earth glorifies, He is the Sovereign, Sanctified, Mightiest, and Wise.
He is the One Who is the Acquainted Observer of His servants. He is the One Who is enough to acquaint the offenses of His servants.
He is the One Who has the Best Knowledge about the inner feelings of His servants. He is the One Who knows the treachery of the eyes and what is hidden in the chests.
He is the One who seizes neither slumber nor sleep.
He is the One Who is a Witness upon everything.
He is the One Who is the Custodian of everything.
He is the One Who is the Disposer and Authority upon everything. Indeed, He is the One Who is capable to bring anyone and anything into the previous condition. Indeed, the Lord is Comprehensive Observing.
He is the One Who is the Best-Knower of all unseen things.
He is the One Who is with you wherever you are.
He is the One Who exists in between the person and the heart of believers.
He is the One Who when intends a thing, commands to it: “Be”, then it happens.
He is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Sovereign, there is no deity except Him.
So whoever calls or invokes for help unseeingly other than Lord, is serving the Kafir Satan. Through verses 112: 1-4 Lord commands the Messenger and the believer to declare: “He is Allah, the One and Only, the Eternal Absolute Who is not depending on anyone while everyone is depending upon Him. He no begets, nor He is begotten. There is none just like Him”. And it is told in verse 42: 11 that there is nothing just like Lord, He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing. Oh, man bestowed with intelligence! You are deputed on the earth to live as the vicegerent of the Lord. So, don’t be a vicegerent of Satan by ignoring your Creator Lord. Whoever understands his Creator Lord according to the Wise Reminder Adhikr submits, he/she can’t even think of doing any evil deed which is harmful to any creature including mankind.
*From Adhikr - the Best Interpretation of Lord’s Book.*
www.straightpathonline.com
I'll stick with the 2000 year old tradition of the view of grace, and not the man-made view created only 500 years ago.
The view that has no concept of a special class of priests to work the miracle of transubstantiation? Yes, I'd agree.