Pastor Whedon’s interview with Matt Whitman planted the seed of confessional Lutheranism in my mind. A few years down the road and I’ve been confirmed into a Lutheran church. His testimony is an asset to God’s Church.
When Pr. Weedon boldly proclaimed, "We ARE the Western Catholic Church, cleansed by the Gospel", that was my introduction to Confessional Lutheranism, and it completely blew my mind *mind blown*. I love it, and I'm joyful you have him on.
Without Apostolic Succession, you have no valid priesthood. Since Luther was not a Bishop, he certainly did not have any authority to ordain anybody for anything. Without a valid priesthood, you do not have the Eucharist. You can no more consecrate the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ than I can. As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes. You cannot go any further back than October 31, 1517.
What a treat! So looking forward to this interview. Pr Weedon is one of the gems of the LCMS. Also on a side note, just a recommendation for a potential future interview; Joshua Schooping who was an EO priest is now an LCMS pastor. Might be another fun interview. Thanks for all the work you do, Javier!
He’s LCMS now? I thought he was with the Christian Missionary Alliance? And I heard something about him going Presbyterian at some point, but I could be totally wrong on that. Dude’s hard to keep track of haha
@@TheBillyDWilliams Yeah he’s LCMS now. He’s been an LCMS pastor for a couple of months now. I was also quite surprised when I found out he became Lutheran. If you look at his RUclips channel under the name Joshua Schooping, you can see his sermons as an LCMS pastor. He also includes his church in the bio to the videos.
@@unit2394 Yeah I thought he was Reformed for the longest of time as well. Then I saw a video of his pop up where he was in a chasuble and I nearly leapt out of my seat lol. Issues etc put out a news letter with an article on his journey to confessional Lutheranism today.
This video is amazing! Pastor Weedon fantastically addresses every issue of concern while continuously working a Gospel-centered and joyous traditional Lutheran theology into every answer. This made my day. Thank you for this and God bless!
Pastor Weeden was so instrumental in helping me wrestle with which church to go to . Thank you. After being drawn to orthodoxy and struggling with some aspects of it I found my home in the Lcms traditional church. One year anniversary this month
Love Pastor Weedon … you should ABSOLUTELY have Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller on and interview him. Pastor Wolfmueller and Dr. Jordan Cooper were of tremendous help for me when I became a Lutheran
"Revisiting the Sacrifice of the Mass" is one of the best and concise articles from rev. Weedon that introduced me to the path towards the confessional lutheran faith. I'm thankful! Greetings from Brazil!
Without Apostolic Succession, you have no valid priesthood. Since Luther was not a Bishop, he certainly did not have any authority to ordain anybody for anything. Without a valid priesthood, you do not have the Eucharist. You can no more consecrate the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ than I can. As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes. You cannot go any further back than October 31, 1517.
@@georgepierson4920"As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes." Okay, let's take one dogma proposed by the RCC and analyse that in the fathers: the immaculate conception of Mary. Let's see: “What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she had experienced scandal during the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified by his grace and redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized by this moment. This is what Simeon is prophesying about…. Your soul will be pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of doubt” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7). “not even his brothers believed in him” [John 7:5]) and Jesus’ question in Matthew 12:48: “What are mother and brothers to me?” He affirms, over and against Apelles and Marcion, Jesus’ genuine nativity, but has no hesitation in including Mary along with his brothers as unbelieving and the object of his rebukes: “when denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults.” Evidently Tertullian is not aware that this is a controversial opinion. He even goes so far as to see Mary as a symbol of the unbelieving synagogue that rejected Christ: “in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7.) “Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man-to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ” (Basil, Letter 260.9). “And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach” (Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3). “if this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?” (Hilaty, Tractatus in Ps. 118). “conceived in iniquity in accordance with human practice”(Fulgentius of Ruspe, [Epistula 17.13]).
"As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes." Okay, let's take one dogma proposed by the RCC and analyse that in the fathers: the immaculate conception of Mary. Let's see: “What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she had experienced scandal during the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified by his grace and redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized by this moment. This is what Simeon is prophesying about…. Your soul will be pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of doubt” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7). “not even his brothers believed in him” [John 7:5]) and Jesus’ question in Matthew 12:48: “What are mother and brothers to me?” He affirms, over and against Apelles and Marcion, Jesus’ genuine nativity, but has no hesitation in including Mary along with his brothers as unbelieving and the object of his rebukes: “when denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults.” Evidently Tertullian is not aware that this is a controversial opinion. He even goes so far as to see Mary as a symbol of the unbelieving synagogue that rejected Christ: “in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7.) “Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man-to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ” (Basil, Letter 260.9). “And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach” (Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3). “if this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?” (Hilaty, Tractatus in Ps. 118). “conceived in iniquity in accordance with human practice”(Fulgentius of Ruspe, [Epistula 17.13]).
Javier, I really need to applaud your interviewing skills. You really are up to date on contemporary protestant/catholic/EO dialogue online, and what struggle people are facing. This interview really let Father Weedon hit some good points on contemporary issues. Fantastic job!
"The Greeks [Orthodox] ... are not heretics or schismatics but the most Christian people and the best followers of the Gospel on earth." Source: Martin Luther (1999). Vol. 32: Luther's Works, vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II So why shouldn't I stay EO then?
Luther looked up to the east for its resistance of Rome. He also wasn’t looking to start another church. The east came, still didn’t like our theology which is unapologetically western and said no. Why you should become Lutheran. Well for your own salvation there is zero need for you to become Lutheran. If you want a tradition seeped in the Gregorian mass which is older then that of most eastern liturgies, less altered then when it was first sung, key word sung in Rome, a theology that will always point to and declare to you the gospel because it’s something we need to be reminded of every single day. That shows you how much you must depend on Christ, and shares with you your sinfulness in need of the mercy of Christ, you should become Lutheran.
As a Calvinistic Baptist pastor and missionary, I'm deeply grateful for the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. I was blessed to learn the gospel in one of their schools as a young child.
Then why did you become Baptist? The Baptists get baptism and The Lord's Supper completely wrong. They miss the gifts God brings to us in those sacraments.
Respectfully, Pr. Weedon, you are not accurately portraying the teaching of the Catholic Church on the sacrifice of the mass. I do first want to say I really appreciate your love and enthusiasm for Christ, and was a close follower of your work back when I was LCMS. I have to say in my conversion process from LCMS to the Catholic Church, there were so many things I found out were incorrectly taught to me from Lutherans about Catholic doctrine. This is a perfect example. You said that Rome focuses on the Eucharist as something that we offer up to God and said this is in contrast to the Lutheran view that the Eucharist is a gift from God to us and His work inside of us that we simply receive. This is a classic case of either/or thinking and completely ignores the overwhelming amount of Catholic Church teaching that Eucharist is a both a sacrifice and a sacramental gift that God gives to us to give us His grace. This is most certainly why the Catholic Church teaches the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith (Vatican II) because it is a representation of God offering Himself to Himself on our behalf (the sacrifice) and also God infusing His grace inside of us through the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood (the gift of grace). To say Catholics ignore the latter is about as big of a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine as one could make. In so many Church documents will you find presentations of both modes of the Eucharist, but here are just two brief summaries from the current Catechism: 1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.231 By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him: 1407 The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church's life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church. The topic of the sacrificial nature of the mass is large. It is really too bad that Lutherans don't readily admit their position that often just outright denies the sacrificial nature all together is not very historical. First, I would also point out that when learning more about Catholic history and theology and the deep connections the liturgy and Eucharist have to the old testament modes of liturgy (viz. Temple Theology) it starts to become very clear why the Church historically has always seen the Eucharist in a sacrificial manner. It is the fulfillment of the Old Temple sacrifices into the once and for all, forever and through all time, sacrifice of God to Himself on our behalf. This also has a very interesting connection to theological work of people like Dr. John Bergsma who highlight that the Essenes (in research from Dead Sea Scrolls) anticipated a future, where a divinely instituted Thanksgiving Sacrifice (or Eucharistic sacrifice) would be instituted by God to replace the temple sacrifices. Here is just a small sample of other historical references to the Mass/Eucharist as a sacrifice. Note especially this goes all the way back to the Didache, one of the earliest known Christian documents. THE DIDACHE “Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23-24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]). POPE CLEMENT I “Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4-5 [A.D. 80]). IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH “Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice-even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]). CYRIL OF JERUSALEM “Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need” (Catechetical Lectures 23:7-8 [A.D. 350]). AMBROSE OF MILAN “We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered” (Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389]). JOHN CHRYSOSTOM “When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]). “Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the sacrificial victim who is placed thereon!” (Homilies on Romans 8:8 [A.D. 391]). “‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthy and awesomely does he [Paul] say it. For what he is saying is this: What is in the cup is that which flowed from his side, and we partake of it. He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise him in song, wondering and astonished at his indescribable gift, blessing him because of his having poured out this very gift so that we might not remain in error; and not only for his having poured it out, but also for his sharing it with all of us. ‘If therefore you desire blood,’ he [the Lord] says, ‘do not redden the platform of idols with the slaughter of dumb beasts, but my altar of sacrifice with my blood.’ What is more awesome than this? What, pray tell, more tenderly loving?” (Homilies on First Corinthians 24:1(3) [A.D. 392]). “In ancient times, because men were very imperfect, God did not scorn to receive the blood which they were offering . . . to draw them away from those idols; and this very thing again was because of his indescribable, tender affection. But now he has transferred the priestly action to what is most awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the butchering of dumb beasts, he commands the offering up of himself” (ibid., 24:2). “What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice” (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3(6) [A.D. 403]). AUGUSTINE “In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness” (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]). “For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it” (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]). God bless!
As a former Lutheran leaning person (I didn't have a confessional Lutheran church locally, otherwise I would have attended one) who turned Roman Catholic I can only agree with what you have posted. Lutheranism seems very inviting, because you don't need to care about the problems the church had. But once you go through actual church history what one perceives as cleansed Catholicism is not what it appears. Luther had not the underdog the early church or St. Augustine who he had admired. Also the Catholic church and the reformation did not happen as we see it propagated very often. There is a lot of nuance and false caricatures that are believed instead.
A "representation of an unbloody sacrifice by the priest, to appeas the Father" is far different than the Lutheran understanding of participation in the one time sacrifice brought to us.
@@WaterMelon-Cat Agreed. My contention with Pr. Weedon's presentation here is that he gravely misrepresented the position of the Catholic Church and created a false dichotomy with either the Eucharist is solely a gift from God to us to convey grace or it a sacrificial offering of the people to God. The Catholic position and the position of all of Church history (see my original post) is it is both/and. God bless!
@@metaphysika there are lots of false doctrines in the Catholic church; veneration of Mary, praying to saints, use of tradition instead of following the Bible, the Pope as sole authority, the clergy not able to marry., the preaching of works saving,Sacraments like marriage that are not Biblical. Catholics are my Christian brothers and sisters, but the Catholic church is not without errors.
Thank you for having Pr. Weedon on! I'm proud to have him as a member of our synod! I know he has helped countless souls wrestling with these issues through his interviews, podcasts and writings. I've heard anecdotally from many people that he is very generous in responding to emails from strangers wrestling with these questions. As usual, I can see comments on this thread from Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that aren't addressing the points he made but rather are lobbying the same assertions without proof. Did they even hear the whole interview or do they just recycle the same old talking points about the canon, Luther creating a new church and so forth???
@ClintnRebeccaWarner Thank you for watching! Unfortunately, many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox commenters do not take the time to watch or engage with the points made in a lot of the videos I put out (although I deeply appreciate the ones who do try to engage based on the substance of a given video). A lot of them simply come in and start repeating their usual Luther slander and anti-Protestant mantras over and over again as though that were an argument lol
@@javierperd2604 Agreed, that does seem to be the case. Keep up the good work and I pray that God will grant you wisdom and discernment as you decide which part of the Protestant umbrella you belong under!
@@lifematterspodcast The Lutherans are reformed Catholics. We took out what was not Biblical and did not paint to Jesus.. We are indeed Apostolic since Luther was an ordained priest.
I really enjoyed listening To Dr. wheedon. His passion is very uplifting. As Anglican there was little difference I found with him. Though I would differ with him that elder and bishop were synonymous positions throughout the NT. While every bishop is indeed an elder not every elder is a bishop.I would highly recommend the book "captains and courts" by Bisho RAy Sutton. He makes a strong exegetical case that bishops and elders are distinct positions in the New Testament and not a post-apostolic development. Never the less, I would not take such a rigorist static position that Presbyterial succession is invalid. I would simply look at it as irregular. That does not mean it is optional. A concession should not be a prescriptive norm. As far as producing a list of bishops is concern, I won't need to produce such a thing for the reason I just stated. I also find it very interesting that that from the 2nd century till the 16th century that there are three distinct orders of ministry with no push back on the practice. Only one church father (Jerome 4th cent) states it was Custom but others claim it is of apostolic origin. This makes a more compelling case for it.
I have made an in-depth critique of the first part of this video (more to come): Response to a Lutheran Apologetic (Pr. Will Weedon) #1 (Featuring Liturgy and the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Church Fathers) [11-11-24] I didn't put a link, because so often that isn't allowed, but a word-search will easily find this.
God be Praised ... Kudos... and by the way if anyone knows of a Pastor (LCMS) that could come to Cape May County NJ please pray the Holy Spirit would thrust them to our county
Im really struggling i was confirmed lutheran left or just in a sense became agnostic in my early 20s im looking to return and feel very pulled to EO i just watched your video with reverend schoolp sorry if i have his name wrong but now im so torn!!
Cyril of Jerusalem doesn’t do much for demonstrating that Lutherans have apostolic succession based on the succession of teaching. For Cyril chrismation/confirmation is a sacrament and he refers to the consecration of the Supper as a sacrifice of propitiation, so on at least two very important doctrines Cyril is not in doctrinal (apostolic) succession with confessional Lutherans or most Protestant groups.
@@jackwalters5506 I really like your Luther flower. If you want to spread the word of God through Lutheranism, please remember Proverbs 15:1, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." @georgeharrison1098 may very well have been incorrect, or misunderstood, but instead of attacking his way of presenting data I recommend that you explain why you believe that he's misrepresented his argument. Hope you both have a blessed day.
@jackwalters5506 - the only sense in which apostolic succession matters for Lutheran theology is doctrinal. Because this is the standard and because Cyril of Jerusalem can’t be said to be in harmony with Lutheranism doctrinally therefore attempting to use him and his teaching as testimony to authenticate Lutheranism as being in Apostolic succession fails. The same can easily be demonstrated when one compares confessional Lutheran doctrine to that of Basil or Chrysostom, in fact they teach many things that Luther and his colleagues in reforming the western church deemed quite harmful to the faith.
I prefer Evangelical Catholic. The first Lutheran churches were called Evangelical by the Lutherans themselves. It drives me crazy that the radical heretics in American have claimed the term. So I am in favor of reclaiming it. Furthermore, by also correctly using Catholic, we can annoy another set of heretics. 😉
I prefer Evangelical Catholic. Mostly because the first Lutherans referred to their churches as Evangelical. It annoys me to now end that the Radical heretics in America have usurped this term. Furthermore, by properly also using Catholic, we can annoy another group of heretics. 😉
According to modern dogma people like Pope St. Clement and even St. Thomas aquinas disagreed with modern day dogmatic positions. So according to your own logic yes, the church fathers are heretics. St. Clements view of justification contradicts the council of Trents ruling. Also St. Thomas Aquinas idea of how the immaculate conception worked is not within the acceptable definition of modern dogma. So he is a heretic as well. It is bearing false witness to say that all the church fathers believe what the modern Church believes
While it is certainly possible to make unfair comparisons between churches, it is certainly fair to compare one’s local Lutheran congregation to one’s local Orthodox parish and actually see what spiritual life is like from week to week between the two. Such a comparison helps one avoid the trap of academic Lutheranism so often found online and theoretical Orthodoxy.
I find this curious. This is the "new" Roman angle against Lutherans (and Anglicans I suppose) which is Apostolic Succession. But, if you read the Book of Concord, that was not a Roman objection to the Reformers at the time. The Roman arguments weren't about any sort of validity of Holy Orders, but about the nature of the Mass, which presupposes that Holy Orders weren't an issue in question. It was invented as a means of dismissing the Reformation at a later date. It's effectively an ex post facto objection to the Reformation where Rome insists on their interpretation of apostolic succession that requires adherence to the Bishop of Rome.
I'm fairly certain when saint basil argued against arianism. He didn't argue about valid apostolic succession. He pointed out their heresy and their heresy deviated from that apostolic succession, so those who persisted in it lost anything they had by nature of the heresy. They deviated from what was taught and invented their own ideas, using their own logic, and their understanding which they deem superior.
The Eucharist is the heat and soul of Orthodox Lutheranism. I look upon the host in my hand and I say “my Lord and my God”, which are the words Thomas spoke when he beheld the body of Christ.
Do you want the Eucharist or not? In the 1500's Martin Luther claimed there is such a thing as a Eucharist that is bread, wine, flesh and blood in substance in order to feed on Christ Spiritually and Physically. The Catholic and Orthodox are infallibly correct, according to Scripture alone, that the Eucharist is the Son of God's living flesh and blood in substance in order to feed on Christ Spiritually and Physically.
There should be a why be Lutheran instead of Pentecostal, Baptist, non denominational evangelical etc. Video. There’s a lot of Christian’s struggling to come out of that fog of evangelicalism.
Is it maybe worth having the 'Protestant Umbrella Schpiel' prerecorded at this point? Also a clip of Pr Weedon airing his frustration at Luther's pigheadedness at inconvenient times.
His mind, soul and spirit are beautiful, as is his room. Please get him some help to set up his camera so that he can continue to share his light in all ways.
@@sarahh8575 And yet, history says that it was, in fact, a rebellion. Does it not concern you that your messiah was praised by Hitler who considered Luther to be a model German?
What kind of Lutheran should I become, then? Do I become an LCMS Lutheran? Why, or why not? Do I become an ELCA Lutheran? Why, or why not? Can the Bible alone tell me which way to go? Can the Ausgberg Confession tell me which way to go? How can the Book of Concord help me?
You should become a confessional Lutheran, that means a Lutheran who actually cares about the Bible and the Confessions. So ELCA is off the table. LCMS, AALC, ELS and WELS are the main options in the USA for Lutheranism.
@@premodernprejudices3027 It does. The Book of Concord tells you not to have fellowship with false teaching, namely for example Reformed. So you do not go to a Lutheran church that does have fellowship with the Reformed, the ELCA has it, so you do not go there.
Javier uses a term “Ecclesialist” when talking about Rome and Orthodoxy, but it’s not clear to me what the definition of that term is compared to other magisterial Protestant traditions. Does anyone have an insight? Pastor Weedon said that Luther erred on certain things, I’m wondering what does Pastor Weedon think Luther got wrong, and why.
The term refers to the churches that claim direct descent from the Apostles and who also claim to be the one true Church. The Armenians might be an exception since they don’t claim exclusivity to that ‘one true church’ claim. As for Luther, he might be referring to Luther’s writings on the Jewish people.
@ - thanks. And that’s probably one of the areas for most Lutherans. Another area I suspect Weedon thinks Luther gets wrong is probably portions of his liturgical reform. If one follows the principles laid down in those writings from Luther it is easy to see how Lutherans end up concluding that evangelical big box style with Lutheran substance is the way to go… and certainly not how worship is done at Weedon’s church.
Wow, after the section on baptism … if Pastor Weedon is right about all the connections he made, Lutherans should really be communing their baptized infants and toddlers too, not waiting like the Catholics do. Gift upon gift!
Great video. However, Will’s story does not make sense. Why would he leave Lutheranism for EO or Rome? Why would he abandon salvation by faith alone rather than join a more conservative Lutheran synod? This makes no sense unless he did not hold salvation by faith alone in high regard and didn’t put any stock in the Lutheran confessions. Very strange.
@@flashhog01 I highly encourage you to listen to his fully fleshed-out story! Both Part 1 and Part 2 are linked in the description to this video, and they should offer a much more complete picture of his reasoning at the time 🙂
With all due respect, I prefer to be in the Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18-19 rather than in a church founded by Martin Luther, a man. The Catholic Church did not need cleansing by Martin Luther. Our Lord promised to His Church in Matthew 16:19, “The gates of Hades will not overcome it.” and in Matthew 28:20, “I am with you always, to the very end of the age”. He is God. And, He has protected the Catholic Church from error for two thousand years. If you say that the Catholic Church was corrupted after three or four hundred years, but the Lutheran Church has lasted for five hundred years, you are saying that Jesus Christ is not as good at organizing a church as Martin Luther was.
35:20 But isn't that exactly what God did in the Old Testament? He provided the ram. The Jewish practice was to take an animal, offer it a sacrificially to God, and then eat it. The apolostles at the last supper would have understood that the bread and wine were the sacrifice given to God; something they commonly understood, yet foreshadowing what was to come. The idea that this is a completely new practice that did not involve sacrificial offering would not have had the same continuity that the Old Testament context of sacrificial offering to God does. Like the love that God gives (to the Son and to His people), He offers it, and we reciprocate it by offering it back. Or in a marriage where a husband offers his love to his wife, and she loves him back. There does not seem to be anything sacrilegious about offering to God what He offers to us. If anything, it seems to be the best way to grow in faith and love and to further develop our relationship with Him.
The council of Trent has the eucharistic theology that the "Priest on behalf of the People offers the son in an unbloody representation to appease the Father" which leads to and endless cycle of Christ being represented and re appeasing the Father. Lutherans view Christ's sacrifice as a ome time event in which we participate in during the eucharist when he gives his death on the cross to use in a sacremental manner. We do not represent him, he partake of his one sacrifice which spans all of eternity. The difference is pretty much inversion. In Romanism the priest appeases the Father with the eucharist, in Evangelical Catholicism the Son presents his sacrifice to us in which we can share in for the remission of our sins in a sacremental way.
I'm sorry, friend. But that is not the Catholic belief. There are two particular issues with what you are claiming about the Catholic belief. The first is that God requires "appeasement." This is simply untrue of an all-loving and all-powerful God. To clarify, the sacrifice of the mass is not represented, as in it must occur over and over, for God's approval or appeasement. Which leads me to the second issue. God exists outside of time and space. What that means is that He sees His Son on the cross in the year 33AD at the exact same moment as the priest holding up the Eucharist today in 2024. He sees all of humanity ever to exsist, all at once. It's the same sacrifice to God because God doesn't exist on a timeline like you and I do. So, to that end, yes, the sacrifice is and was made once for all eternity. The Catholic view is and always has been that it is once and for all. May God bless you, friend!
@@WaterMelon-Cat I'd also like to make one more distinction that will help you better dialog with Catholics from any Rite. What you referred to as "Romanism" is the Latin Rite, or more commonly, Roman Catholic. There's also the Alexandrian Rite, West Syrian (Antiochene) Rite, Armenian Rite, East Syrian (Chaldean) Rite, and the Byzantine Rite. All of whom are Catholics, too, and believe the same thing as the Latin right. I just wanted to make that distinction since you called it "Romanism." Peace be with you, friend!
@@A_Guido_Lost_In_The_Woods I know of the 20 something rites of the church. Funnily enough besides the Latin rite most do not require priestly celibacy. When I say “Romanist” I mean anyone who adheres to the Roman Catholic Church, under the Roman Pontiff. I myself as an Evangelical catholic, wish to be called catholic, as I am a catholic. Rome is within the catholic universal church, but I make a distinction because I do not see the RCC as the proper holder of the continuation of the Catholic title
Pr. Weedon, again thank you for your love and enthusiasm for Christ. I nedd to point out again, though that you are gravely misrepresenting Catholic teaching on justification. You quote church fathers and Pope Benedict using the phrase faith alone as if this is something that is against Catholic teaching and also that Catholics teach salvation by works. Neither could be further from the truth and is a great misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. Faith alone is 100% Catholic teaching when understood correctly and Catholics in no way teach salvation by works. As a former Confessional LCMS Lutheran, I can honestly say it was a deep dive into the topic of justification that led me to the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran, I had been taught many things about the Catholic Church that ended up simply not being true. I also found out that many of the key ideas for the Lutheran approach to justification were simply not found in the Church before the Reformation. Conversely, you can find ample historical evidence of the Catholic view of justification throughout the different eras of the Church. I strongly recommend any Protestants to take the time and learn more about what Catholics actually teach about justification (from Catholic sources!), because you are likely to find it is not what you think they teach. One common misconception in particular, is that Catholics are pelagians or semipelagians. They are in no way shape or form either, and have many Church documents and councils that condemn these positions. After my research, I now think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories: 1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics). 2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics). 3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis) 4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes. **I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy**. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace". Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification: "A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within man)... where none was conceded before. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification, is defined as the alien righteousness of Christ, external to man and imputed to him, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to him… It is clearly of importance to account for this new understanding of the nature of justifying righteousness, with its associated conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification. Attempts on the part of an earlier generation of Protestant apologists to defend this innovation as a recovery of the authentic teaching of Augustine, and of their Catholic opponents to demonstrate that it constituted a vestige of a discredited and ossified Ockhamism, can no longer be taken seriously. It is the task of the historian to account for this new development, which marks a complete break with the tradition up to this point." (McGrath, Allister E. 1986. lustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (1st Ed. Vol. 2). Cambridae University Press.) The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external. In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126* These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127* The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on . *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127* In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct. Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135* I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him. "A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186) God bless!
I enjoyed this! Thanks for the interview. Question for any Lutheran viewers, could you elaborate or point me to any resources that will clarify what Pastor Weedon said about the differences between Lutheran and RC/EO views on the Eucharist? The reason I ask is that I’ve been attending orthodox liturgies for about two years now, and what I’ve been taught is that the Eucharist is both an offering from the people and then a received sacrifice from God when the elements are consecrated. Making present the one sacrifice of Christ, exactly as Ps Weedon said. I’m curious how the Lutherans see this, considering Ps. Weedon says the Eucharist is *not* a sacrifice from the people. Do Lutherans not physically raise the bread and wine to God in their liturgy? Do they genuinely not see the bread and wine as something brought TO the grace of God by the congregation? Thanks in advance!!
The Lutheran Confessions affirm the Eucharist as a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" made by the people to God. However, the main part of the Eucharist is Christ's once for all sacrifice on the altar of the cross, as both the priest and the victim, given for the sins of the world. The main action of the sacrament is Christ giving the Church his true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. In other words, the Eucharist is a means of grace by which God gives his gift of salvation to the people, to be received by faith.
@@pax-domini Thanks for the clarification! Sounds like the two positions may be a bit closer than the very brief mention in the interview makes it sound. :) Of course, that wasn't really the purpose of the conversation so I'm sure Ps. Weedon is knowledgable about that similarity. As a follow-up question, do the Confessions teach that the Eucharist makes present the sacrifice of Christ in a temporal sense? Or do they lean closer to the Reformed understanding of real presence? (Apologies if that doesn't make sense, typing while walking lol)
@@TheBillyDWilliams To my knowledge, the Lutheran emphasis is on the immediate application of the benefits of Christ’s redemption. It makes the sacrifice temporally present in that sense, so it’s not a mere remembrance of a past event.
The Romanist understanding as of Trent is that the eucharist is "a representation of an unbloody sacrifice, made on behalf of the Priest to appease the Father" basically the priest represents Jesus/eucharist to appease the Father. The issue Lutherans have with this is it means Christ is endlessly sacrificed. Lutherans view his sacrifice as a one time event, in which we can participate in during the mass. But it a reoccurring participation in the one sacrifice, not a representation to the Father.
I went to Lutheran school for a long time. Rarely did we use the bible but we spent most of the time in a catechism. Way too close to RC. Later I found the inspired Word of GOD, never went outside of what HE has given to us all and am in a bible believing independant baptist church
Yep, generally closer to the truth than those heretical groups. But still not close enough for me. I'd have to be quite desperate to try a Lutheran church, but then where I am they are not much chop at all and there are very few of them.
A millimeter is not close enough, one has to be perfectly spot on. Our soul depends on it. There is only one truth of God, not multiple variations of haft truths and falsehoods.
@@jeannebouwman1970 God is all merciful but also a strict disciplinarian, like a loving father. "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
I’m a Catholic (raised LCMS) and enjoyed the dialogue. I did notice you doing what you warned to watch out for, that is, cherry-picking from the Church fathers. You are right, as you demonstrated from Pope Benedict, Lutherans and Catholics are much closer on justification than Luther or his contemporaries would have liked to admit.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
how about you just "become" born again because you were not redeemed by the vain conversations of your admired men and traditions of your fathers... that NO ONE should puff himself up one against the other.. But you were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Seeing you have purified your souls *_in obeying the truth...being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God_* which liveth and abideth for ever but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
I would think Lutherans wanting to change would more likely go to Anglican since it is so similar. Going Catholic or Orthodox is a much deeper dive into theology.
The Anglican 39 articles are far more reformed theology than the Anglo-Catholics. It depends what you quantify as Anglican. I would rather go to Romanism than reformed theology. I would rather go Anglo-Catholic than Reformed Anglo
@@WittenbergScholastic the 39 Articles are more reformed theology such as the spiritual presence in the Eucharist. The 39 articles of the Anglican Church are not the same as the previous Anglo-Catholic beliefs. So if you hold the BoC then you can’t believe the 39 articles.
@@run4cmtSorry to hear it. I don't accept Lutheran or Anglican, but I am saddened what is occuring within Christianity and also the secular society in general.
Those historic liturgies were all ad orientum. This is not accurate to say that ancient church fathers would recognize a high church lutheran mass. Maybe in 1517 they would, but not today, not even close
Not really. When the ancient liturgy of St.James (which is earlier than the liturgy of St. John Chrisostom) is celebrated in the Orthodox Church at some times in the year, it is done versus populum, and the Holy Table is placed outside the iconostasis. Is this telling of an ancient practice?
The prayer to Mary is hard for modern Western minds to accept because the East sidnt write in the same tyoe of way. The West tends to write statements of faith, even in their hymns. These statements are forthcoming, and though they do contain bits of poetry, overall, the poetry mindset is very different. The East compacts deep meaning in their words. Its never right on the surface. Much like when reading Isaiah, without understanding its all pointing to Christ, you may miss the meaning. The prayer to Mary is pointing to Christ. All the attributes contributing to her are because of Christ.
The Liturgy mirrors Christ's liturgical role in heaven. Christ offers the prayers of the saints in heaven and on earth on His heavenly altar, while the saints and angels partake in this heavenly Liturgy. This is offered by Christ to the entire Trinity, and involves the partaking of the heavenly Church. The exact same is true of the Liturgy on earth, in which the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered to the entire Trinity. Hence St. John Chrysostom's Liturgy reads "thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee, on behalf of all, and for all." This is also why the Liturgy has always been held ad orientem, and why the serving of the Eucharist takes place ad populum. If what Weedon says is true, and the sacrifice and Liturgy are solely for us, why is the Lutheran Divine Service still celebrated ad orientem, even as Rome today in the vast majority of cases does not replicate this?
Lutheran's seem very divided. Which synod is the authority? There's the Missouri Synod, the ECLA, and others. It doesn't appear there is anything universal about the Lutheran Church .
The ELCA was excommunicated from the LCMS for being higher critical revisionists half a century ago. The AALC and LCMS are in communion. WELS has the same theology just a stricter polity policy. Pretty much all the major branches LCMS, LCC, WELS, AALC are in communion or share resources. ELCA and their off shoots were excommunicated so you can't really lump them in.
The Book of Concord and the Augsburg Confession, along with the Bible. We do not have a pope for authority which is not Biblical. The ELCA does not have much in common with the LCMS.
12:37 Orthodox reality = Orthodox ideal We don’t change… You can go to an EO Church in another country and you’ll feel at home because it is the same You can transport back in time 1,000 years and feel at home because it is the same…
If anyone did just a tiny amount of research into Martin Luther they would run from his church. Lloyd De Jongh has multiple videos on Luther. He's RCC and I'm EO so I don't agree with him there but he's dead on about Luther. ruclips.net/video/OsH2NXV-D74/видео.html
35:23 The Orthodox are the priesthood of believers. We take what is given to us and offer it back to Him! This is what priests do! Liturgia means public work! This is our job! Lutherans do not have Apostolic ordination so maybe this is not a possibility in Lutheranism!
The Lutheran Confessions argue the bishop-presbyter distinction of offices is not by divine right (in agreement with St. Jerome), but is merely a human custom that arose to address needs in the Christian Church. The "bishop, presbyter, deacon" model was eventually further expanded to include archbishop, metropolitan, patriarch, pope, etc. In light of these developments throughout Church history, the Lutheran Confessions affirm the desire to retain the episcopate (although unnecessary in itself) because it was helpful for the unity and order of the Christian Church. Episcopal polity is considered "adiaphora," that is, "indifferent;" being neither commanded by God nor forbidden. To require the episcopate would be to violate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, because in the Bible the offices of bishop and presbyter are synonymous and used interchangeably.
This endless debate between Protestant and Catholic has led my wife right out of the Christian faith. Nice job guys. I'm kinda wondering if anybody knows what they're talking about myself. Everybody has a video with a debunking video right behind it all with scripture to back up whatever the stance is. You are literally killing the faith of new believers. Thanks for that
She committed apostasy, her decision. There is near infinite knowledge accessible on the Internet. Instead of studying and choosing a church she apostacised because she never tended to her faith.
@@WaterMelon-Cat you're a clown. we looked past infantile doctrinal disputes and the humans that partake in them and looked to the teachings of Jesus. We will be attending Mass Sunday. Don't be a religious fool. Instead of words of encouragement or redemption you throw accusations of apostasy as your immediate response. YOU are part of the problem. You have no part in the redemptive nature of our Saviour. I'm curious. How many hours a day do you study the scripture and church history?
I just find it so difficult to abide by sola scriptura and the rest of the solas descending from the first. If Luther had said, "Hey these are 5 really, really important tenets of the faith," I could be onboard. But, as an example, key bible verses are ignored, or at the very least minimized and rationalized into some universal idea instead of a pointed directive. Examples include Peter being the rock foundation of the church, Peter as leader of the apostles (don't say Paul because he argued, we all argue with the pope today), Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant, purgatory ideas throughout both testaments (though Luther in his pride and for no other reason threw out 7 books from the OT - you try to do that), Mary as Queen of Heaven as is the Jewish history of the king mother being queen, not his wife, apostles appointing successors and priests (eg, Matthias to replace Judas) as ordination and apostolic succession, the entire theme of the Visitation and its parallels to David dancing in front of the Ark, the logic observation: Jesus is God - Mary if Jesus' mother - ergo Mary is the Mother of God. I can go on and on and on..... The bottom line here is that Lutheranism is true if: All "priests" have apostolic succession, if it has fully the 7 sacraments, if it has a leader aka Peter's position, if it has an infallible teaching Magisterium and Councils. As a start. Then, you have me.
Most of your comment was either pridefully ignorant or willingly bearing false witness. Literally every church besides the Romanists interpret St. Peter's confession the same way (Not an infallible autocrat) not to mention both Scripture and church history explicity name St. James the Just as the leader of the first ecumenical council, the council of Jerusalem. According to Romanist dogma, a council is only binding if binded by a Pope. Scripture disproves this assertion by clearing showing St. James the just binded the decision of the council (which confirms that all the Apostles, not just St. Peter was given the keys). Also what type of purgatory ? There is no dogmatic or consistent version of purgatory either now, nor in the past. Purgatory is dogma, but only in existence. The mode of presence is debated heavily and each church father had a totally different idea on what exactly purgatory is, because the mode was never dogmatically defined. I have never seen a Lutheran get bothered by the Theotokos being called "Mother of God' we affirm that as per the ecumenical councils, Queen of heaven is different. God does not share his monarchy. Also Lutherans have apostolic sucession. Luther was a validly ordained Augustinian Monk, the European Lutheran church still practises the laying on of hands by the bishop during ordination. In the North American church the Presbyters of the equivalent of a Bishop does the laying on of hands. This was seen all through history, especially during hereseys when bishops were corrupt and ordination relied on Presbyters. Luther also never removed any books. The Lutheran Bibles contained all books. Luthers personally German translation had these deutero canonical books in a intermediary location between the Old and New Testament, but the books were still present for over 100 years after Luthers death. It was not until after Luthers passing that the deuterocannon was removed and the Jewish cannon was implemented. That being said there is still many Lutheran commentaries on the deutero canon. The issue is that the books seem to be more so partially inspired and not fully preserved.
@@WaterMelon-Cat Such rationalizations. There is no denying that Peter was/is the leader of the apostles, the decision-maker, as in the circumcision debate. There is no question that Mary is the ark and arc of the bible: enmity between the serpent and the Woman; Mary full of grace and all generations call blessed; Mary in Revelation 12. And, Luther did remove 7 books - where did they go, they simply disappeared? Yes, purgation is throughout scripture, we do not know its nature or how long it takes. And the sacraments: lacking Transubstantiation, lacking confession, lacking true ordination and - yes - lacking apostolic succession, makes all protestantism incoherent.
@@garyworth6046 it is rather clear you are just here to bear false witness and feel prideful. I provided actual references and evidence. Your refutation was “nuh uh” like a school child. Who binded the first ecumenical council ?.. it literally says directly in scripture 😂. God gave you a brain yet you fail to use it
@@WaterMelon-Cat How am I bearing false witness? The first council was at Nicea around 325AD. It targeted arianism, Christ's divinity, and the Creed, among other topics. Read church history and the writings of the fathers, who helped establish scriptural interpretations. I literally hate it when someone blindly retorts "Where is that in the bible?" Bible along with tradition and the infallible magisterium are the THREE infallible sources you need to read.
@@garyworth6046 the first Christian council was the council of Jerusalem. Both the sacred Scriptures and church tradition tell us that. It literally says that in the book of acts (which you never read) it also says shows St. James the Just presiding over it and binding. Learn how to cope without shutting your brain off and denying anything that disproves you
Haven't read it, you should provide it if you bring it up otherwise it's playground talk. I do know however that writings are like X-rays, it's only a snapshot of that spot in time. Meaning if you wrote down that God is not real as a child it does not mean you are bound to that view forever, you can in fact change your mind after.
@@Gondor149 "Thirdly. A whole sea of questions is here agitated as to what that "image" of God was in which Moses here says man was formed. Augustine has dwelt largely on the explanation of this passage in his book "On the Trinity." Those divines in general, who retain the division and definition of Aristotle, follow Augustine. They consider the image of God to be those powers of soul, memory, mind or intellect and will. They affirm that the image of God consists in these three qualities; which image, they say, is found in all men. And their argument is, that as in divine things the Word is begotten of the substance of the Father, and as the Holy Spirit is the complacency or good pleasure of the Father, so in man from the memory proceeds the word of the heart, which is the mind of the man; which word being uttered there is developed the will, which will the mind beholds and with which it is delighted. These divines affirm moreover that "the similitude," after which man was formed, stands in gratuitous gifts. For as a similitude is a certain perfectness of an image, so, they say, the created nature of man is perfected by grace. According to their views therefore the "similitude" of God in man consists in his memory being adorned with hope, his intellect with faith and his will with love. It is in this manner, they assert, that man is created in the image of God; that man has a mind, a memory and a will. Again they state the sacred matter thus: Man is created after the "similitude" of God; that is, his intellect is illuminated by faith, his memory is confirmed by hope and constancy, and his will is adorned with love. Fourthly. Divines give other divisions and definitions of the qualities of this "image" of God, in which man was originally created. They hold that memory is the image of the power of God, mind the image of his wisdom and will the image of his justice. It was after this manner that Augustine, and after him others, bent their minds on the discovery of certain trinities of natural qualities or endowments in man. For they thought that by this mode of explanation, the image of God in man would be the more clearly seen. These not unpleasing speculations do indeed argue faithful employment and great acuteness of mental ability, but they by no means aid the right explanation of this "image" of God." SOURCE: www.gutenberg.org/files/48193/48193-h/48193-h.htm#sect28 Section 28
Luther is not a prophet and were are not "followers" of Luther. He was a man that got some things wrong. We follow the Book of Concord, the Augsburg Confession and the Bible.
Martin Luther wanted to take 4 books out of the New Testament. I wonder why? Take a look into the Eastern Orthodox Church, THE TRUE CHURCH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Without Apostolic Succession, you have no valid priesthood. Since Luther was not a Bishop, he certainly did not have any authority to ordain anybody for anything. Without a valid priesthood, you do not have the Eucharist. You can no more consecrate the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ than I can. As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes. You cannot go any further back than October 31, 1517.
"As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes." Okay, let's take one dogma proposed by the RCC and analyse that in the fathers: the immaculate conception of Mary. Let's see: “What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she had experienced scandal during the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified by his grace and redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized by this moment. This is what Simeon is prophesying about…. Your soul will be pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of doubt” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7). “not even his brothers believed in him” [John 7:5]) and Jesus’ question in Matthew 12:48: “What are mother and brothers to me?” He affirms, over and against Apelles and Marcion, Jesus’ genuine nativity, but has no hesitation in including Mary along with his brothers as unbelieving and the object of his rebukes: “when denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults.” Evidently Tertullian is not aware that this is a controversial opinion. He even goes so far as to see Mary as a symbol of the unbelieving synagogue that rejected Christ: “in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7.) “Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man-to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ” (Basil, Letter 260.9). “And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach” (Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3). “if this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?” (Hilaty, Tractatus in Ps. 118). “conceived in iniquity in accordance with human practice”(Fulgentius of Ruspe, [Epistula 17.13]).
@@matheusdabnei5540 Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book III ch 22.4 [120-180 AD] In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise "they were both naked, and were not ashamed," inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelledby the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, "instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee." For the Lord, having been born "the First-begotten of the dead," and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John book 1 ch 6 (185-254 ad) For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus,
@@matheusdabnei5540 Origen Commentary on Matthew book 7 ch 34 (185-254) 34. MEANING OF "UNTIL." NO LIMITATION OF PROMISE. [+] But since some one may think that the promise of the Saviour prescribes a limit of time to their not tasting of death, namely, that they will not taste of death "until" they see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom. but after this will taste of it, let us show that according to the scriptural usage the word "until" signifies that the time concerning the thing signified is pressing, but is not so defined that after the "until," that which is contrary to the thing signified should at all take place. Now, the Saviour says to the eleven disciples when He rose from the dead, this among other things, "Lo, I am with you all the days, even until the consummation of the age." When He said this, did He promise that He was going to be with them until the consummation of the age, but that after the consummation of the age, when another age was at hand, which is "called the age to come," He would be no longer with them?--so that according to this, the condition of the disciples would be better before the consummation of the age than after the consummation of the age? But I do not think that any one will dare to say, that after the consummation of the age the Son of God will be no longer with the disciples, because the expression declares that He will be with them for so long, until the consummation of the age is at hand; for it is clear that the matter under inquiry was, whether the Son of God was forthwith going to be with His disciples before the age to come and the hoped for promises of God which were given as a recompense. But there might have been a question--it being granted that He would be with them--whether sometimes He was present with them, and sometimes not present. Wherefore setting us free from the suspicion that might have arisen from doubt, He declared that now and even all the days He would be with the disciples, and that He would not leave those who had become His disciples until the consummation of the age; (because He said "all the days" He did not deny that by night, when the sun set, He would be present with them.) But if such is the force of the words, "until the consummation of the age," plainly we shall not be compelled to admit that those who see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom shall taste of death, after being deemed worthy of beholding Him in such guise. But as in the case of the passage we brought forward, the urgent necessity was to teach us that "until the consummation of the age" He would not leave us but be with us all the days; so also in this case I think that it is clear to those who know how to look at the logical coherence of things that He who has seen once for all glory," and seen "the kingdom of God come with power," could not possibly taste of death after the contemplation of things so good and great. But apart from the word of the promise of Jesus, we have conjectured not without reason that we would taste of death, so long as we were not yet held worthy to see "the kingdom of God come with power," and "the Son of man coming in His own glory and in His own kingdom."
@@matheusdabnei5540 Origen Against Celsus book 1 ch 34 (185-254) Now, if a Jew should split words, and say that the words are not, "Lo, a virgin," but, "Lo, a young woman," we reply that the word "Olmah"--which the Septuagint have rendered by "a virgin," and others by "a young woman"--occurs, as they say, in Deuteronomy, as applied to a "virgin," in the following connection: "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he humbled his neighbour's wife." And again: "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in a field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel ye shall do nothing; there is in her no sin worthy of death."
@@matheusdabnei5540 Gregory Thaumaturgus Four Homilies 4th homily (213-275ad) But Thou, being born of the Virgin Mary, as Thou didst will, and as Thou alone dost know, didst not do away with her virginity; but Thou didst keep it, and didst simply gift her with the name of mother: and neither did her virginity preclude Thy birth, nor did Thy birth injure her virginity. But these two things, so utterly opposite--bearing and virginity--harmonized with one intent; for such a thing abides, possible with Thee, the Framer of nature.
It´s important to reject the truth and embrace the guidance of the guy who slaughtered peasants and have him be as the denominator of your church instead of Jesus Christ.
New Romanist propaganda just dropped ! "Luther slayed peasants" that is rich. I see bearing falsewitness is no longer a sin to you. This reminds me of how the Vatican put a death order on Joh Huss. Such a godly Christian thing to do
Why follow the popes and the blood shed they unleashed in the Middle Ages? If you think Lutherans follow Luther, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Fascinating. This Lutheran looked into Orthodoxy and was shocked it wasn’t Lutheranism.
Pastor Whedon’s interview with Matt Whitman planted the seed of confessional Lutheranism in my mind. A few years down the road and I’ve been confirmed into a Lutheran church. His testimony is an asset to God’s Church.
Same
Soon me as well brother
When Pr. Weedon boldly proclaimed, "We ARE the Western Catholic Church, cleansed by the Gospel", that was my introduction to Confessional Lutheranism, and it completely blew my mind *mind blown*. I love it, and I'm joyful you have him on.
Same. Confirmed March 2024.
Without Apostolic Succession, you have no valid priesthood. Since Luther was not a Bishop, he certainly did not have any authority to ordain anybody for anything.
Without a valid priesthood, you do not have the Eucharist. You can no more consecrate the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ than I can.
As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes. You cannot go any further back than October 31, 1517.
Smh that’s silly
@@georgepierson4920the Roman priesthood isn’t even biblical.
@@georgepierson4920What about the lutherans in scandinavia who were roman bishops
As I’ve stated numerous times. Pr. Weedon was incredibly pivotal in my own walk. God bless this man!
What a treat! So looking forward to this interview. Pr Weedon is one of the gems of the LCMS.
Also on a side note, just a recommendation for a potential future interview; Joshua Schooping who was an EO priest is now an LCMS pastor. Might be another fun interview. Thanks for all the work you do, Javier!
He’s LCMS now? I thought he was with the Christian Missionary Alliance? And I heard something about him going Presbyterian at some point, but I could be totally wrong on that.
Dude’s hard to keep track of haha
@@TheBillyDWilliams Yeah he’s LCMS now. He’s been an LCMS pastor for a couple of months now. I was also quite surprised when I found out he became Lutheran. If you look at his RUclips channel under the name Joshua Schooping, you can see his sermons as an LCMS pastor. He also includes his church in the bio to the videos.
Wow!!!! Hallelujah, I didn’t know that. What wonderful news🙏🏻
Wow, I thought Schooping was Reformed. If he’s LCMS that’s awesome!
@@unit2394 Yeah I thought he was Reformed for the longest of time as well. Then I saw a video of his pop up where he was in a chasuble and I nearly leapt out of my seat lol. Issues etc put out a news letter with an article on his journey to confessional Lutheranism today.
This video is amazing! Pastor Weedon fantastically addresses every issue of concern while continuously working a Gospel-centered and joyous traditional Lutheran theology into every answer. This made my day. Thank you for this and God bless!
Pastor Weeden was so instrumental in helping me wrestle with which church to go to . Thank you. After being drawn to orthodoxy and struggling with some aspects of it I found my home in the Lcms traditional church. One year anniversary this month
@@lindsaypeek63 Please feel free to reach out via Twitter if you'd be interested in sharing your own story on my channel 🙂
Love Pastor Weedon … you should ABSOLUTELY have Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller on and interview him. Pastor Wolfmueller and Dr. Jordan Cooper were of tremendous help for me when I became a Lutheran
"Revisiting the Sacrifice of the Mass" is one of the best and concise articles from rev. Weedon that introduced me to the path towards the confessional lutheran faith. I'm thankful!
Greetings from Brazil!
Without Apostolic Succession, you have no valid priesthood. Since Luther was not a Bishop, he certainly did not have any authority to ordain anybody for anything.
Without a valid priesthood, you do not have the Eucharist. You can no more consecrate the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ than I can.
As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes. You cannot go any further back than October 31, 1517.
@@georgepierson4920"As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes."
Okay, let's take one dogma proposed by the RCC and analyse that in the fathers: the immaculate conception of Mary. Let's see:
“What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she had experienced scandal during the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified by his grace and redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized by this moment. This is what Simeon is prophesying about…. Your soul will be pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of doubt” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7).
“not even his brothers believed in him” [John 7:5]) and Jesus’ question in Matthew 12:48: “What are mother and brothers to me?” He affirms, over and against Apelles and Marcion, Jesus’ genuine nativity, but has no hesitation in including Mary along with his brothers as unbelieving and the object of his rebukes: “when denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults.” Evidently Tertullian is not aware that this is a controversial opinion. He even goes so far as to see Mary as a symbol of the unbelieving synagogue that rejected Christ: “in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7.)
“Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man-to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ” (Basil, Letter 260.9).
“And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach” (Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3).
“if this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?” (Hilaty, Tractatus in Ps. 118).
“conceived in iniquity in accordance with human practice”(Fulgentius of Ruspe, [Epistula 17.13]).
"As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes."
Okay, let's take one dogma proposed by the RCC and analyse that in the fathers: the immaculate conception of Mary. Let's see:
“What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she had experienced scandal during the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified by his grace and redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized by this moment. This is what Simeon is prophesying about…. Your soul will be pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of doubt” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7).
“not even his brothers believed in him” [John 7:5]) and Jesus’ question in Matthew 12:48: “What are mother and brothers to me?” He affirms, over and against Apelles and Marcion, Jesus’ genuine nativity, but has no hesitation in including Mary along with his brothers as unbelieving and the object of his rebukes: “when denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults.” Evidently Tertullian is not aware that this is a controversial opinion. He even goes so far as to see Mary as a symbol of the unbelieving synagogue that rejected Christ: “in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7.)
“Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man-to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ” (Basil, Letter 260.9).
“And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach” (Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3).
“if this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?” (Hilaty, Tractatus in Ps. 118).
“conceived in iniquity in accordance with human practice”(Fulgentius of Ruspe, [Epistula 17.13]).
@@georgepierson4920cry
I didn’t realize there were Lutheran churches in Brazil! Based on the news I presumed it was all evangelicals and Catholics. The more you know 😊
WILL WEEDON! So awesome you have him as guest.
Pastor Weedon is pure gold! Thanks for having him on your show.
Javier, I really need to applaud your interviewing skills. You really are up to date on contemporary protestant/catholic/EO dialogue online, and what struggle people are facing. This interview really let Father Weedon hit some good points on contemporary issues. Fantastic job!
"The Greeks [Orthodox] ... are not heretics or schismatics but the most Christian people and the best followers of the Gospel on earth."
Source: Martin Luther (1999). Vol. 32: Luther's Works, vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II
So why shouldn't I stay EO then?
Luther looked up to the east for its resistance of Rome. He also wasn’t looking to start another church. The east came, still didn’t like our theology which is unapologetically western and said no. Why you should become Lutheran. Well for your own salvation there is zero need for you to become Lutheran. If you want a tradition seeped in the Gregorian mass which is older then that of most eastern liturgies, less altered then when it was first sung, key word sung in Rome, a theology that will always point to and declare to you the gospel because it’s something we need to be reminded of every single day. That shows you how much you must depend on Christ, and shares with you your sinfulness in need of the mercy of Christ, you should become Lutheran.
A great conversation. I love everything I have seen from Pastor Weedon!
Oh look! Another comments section full of papists who didnt watch the video, or aren't interested in productive dialogue
What kind of dialogue would you deem productive with Catholics?
Tbf, I get called papists by people like you and I ain't even Catholic
Bro you destroyed the church
And you claim it was the will of the holy spirit
You made jesus à liar and à polygamous
@@Pat.hibuleire case and point.
If you think Papists are insufferable, I'm guessing you've never met EO converts.
As a Calvinistic Baptist pastor and missionary, I'm deeply grateful for the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. I was blessed to learn the gospel in one of their schools as a young child.
Then why did you become Baptist? The Baptists get baptism and The Lord's Supper completely wrong. They miss the gifts God brings to us in those sacraments.
Respectfully, Pr. Weedon, you are not accurately portraying the teaching of the Catholic Church on the sacrifice of the mass. I do first want to say I really appreciate your love and enthusiasm for Christ, and was a close follower of your work back when I was LCMS.
I have to say in my conversion process from LCMS to the Catholic Church, there were so many things I found out were incorrectly taught to me from Lutherans about Catholic doctrine. This is a perfect example.
You said that Rome focuses on the Eucharist as something that we offer up to God and said this is in contrast to the Lutheran view that the Eucharist is a gift from God to us and His work inside of us that we simply receive. This is a classic case of either/or thinking and completely ignores the overwhelming amount of Catholic Church teaching that Eucharist is a both a sacrifice and a sacramental gift that God gives to us to give us His grace. This is most certainly why the Catholic Church teaches the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith (Vatican II) because it is a representation of God offering Himself to Himself on our behalf (the sacrifice) and also God infusing His grace inside of us through the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood (the gift of grace). To say Catholics ignore the latter is about as big of a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine as one could make.
In so many Church documents will you find presentations of both modes of the Eucharist, but here are just two brief summaries from the current Catechism:
1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.231 By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him:
1407 The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church's life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church.
The topic of the sacrificial nature of the mass is large. It is really too bad that Lutherans don't readily admit their position that often just outright denies the sacrificial nature all together is not very historical.
First, I would also point out that when learning more about Catholic history and theology and the deep connections the liturgy and Eucharist have to the old testament modes of liturgy (viz. Temple Theology) it starts to become very clear why the Church historically has always seen the Eucharist in a sacrificial manner. It is the fulfillment of the Old Temple sacrifices into the once and for all, forever and through all time, sacrifice of God to Himself on our behalf.
This also has a very interesting connection to theological work of people like Dr. John Bergsma who highlight that the Essenes (in research from Dead Sea Scrolls) anticipated a future, where a divinely instituted Thanksgiving Sacrifice (or Eucharistic sacrifice) would be instituted by God to replace the temple sacrifices.
Here is just a small sample of other historical references to the Mass/Eucharist as a sacrifice. Note especially this goes all the way back to the Didache, one of the earliest known Christian documents.
THE DIDACHE
“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23-24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
POPE CLEMENT I
“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4-5 [A.D. 80]).
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice-even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
“Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need” (Catechetical Lectures 23:7-8 [A.D. 350]).
AMBROSE OF MILAN
“We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered” (Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389]).
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
“When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]).
“Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the sacrificial victim who is placed thereon!” (Homilies on Romans 8:8 [A.D. 391]).
“‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthy and awesomely does he [Paul] say it. For what he is saying is this: What is in the cup is that which flowed from his side, and we partake of it. He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise him in song, wondering and astonished at his indescribable gift, blessing him because of his having poured out this very gift so that we might not remain in error; and not only for his having poured it out, but also for his sharing it with all of us. ‘If therefore you desire blood,’ he [the Lord] says, ‘do not redden the platform of idols with the slaughter of dumb beasts, but my altar of sacrifice with my blood.’ What is more awesome than this? What, pray tell, more tenderly loving?” (Homilies on First Corinthians 24:1(3) [A.D. 392]).
“In ancient times, because men were very imperfect, God did not scorn to receive the blood which they were offering . . . to draw them away from those idols; and this very thing again was because of his indescribable, tender affection. But now he has transferred the priestly action to what is most awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the butchering of dumb beasts, he commands the offering up of himself” (ibid., 24:2).
“What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice” (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3(6) [A.D. 403]).
AUGUSTINE
“In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness” (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]).
“For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it” (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).
God bless!
As a former Lutheran leaning person (I didn't have a confessional Lutheran church locally, otherwise I would have attended one) who turned Roman Catholic I can only agree with what you have posted. Lutheranism seems very inviting, because you don't need to care about the problems the church had. But once you go through actual church history what one perceives as cleansed Catholicism is not what it appears. Luther had not the underdog the early church or St. Augustine who he had admired. Also the Catholic church and the reformation did not happen as we see it propagated very often. There is a lot of nuance and false caricatures that are believed instead.
A "representation of an unbloody sacrifice by the priest, to appeas the Father" is far different than the Lutheran understanding of participation in the one time sacrifice brought to us.
@@WaterMelon-Cat Agreed. My contention with Pr. Weedon's presentation here is that he gravely misrepresented the position of the Catholic Church and created a false dichotomy with either the Eucharist is solely a gift from God to us to convey grace or it a sacrificial offering of the people to God. The Catholic position and the position of all of Church history (see my original post) is it is both/and.
God bless!
@@metaphysika- hear hear! Well said and properly and thoroughly backed up with citation.
@@metaphysika there are lots of false doctrines in the Catholic church; veneration of Mary, praying to saints, use of tradition instead of following the Bible, the Pope as sole authority, the clergy not able to marry., the preaching of works saving,Sacraments like marriage that are not Biblical. Catholics are my Christian brothers and sisters, but the Catholic church is not without errors.
Awesome talk. How about "Pastor Weedon Interview Part 2!" Who's with me?
Heck yeah. That would be awesome.
Javier, I love your channel i can’t believe you had Weedon on your show. Fantastic!!!!!
Great interview! I learned a lot and I know so many were blessed by this.
Thank you for having Pr. Weedon on! I'm proud to have him as a member of our synod! I know he has helped countless souls wrestling with these issues through his interviews, podcasts and writings. I've heard anecdotally from many people that he is very generous in responding to emails from strangers wrestling with these questions. As usual, I can see comments on this thread from Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that aren't addressing the points he made but rather are lobbying the same assertions without proof. Did they even hear the whole interview or do they just recycle the same old talking points about the canon, Luther creating a new church and so forth???
@ClintnRebeccaWarner Thank you for watching!
Unfortunately, many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox commenters do not take the time to watch or engage with the points made in a lot of the videos I put out (although I deeply appreciate the ones who do try to engage based on the substance of a given video).
A lot of them simply come in and start repeating their usual Luther slander and anti-Protestant mantras over and over again as though that were an argument lol
@@javierperd2604a fair argument is that Protestantism is neither One, Holy, Catholic, nor Apostolic.
Where do you go to ask questions?
@@javierperd2604 Agreed, that does seem to be the case. Keep up the good work and I pray that God will grant you wisdom and discernment as you decide which part of the Protestant umbrella you belong under!
@@lifematterspodcast The Lutherans are reformed Catholics. We took out what was not Biblical and did not paint to Jesus.. We are indeed Apostolic since Luther was an ordained priest.
Pastor Weeden does a great podcast called The Word Endures Forever, He is doing the Bible one book at a time.
Awesome podcast. I learn something new every episode.
Wow!!! I have enjoyed different guests stories, but this has been my favorite interview so far.
Always loved Pr. Weedon love for Christ.
I really enjoyed listening
To Dr. wheedon. His passion is very uplifting. As Anglican there was little difference I found with him. Though I would differ with him that elder and bishop were synonymous positions throughout the NT. While every bishop is indeed an elder not every elder is a bishop.I would highly recommend the book "captains and courts" by Bisho RAy Sutton. He makes a strong exegetical case that bishops and elders are distinct positions in the New Testament and not a post-apostolic development. Never the less, I would not take such a rigorist static position that Presbyterial succession is invalid. I would simply look at it as irregular. That does not mean it is optional. A concession should not be a prescriptive norm. As far as producing a list of bishops is concern, I won't need to produce such a thing for the reason I just stated. I also find it very interesting that that from the 2nd century till the 16th century that there are three distinct orders of ministry with no push back on the practice. Only one church father (Jerome 4th cent) states it was Custom but others claim it is of apostolic origin. This makes a more compelling case for it.
I have made an in-depth critique of the first part of this video (more to come):
Response to a Lutheran Apologetic (Pr. Will Weedon) #1 (Featuring Liturgy and the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Church Fathers) [11-11-24]
I didn't put a link, because so often that isn't allowed, but a word-search will easily find this.
God be Praised ... Kudos... and by the way if anyone knows of a Pastor (LCMS) that could come to Cape May County NJ please pray the Holy Spirit would thrust them to our county
Im really struggling i was confirmed lutheran left or just in a sense became agnostic in my early 20s im looking to return and feel very pulled to EO i just watched your video with reverend schoolp sorry if i have his name wrong but now im so torn!!
Become EO or Roman Catholic. Protestants don't have a valid mass.
I’m Orthodox but I like Lutheranism
thank you. great interview
Is this the same Lutheran from the channel of the guy who visits diff. churches?
Yes
@@SUPERDUPER_Wingaling Yup!
10-4
A breath of fresh air!!! Ευχαριστούμε, πάτερ Γουίλιαμ.
Cyril of Jerusalem doesn’t do much for demonstrating that Lutherans have apostolic succession based on the succession of teaching. For Cyril chrismation/confirmation is a sacrament and he refers to the consecration of the Supper as a sacrifice of propitiation, so on at least two very important doctrines Cyril is not in doctrinal (apostolic) succession with confessional Lutherans or most Protestant groups.
I wonder if you intentionally misrepresented what apostolic succession means or if you really don't have any clue what you are talking about.
@@jackwalters5506 I really like your Luther flower. If you want to spread the word of God through Lutheranism, please remember Proverbs 15:1, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." @georgeharrison1098 may very well have been incorrect, or misunderstood, but instead of attacking his way of presenting data I recommend that you explain why you believe that he's misrepresented his argument. Hope you both have a blessed day.
@jackwalters5506 - the only sense in which apostolic succession matters for Lutheran theology is doctrinal. Because this is the standard and because Cyril of Jerusalem can’t be said to be in harmony with Lutheranism doctrinally therefore attempting to use him and his teaching as testimony to authenticate Lutheranism as being in Apostolic succession fails.
The same can easily be demonstrated when one compares confessional Lutheran doctrine to that of Basil or Chrysostom, in fact they teach many things that Luther and his colleagues in reforming the western church deemed quite harmful to the faith.
Pastor Weedon is the man!
Confessional Lutheranism is the best! Proud Augsburg Catholic!
You abusé the catholic word
Shame on you
Go and read the church fathers and see if they shared your htesies
I prefer Evangelical Catholic. The first Lutheran churches were called Evangelical by the Lutherans themselves. It drives me crazy that the radical heretics in American have claimed the term. So I am in favor of reclaiming it.
Furthermore, by also correctly using Catholic, we can annoy another set of heretics. 😉
I prefer Evangelical Catholic. Mostly because the first Lutherans referred to their churches as Evangelical. It annoys me to now end that the Radical heretics in America have usurped this term.
Furthermore, by properly also using Catholic, we can annoy another group of heretics. 😉
@@stephenkneller9318 satan is the father of déception
According to modern dogma people like Pope St. Clement and even St. Thomas aquinas disagreed with modern day dogmatic positions. So according to your own logic yes, the church fathers are heretics. St. Clements view of justification contradicts the council of Trents ruling. Also St. Thomas Aquinas idea of how the immaculate conception worked is not within the acceptable definition of modern dogma. So he is a heretic as well. It is bearing false witness to say that all the church fathers believe what the modern Church believes
While it is certainly possible to make unfair comparisons between churches, it is certainly fair to compare one’s local Lutheran congregation to one’s local Orthodox parish and actually see what spiritual life is like from week to week between the two.
Such a comparison helps one avoid the trap of academic Lutheranism so often found online and theoretical Orthodoxy.
Good discussion, thanks.
What do we do with Mary?
Love and respect her would be a good start.
Good start and great ending. Honor and nothing more to the lady
This video is exactly what I need right now struggeling with ecclesiology!
I find this curious. This is the "new" Roman angle against Lutherans (and Anglicans I suppose) which is Apostolic Succession. But, if you read the Book of Concord, that was not a Roman objection to the Reformers at the time. The Roman arguments weren't about any sort of validity of Holy Orders, but about the nature of the Mass, which presupposes that Holy Orders weren't an issue in question. It was invented as a means of dismissing the Reformation at a later date. It's effectively an ex post facto objection to the Reformation where Rome insists on their interpretation of apostolic succession that requires adherence to the Bishop of Rome.
@@pete3397 Great point!
I'm fairly certain when saint basil argued against arianism. He didn't argue about valid apostolic succession.
He pointed out their heresy and their heresy deviated from that apostolic succession, so those who persisted in it lost anything they had by nature of the heresy.
They deviated from what was taught and invented their own ideas, using their own logic, and their understanding which they deem superior.
"We do not offer the Eucharist up to God"
Where exactly does the bread and wine that will become the body and blood of Christ come from then?
The Eucharist is the heat and soul of Orthodox Lutheranism. I look upon the host in my hand and I say “my Lord and my God”, which are the words Thomas spoke when he beheld the body of Christ.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 LCMS
Do you want the Eucharist or not? In the 1500's Martin Luther claimed there is such a thing as a Eucharist that is bread, wine, flesh and blood in substance in order to feed on Christ Spiritually and Physically. The Catholic and Orthodox are infallibly correct, according to Scripture alone, that the Eucharist is the Son of God's living flesh and blood in substance in order to feed on Christ Spiritually and Physically.
Martin Luther was a heretic
There should be a why be Lutheran instead of Pentecostal, Baptist, non denominational evangelical etc. Video. There’s a lot of Christian’s struggling to come out of that fog of evangelicalism.
@@richv3742 Thank you for the suggestion! I definitely plan on making a video like that, eventually.
None of those you mentioned have the Eucharist.
Is it maybe worth having the 'Protestant Umbrella Schpiel' prerecorded at this point?
Also a clip of Pr Weedon airing his frustration at Luther's pigheadedness at inconvenient times.
His mind, soul and spirit are beautiful, as is his room. Please get him some help to set up his camera so that he can continue to share his light in all ways.
What is the purpose of this channel? To prevent people from becoming RCC or EO?
To bring awareness to and clear up common misconceptions about Protestant denominations.
God bless the Lutheran church
God bless the Lutheran church which was founded by a man who rebelled against God and the Church that Jesus said that he was going to found?
@ it was a reformation of wayward Christian practices, not a rebellion
@@sarahh8575 And yet, history says that it was, in fact, a rebellion. Does it not concern you that your messiah was praised by Hitler who considered Luther to be a model German?
What kind of Lutheran should I become, then?
Do I become an LCMS Lutheran?
Why, or why not?
Do I become an ELCA Lutheran?
Why, or why not?
Can the Bible alone tell me which way to go?
Can the Ausgberg Confession tell me which way to go?
How can the Book of Concord help me?
You should become a confessional Lutheran, that means a Lutheran who actually cares about the Bible and the Confessions. So ELCA is off the table. LCMS, AALC, ELS and WELS are the main options in the USA for Lutheranism.
@lutherserbe6435 , that doesn't answer my questions, though. You're just arguing in a circle.
@@premodernprejudices3027 It does. The Book of Concord tells you not to have fellowship with false teaching, namely for example Reformed. So you do not go to a Lutheran church that does have fellowship with the Reformed, the ELCA has it, so you do not go there.
@@lutherserbe6435 Where is the Book of Concord in the Canon of Sacred Scripture?
Javier uses a term “Ecclesialist” when talking about Rome and Orthodoxy, but it’s not clear to me what the definition of that term is compared to other magisterial Protestant traditions. Does anyone have an insight?
Pastor Weedon said that Luther erred on certain things, I’m wondering what does Pastor Weedon think Luther got wrong, and why.
The term refers to the churches that claim direct descent from the Apostles and who also claim to be the one true Church. The Armenians might be an exception since they don’t claim exclusivity to that ‘one true church’ claim.
As for Luther, he might be referring to Luther’s writings on the Jewish people.
@ - thanks. And that’s probably one of the areas for most Lutherans. Another area I suspect Weedon thinks Luther gets wrong is probably portions of his liturgical reform. If one follows the principles laid down in those writings from Luther it is easy to see how Lutherans end up concluding that evangelical big box style with Lutheran substance is the way to go… and certainly not how worship is done at Weedon’s church.
Wow, after the section on baptism … if Pastor Weedon is right about all the connections he made, Lutherans should really be communing their baptized infants and toddlers too, not waiting like the Catholics do. Gift upon gift!
Has anyone responded to Dan McClellans videos regarding theology?
Great video. However, Will’s story does not make sense. Why would he leave Lutheranism for EO or Rome? Why would he abandon salvation by faith alone rather than join a more conservative Lutheran synod? This makes no sense unless he did not hold salvation by faith alone in high regard and didn’t put any stock in the Lutheran confessions. Very strange.
@@flashhog01 I highly encourage you to listen to his fully fleshed-out story! Both Part 1 and Part 2 are linked in the description to this video, and they should offer a much more complete picture of his reasoning at the time 🙂
@@javierperd2604Thank you, I will take a look.
With all due respect, I prefer to be in the Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18-19 rather than in a church founded by Martin Luther, a man. The Catholic Church did not need cleansing by Martin Luther. Our Lord promised to His Church in Matthew 16:19, “The gates of Hades will not overcome it.” and in Matthew 28:20, “I am with you always, to the very end of the age”. He is God. And, He has protected the Catholic Church from error for two thousand years. If you say that the Catholic Church was corrupted after three or four hundred years, but the Lutheran Church has lasted for five hundred years, you are saying that Jesus Christ is not as good at organizing a church as Martin Luther was.
Would love to see the confessional Lutherans return to the Church. Wonder if they could get an ordinariate style structure as well.
35:20
But isn't that exactly what God did in the Old Testament? He provided the ram. The Jewish practice was to take an animal, offer it a sacrificially to God, and then eat it. The apolostles at the last supper would have understood that the bread and wine were the sacrifice given to God; something they commonly understood, yet foreshadowing what was to come. The idea that this is a completely new practice that did not involve sacrificial offering would not have had the same continuity that the Old Testament context of sacrificial offering to God does.
Like the love that God gives (to the Son and to His people), He offers it, and we reciprocate it by offering it back. Or in a marriage where a husband offers his love to his wife, and she loves him back.
There does not seem to be anything sacrilegious about offering to God what He offers to us. If anything, it seems to be the best way to grow in faith and love and to further develop our relationship with Him.
The council of Trent has the eucharistic theology that the "Priest on behalf of the People offers the son in an unbloody representation to appease the Father" which leads to and endless cycle of Christ being represented and re appeasing the Father. Lutherans view Christ's sacrifice as a ome time event in which we participate in during the eucharist when he gives his death on the cross to use in a sacremental manner. We do not represent him, he partake of his one sacrifice which spans all of eternity. The difference is pretty much inversion. In Romanism the priest appeases the Father with the eucharist, in Evangelical Catholicism the Son presents his sacrifice to us in which we can share in for the remission of our sins in a sacremental way.
I'm sorry, friend. But that is not the Catholic belief. There are two particular issues with what you are claiming about the Catholic belief. The first is that God requires "appeasement." This is simply untrue of an all-loving and all-powerful God. To clarify, the sacrifice of the mass is not represented, as in it must occur over and over, for God's approval or appeasement. Which leads me to the second issue. God exists outside of time and space. What that means is that He sees His Son on the cross in the year 33AD at the exact same moment as the priest holding up the Eucharist today in 2024. He sees all of humanity ever to exsist, all at once. It's the same sacrifice to God because God doesn't exist on a timeline like you and I do. So, to that end, yes, the sacrifice is and was made once for all eternity. The Catholic view is and always has been that it is once and for all. May God bless you, friend!
@@WaterMelon-Cat I'd also like to make one more distinction that will help you better dialog with Catholics from any Rite. What you referred to as "Romanism" is the Latin Rite, or more commonly, Roman Catholic. There's also the Alexandrian Rite, West Syrian (Antiochene) Rite, Armenian Rite, East Syrian (Chaldean) Rite, and the Byzantine Rite. All of whom are Catholics, too, and believe the same thing as the Latin right. I just wanted to make that distinction since you called it "Romanism." Peace be with you, friend!
@@A_Guido_Lost_In_The_Woods the term “unbloody representation” is a direct quote from then Council of Trent
@@A_Guido_Lost_In_The_Woods I know of the 20 something rites of the church. Funnily enough besides the Latin rite most do not require priestly celibacy. When I say “Romanist” I mean anyone who adheres to the Roman Catholic Church, under the Roman Pontiff. I myself as an Evangelical catholic, wish to be called catholic, as I am a catholic. Rome is within the catholic universal church, but I make a distinction because I do not see the RCC as the proper holder of the continuation of the Catholic title
Pr. Weedon, again thank you for your love and enthusiasm for Christ. I nedd to point out again, though that you are gravely misrepresenting Catholic teaching on justification. You quote church fathers and Pope Benedict using the phrase faith alone as if this is something that is against Catholic teaching and also that Catholics teach salvation by works. Neither could be further from the truth and is a great misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. Faith alone is 100% Catholic teaching when understood correctly and Catholics in no way teach salvation by works.
As a former Confessional LCMS Lutheran, I can honestly say it was a deep dive into the topic of justification that led me to the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran, I had been taught many things about the Catholic Church that ended up simply not being true. I also found out that many of the key ideas for the Lutheran approach to justification were simply not found in the Church before the Reformation. Conversely, you can find ample historical evidence of the Catholic view of justification throughout the different eras of the Church.
I strongly recommend any Protestants to take the time and learn more about what Catholics actually teach about justification (from Catholic sources!), because you are likely to find it is not what you think they teach. One common misconception in particular, is that Catholics are pelagians or semipelagians. They are in no way shape or form either, and have many Church documents and councils that condemn these positions.
After my research, I now think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories:
1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics).
2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics).
3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis)
4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes.
**I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy**. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace".
Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification:
"A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within man)... where none was conceded before. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification, is defined as the alien righteousness of Christ, external to man and imputed to him, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to him… It is clearly of importance to account for this new understanding of the nature of justifying righteousness, with its associated conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification. Attempts on the part of an earlier generation of Protestant apologists to defend this innovation as a recovery of the authentic teaching of Augustine, and of their Catholic opponents to demonstrate that it constituted a vestige of a discredited and ossified Ockhamism, can no longer be taken seriously. It is the task of the historian to account for this new development, which marks a complete break with the tradition up to this point."
(McGrath, Allister E. 1986. lustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (1st Ed. Vol. 2). Cambridae University Press.)
The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external.
In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126*
These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127*
The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on .
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127*
In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct.
Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135*
I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him.
"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186)
God bless!
this is helpful, thank you.
I enjoyed this! Thanks for the interview. Question for any Lutheran viewers, could you elaborate or point me to any resources that will clarify what Pastor Weedon said about the differences between Lutheran and RC/EO views on the Eucharist?
The reason I ask is that I’ve been attending orthodox liturgies for about two years now, and what I’ve been taught is that the Eucharist is both an offering from the people and then a received sacrifice from God when the elements are consecrated. Making present the one sacrifice of Christ, exactly as Ps Weedon said.
I’m curious how the Lutherans see this, considering Ps. Weedon says the Eucharist is *not* a sacrifice from the people. Do Lutherans not physically raise the bread and wine to God in their liturgy? Do they genuinely not see the bread and wine as something brought TO the grace of God by the congregation? Thanks in advance!!
The Lutheran Confessions affirm the Eucharist as a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" made by the people to God. However, the main part of the Eucharist is Christ's once for all sacrifice on the altar of the cross, as both the priest and the victim, given for the sins of the world. The main action of the sacrament is Christ giving the Church his true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. In other words, the Eucharist is a means of grace by which God gives his gift of salvation to the people, to be received by faith.
@@pax-domini Thanks for the clarification! Sounds like the two positions may be a bit closer than the very brief mention in the interview makes it sound. :) Of course, that wasn't really the purpose of the conversation so I'm sure Ps. Weedon is knowledgable about that similarity.
As a follow-up question, do the Confessions teach that the Eucharist makes present the sacrifice of Christ in a temporal sense? Or do they lean closer to the Reformed understanding of real presence? (Apologies if that doesn't make sense, typing while walking lol)
@@TheBillyDWilliams To my knowledge, the Lutheran emphasis is on the immediate application of the benefits of Christ’s redemption. It makes the sacrifice temporally present in that sense, so it’s not a mere remembrance of a past event.
@@pax-domini Gotcha, thanks!
The Romanist understanding as of Trent is that the eucharist is "a representation of an unbloody sacrifice, made on behalf of the Priest to appease the Father" basically the priest represents Jesus/eucharist to appease the Father. The issue Lutherans have with this is it means Christ is endlessly sacrificed. Lutherans view his sacrifice as a one time event, in which we can participate in during the mass. But it a reoccurring participation in the one sacrifice, not a representation to the Father.
I'd be curious what breviary he refers to..
Hmmm. Join the church instituted by Luther? Nope, will stay with Church instituted by Christ.
I agree with you. Heretics are always named after a leader: Arians, Nestorians...
@@danielvanderkolk2069 Thomists, Dominicans, Franciscans, Palamites...
Our (Lutheran) church was instituted by Christ.
@@j.g.4942 They are not Churches, they are religious orders. They are not the same thing nor do they claim to be.
@@bruhmingo Martin Luther, the Protestant messiah.
Documentary “Failure of Orthodoxy” was a good reason to stay away from EO
Eh that was responded to well by an orthodox channel called transfigured life.
I went to Lutheran school for a long time. Rarely did we use the bible but we spent most of the time in a catechism. Way too close to RC. Later I found the inspired Word of GOD, never went outside of what HE has given to us all and am in a bible believing independant baptist church
Yep, generally closer to the truth than those heretical groups. But still not close enough for me. I'd have to be quite desperate to try a Lutheran church, but then where I am they are not much chop at all and there are very few of them.
A millimeter is not close enough, one has to be perfectly spot on. Our soul depends on it.
There is only one truth of God, not multiple variations of haft truths and falsehoods.
@@joekey8464 And you have it perfectly, do you?
@@GrahameChristianGould There is only one narrow road to eternal life.
@@joekey8464that is impossible. Your comment reveals a salvation based on works, not one based on mercy
@@jeannebouwman1970 God is all merciful but also a strict disciplinarian, like a loving father.
"If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Wait, but what ball game was Pastor Weedon at?
I’m a Catholic (raised LCMS) and enjoyed the dialogue. I did notice you doing what you warned to watch out for, that is, cherry-picking from the Church fathers. You are right, as you demonstrated from Pope Benedict, Lutherans and Catholics are much closer on justification than Luther or his contemporaries would have liked to admit.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Don't they all believe baptism is required for salvation?
Great job Javier! Thanks for this video!
how about you just "become" born again because you were not redeemed by the vain conversations of your admired men and traditions of your fathers... that NO ONE should puff himself up one against the other.. But you were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Seeing you have purified your souls *_in obeying the truth...being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God_* which liveth and abideth for ever
but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
The idea of denominations in Christianity is not a Christian idea
I would think Lutherans wanting to change would more likely go to Anglican since it is so similar. Going Catholic or Orthodox is a much deeper dive into theology.
The Anglican 39 articles are far more reformed theology than the Anglo-Catholics. It depends what you quantify as Anglican. I would rather go to Romanism than reformed theology. I would rather go Anglo-Catholic than Reformed Anglo
@@WaterMelon-CatYou can hold the entirety of the BoC in the Anglican Church.
@@WittenbergScholastic the 39 Articles are more reformed theology such as the spiritual presence in the Eucharist. The 39 articles of the Anglican Church are not the same as the previous Anglo-Catholic beliefs. So if you hold the BoC then you can’t believe the 39 articles.
I live the Anglican service, but they now have openly gay clergy. That is a deal breaker to me.
@@run4cmtSorry to hear it. I don't accept Lutheran or Anglican, but I am saddened what is occuring within Christianity and also the secular society in general.
You have to be a Christian before you are any form of it. More truths about Jesus means more christians.
Those historic liturgies were all ad orientum. This is not accurate to say that ancient church fathers would recognize a high church lutheran mass. Maybe in 1517 they would, but not today, not even close
Not really. When the ancient liturgy of St.James (which is earlier than the liturgy of St. John Chrisostom) is celebrated in the Orthodox Church at some times in the year, it is done versus populum, and the Holy Table is placed outside the iconostasis. Is this telling of an ancient practice?
The prayer to Mary is hard for modern Western minds to accept because the East sidnt write in the same tyoe of way. The West tends to write statements of faith, even in their hymns. These statements are forthcoming, and though they do contain bits of poetry, overall, the poetry mindset is very different. The East compacts deep meaning in their words. Its never right on the surface. Much like when reading Isaiah, without understanding its all pointing to Christ, you may miss the meaning.
The prayer to Mary is pointing to Christ. All the attributes contributing to her are because of Christ.
Heard some good stuff!
The Liturgy mirrors Christ's liturgical role in heaven. Christ offers the prayers of the saints in heaven and on earth on His heavenly altar, while the saints and angels partake in this heavenly Liturgy. This is offered by Christ to the entire Trinity, and involves the partaking of the heavenly Church.
The exact same is true of the Liturgy on earth, in which the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered to the entire Trinity. Hence St. John Chrysostom's Liturgy reads "thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee, on behalf of all, and for all." This is also why the Liturgy has always been held ad orientem, and why the serving of the Eucharist takes place ad populum.
If what Weedon says is true, and the sacrifice and Liturgy are solely for us, why is the Lutheran Divine Service still celebrated ad orientem, even as Rome today in the vast majority of cases does not replicate this?
Lutheran's seem very divided. Which synod is the authority? There's the Missouri Synod, the ECLA, and others. It doesn't appear there is anything universal about the Lutheran Church .
The ELCA was excommunicated from the LCMS for being higher critical revisionists half a century ago. The AALC and LCMS are in communion. WELS has the same theology just a stricter polity policy. Pretty much all the major branches LCMS, LCC, WELS, AALC are in communion or share resources. ELCA and their off shoots were excommunicated so you can't really lump them in.
The very fact you're talking about an "authoritative" Synod is already not a good start.
The Book of Concord and the Augsburg Confession, along with the Bible. We do not have a pope for authority which is not Biblical. The ELCA does not have much in common with the LCMS.
Well, as wonderful as this is, there's a problem if the Lutheran churches are 501c3. That's a real deal breaker for me with any church.
Javier, it would be interesting for you to have a Catholic theologian such as Scott Hahn and as him about sacrifice and priesthood.
Luther was right about Jews.
12:37 Orthodox reality = Orthodox ideal
We don’t change…
You can go to an EO Church in another country and you’ll feel at home because it is the same
You can transport back in time 1,000 years and feel at home because it is the same…
If anyone did just a tiny amount of research into Martin Luther they would run from his church. Lloyd De Jongh has multiple videos on Luther. He's RCC and I'm EO so I don't agree with him there but he's dead on about Luther. ruclips.net/video/OsH2NXV-D74/видео.html
35:23 The Orthodox are the priesthood of believers. We take what is given to us and offer it back to Him! This is what priests do! Liturgia means public work! This is our job! Lutherans do not have Apostolic ordination so maybe this is not a possibility in Lutheranism!
Nooooo thanks!! Best thing i ever did was to leave the Lutheran heresy for Roman Catholicism.
No, no, no. So wrong
Ned Flanders.
If only lutherans kept the episcopate! Then they could actually claim the catholic faith!
Largely the Scandinavian Lutherans did
@j.g.4942 sadly, they're the exception rather than the rule
@@iron_vicuna6784 no, sadly most of them have been manhandled by the nobles into changing the faith.
The Lutheran Confessions argue the bishop-presbyter distinction of offices is not by divine right (in agreement with St. Jerome), but is merely a human custom that arose to address needs in the Christian Church. The "bishop, presbyter, deacon" model was eventually further expanded to include archbishop, metropolitan, patriarch, pope, etc. In light of these developments throughout Church history, the Lutheran Confessions affirm the desire to retain the episcopate (although unnecessary in itself) because it was helpful for the unity and order of the Christian Church. Episcopal polity is considered "adiaphora," that is, "indifferent;" being neither commanded by God nor forbidden. To require the episcopate would be to violate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, because in the Bible the offices of bishop and presbyter are synonymous and used interchangeably.
@@pax-domini cope :/
This endless debate between Protestant and Catholic has led my wife right out of the Christian faith. Nice job guys. I'm kinda wondering if anybody knows what they're talking about myself. Everybody has a video with a debunking video right behind it all with scripture to back up whatever the stance is. You are literally killing the faith of new believers. Thanks for that
Sounds like seeds that fell on rocky ground
@@petros-petra or the seeds were trampled by prideful fools that were more concerned with winning an argument than nurturing new converts
@@robbiechambers1036 Would you rather be deceived and believe a lie than to fight for your faith?
She committed apostasy, her decision. There is near infinite knowledge accessible on the Internet. Instead of studying and choosing a church she apostacised because she never tended to her faith.
@@WaterMelon-Cat you're a clown. we looked past infantile doctrinal disputes and the humans that partake in them and looked to the teachings of Jesus. We will be attending Mass Sunday. Don't be a religious fool. Instead of words of encouragement or redemption you throw accusations of apostasy as your immediate response. YOU are part of the problem. You have no part in the redemptive nature of our Saviour.
I'm curious. How many hours a day do you study the scripture and church history?
Despite the feigned incredulity when reciting the prayer to Mary, there was actually nothing opposed to Scripture.
Most Holy Theotokos save us
Leaving the LCMS for Orthodoxy was literally the best thing that has ever happened to me.
I just find it so difficult to abide by sola scriptura and the rest of the solas descending from the first. If Luther had said, "Hey these are 5 really, really important tenets of the faith," I could be onboard. But, as an example, key bible verses are ignored, or at the very least minimized and rationalized into some universal idea instead of a pointed directive. Examples include Peter being the rock foundation of the church, Peter as leader of the apostles (don't say Paul because he argued, we all argue with the pope today), Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant, purgatory ideas throughout both testaments (though Luther in his pride and for no other reason threw out 7 books from the OT - you try to do that), Mary as Queen of Heaven as is the Jewish history of the king mother being queen, not his wife, apostles appointing successors and priests (eg, Matthias to replace Judas) as ordination and apostolic succession, the entire theme of the Visitation and its parallels to David dancing in front of the Ark, the logic observation: Jesus is God - Mary if Jesus' mother - ergo Mary is the Mother of God. I can go on and on and on..... The bottom line here is that Lutheranism is true if: All "priests" have apostolic succession, if it has fully the 7 sacraments, if it has a leader aka Peter's position, if it has an infallible teaching Magisterium and Councils. As a start. Then, you have me.
Most of your comment was either pridefully ignorant or willingly bearing false witness. Literally every church besides the Romanists interpret St. Peter's confession the same way (Not an infallible autocrat) not to mention both Scripture and church history explicity name St. James the Just as the leader of the first ecumenical council, the council of Jerusalem. According to Romanist dogma, a council is only binding if binded by a Pope. Scripture disproves this assertion by clearing showing St. James the just binded the decision of the council (which confirms that all the Apostles, not just St. Peter was given the keys). Also what type of purgatory ? There is no dogmatic or consistent version of purgatory either now, nor in the past. Purgatory is dogma, but only in existence. The mode of presence is debated heavily and each church father had a totally different idea on what exactly purgatory is, because the mode was never dogmatically defined. I have never seen a Lutheran get bothered by the Theotokos being called "Mother of God' we affirm that as per the ecumenical councils, Queen of heaven is different. God does not share his monarchy. Also Lutherans have apostolic sucession. Luther was a validly ordained Augustinian Monk, the European Lutheran church still practises the laying on of hands by the bishop during ordination. In the North American church the Presbyters of the equivalent of a Bishop does the laying on of hands. This was seen all through history, especially during hereseys when bishops were corrupt and ordination relied on Presbyters. Luther also never removed any books. The Lutheran Bibles contained all books. Luthers personally German translation had these deutero canonical books in a intermediary location between the Old and New Testament, but the books were still present for over 100 years after Luthers death. It was not until after Luthers passing that the deuterocannon was removed and the Jewish cannon was implemented. That being said there is still many Lutheran commentaries on the deutero canon. The issue is that the books seem to be more so partially inspired and not fully preserved.
@@WaterMelon-Cat Such rationalizations. There is no denying that Peter was/is the leader of the apostles, the decision-maker, as in the circumcision debate. There is no question that Mary is the ark and arc of the bible: enmity between the serpent and the Woman; Mary full of grace and all generations call blessed; Mary in Revelation 12. And, Luther did remove 7 books - where did they go, they simply disappeared? Yes, purgation is throughout scripture, we do not know its nature or how long it takes. And the sacraments: lacking Transubstantiation, lacking confession, lacking true ordination and - yes - lacking apostolic succession, makes all protestantism incoherent.
@@garyworth6046 it is rather clear you are just here to bear false witness and feel prideful. I provided actual references and evidence. Your refutation was “nuh uh” like a school child. Who binded the first ecumenical council ?.. it literally says directly in scripture 😂. God gave you a brain yet you fail to use it
@@WaterMelon-Cat How am I bearing false witness? The first council was at Nicea around 325AD. It targeted arianism, Christ's divinity, and the Creed, among other topics. Read church history and the writings of the fathers, who helped establish scriptural interpretations. I literally hate it when someone blindly retorts "Where is that in the bible?" Bible along with tradition and the infallible magisterium are the THREE infallible sources you need to read.
@@garyworth6046 the first Christian council was the council of Jerusalem. Both the sacred Scriptures and church tradition tell us that. It literally says that in the book of acts (which you never read) it also says shows St. James the Just presiding over it and binding. Learn how to cope without shutting your brain off and denying anything that disproves you
Te puhutte herran monta siunulla
Oh dear the chuckle club is open
Follow Jesus and be none of the above.
Read Luthers commentary on Genesis where he denounces the holy spirit and the effect on the soul. He even disavows St Augustine.
Haven't read it, you should provide it if you bring it up otherwise it's playground talk. I do know however that writings are like X-rays, it's only a snapshot of that spot in time. Meaning if you wrote down that God is not real as a child it does not mean you are bound to that view forever, you can in fact change your mind after.
@@Gondor149 "Thirdly. A whole sea of questions is here agitated as to what that "image" of God was in which Moses here says man was formed. Augustine has dwelt largely on the explanation of this passage in his book "On the Trinity." Those divines in general, who retain the division and definition of Aristotle, follow Augustine. They consider the image of God to be those powers of soul, memory, mind or intellect and will. They affirm that the image of God consists in these three qualities; which image, they say, is found in all men. And their argument is, that as in divine things the Word is begotten of the substance of the Father, and as the Holy Spirit is the complacency or good pleasure of the Father, so in man from the memory proceeds the word of the heart, which is the mind of the man; which word being uttered there is developed the will, which will the mind beholds and with which it is delighted.
These divines affirm moreover that "the similitude," after which man was formed, stands in gratuitous gifts. For as a similitude is a certain perfectness of an image, so, they say, the created nature of man is perfected by grace. According to their views therefore the "similitude" of God in man consists in his memory being adorned with hope, his intellect with faith and his will with love. It is in this manner, they assert, that man is created in the image of God; that man has a mind, a memory and a will. Again they state the sacred matter thus: Man is created after the "similitude" of God; that is, his intellect is illuminated by faith, his memory is confirmed by hope and constancy, and his will is adorned with love.
Fourthly. Divines give other divisions and definitions of the qualities of this "image" of God, in which man was originally created. They hold that memory is the image of the power of God, mind the image of his wisdom and will the image of his justice. It was after this manner that Augustine, and after him others, bent their minds on the discovery of certain trinities of natural qualities or endowments in man. For they thought that by this mode of explanation, the image of God in man would be the more clearly seen. These not unpleasing speculations do indeed argue faithful employment and great acuteness of mental ability, but they by no means aid the right explanation of this "image" of God."
SOURCE: www.gutenberg.org/files/48193/48193-h/48193-h.htm#sect28
Section 28
Wait until you realise Luther was ordained as an Augustinian 💀
Luther is not a prophet and were are not "followers" of Luther. He was a man that got some things wrong. We follow the Book of Concord, the Augsburg Confession and the Bible.
Yes but the essential problem persists irregardless. The Book of Concord reflects the same systematic theological problem.
Martin Luther wanted to take 4 books out of the New Testament. I wonder why? Take a look into the Eastern Orthodox Church, THE TRUE CHURCH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Luther was a man,don't follow his opinion of scripture as God spoken. Calvin did t
Without Apostolic Succession, you have no valid priesthood. Since Luther was not a Bishop, he certainly did not have any authority to ordain anybody for anything.
Without a valid priesthood, you do not have the Eucharist. You can no more consecrate the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ than I can.
As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes. You cannot go any further back than October 31, 1517.
"As a Protestant, you have to reject the early Church Fathers because they prove that the Catholic Church is right about what it professes."
Okay, let's take one dogma proposed by the RCC and analyse that in the fathers: the immaculate conception of Mary. Let's see:
“What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she had experienced scandal during the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified by his grace and redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized by this moment. This is what Simeon is prophesying about…. Your soul will be pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of doubt” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7).
“not even his brothers believed in him” [John 7:5]) and Jesus’ question in Matthew 12:48: “What are mother and brothers to me?” He affirms, over and against Apelles and Marcion, Jesus’ genuine nativity, but has no hesitation in including Mary along with his brothers as unbelieving and the object of his rebukes: “when denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults.” Evidently Tertullian is not aware that this is a controversial opinion. He even goes so far as to see Mary as a symbol of the unbelieving synagogue that rejected Christ: “in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7.)
“Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man-to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ” (Basil, Letter 260.9).
“And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach” (Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3).
“if this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?” (Hilaty, Tractatus in Ps. 118).
“conceived in iniquity in accordance with human practice”(Fulgentius of Ruspe, [Epistula 17.13]).
@@matheusdabnei5540 Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book III ch 22.4 [120-180 AD]
In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise "they were both naked, and were not ashamed," inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelledby the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, "instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee." For the Lord, having been born "the First-begotten of the dead," and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John book 1 ch 6 (185-254 ad)
For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus,
@@matheusdabnei5540 Origen Commentary on Matthew book 7 ch 34 (185-254)
34. MEANING OF "UNTIL." NO LIMITATION OF PROMISE.
[+] But since some one may think that the promise of the Saviour prescribes a limit of time to their not tasting of death, namely, that they will not taste of death "until" they see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom. but after this will taste of it, let us show that according to the scriptural usage the word "until" signifies that the time concerning the thing signified is pressing, but is not so defined that after the "until," that which is contrary to the thing signified should at all take place. Now, the Saviour says to the eleven disciples when He rose from the dead, this among other things, "Lo, I am with you all the days, even until the consummation of the age." When He said this, did He promise that He was going to be with them until the consummation of the age, but that after the consummation of the age, when another age was at hand, which is "called the age to come," He would be no longer with them?--so that according to this, the condition of the disciples would be better before the consummation of the age than after the consummation of the age? But I do not think that any one will dare to say, that after the consummation of the age the Son of God will be no longer with the disciples, because the expression declares that He will be with them for so long, until the consummation of the age is at hand; for it is clear that the matter under inquiry was, whether the Son of God was forthwith going to be with His disciples before the age to come and the hoped for promises of God which were given as a recompense. But there might have been a question--it being granted that He would be with them--whether sometimes He was present with them, and sometimes not present. Wherefore setting us free from the suspicion that might have arisen from doubt, He declared that now and even all the days He would be with the disciples, and that He would not leave those who had become His disciples until the consummation of the age; (because He said "all the days" He did not deny that by night, when the sun set, He would be present with them.) But if such is the force of the words, "until the consummation of the age," plainly we shall not be compelled to admit that those who see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom shall taste of death, after being deemed worthy of beholding Him in such guise. But as in the case of the passage we brought forward, the urgent necessity was to teach us that "until the consummation of the age" He would not leave us but be with us all the days; so also in this case I think that it is clear to those who know how to look at the logical coherence of things that He who has seen once for all glory," and seen "the kingdom of God come with power," could not possibly taste of death after the contemplation of things so good and great. But apart from the word of the promise of Jesus, we have conjectured not without reason that we would taste of death, so long as we were not yet held worthy to see "the kingdom of God come with power," and "the Son of man coming in His own glory and in His own kingdom."
@@matheusdabnei5540 Origen Against Celsus book 1 ch 34 (185-254)
Now, if a Jew should split words, and say that the words are not, "Lo, a virgin," but, "Lo, a young woman," we reply that the word "Olmah"--which the Septuagint have rendered by "a virgin," and others by "a young woman"--occurs, as they say, in Deuteronomy, as applied to a "virgin," in the following connection: "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he humbled his neighbour's wife." And again: "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in a field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel ye shall do nothing; there is in her no sin worthy of death."
@@matheusdabnei5540 Gregory Thaumaturgus Four Homilies 4th homily (213-275ad)
But Thou, being born of the Virgin Mary, as Thou didst will, and as Thou alone dost know, didst not do away with her virginity; but Thou didst keep it, and didst simply gift her with the name of mother: and neither did her virginity preclude Thy birth, nor did Thy birth injure her virginity. But these two things, so utterly opposite--bearing and virginity--harmonized with one intent; for such a thing abides, possible with Thee, the Framer of nature.
It´s important to reject the truth and embrace the guidance of the guy who slaughtered peasants and have him be as the denominator of your church instead of Jesus Christ.
Yes the powerful Papal office has no blood on it whatsoever. Much wow.
New Romanist propaganda just dropped ! "Luther slayed peasants" that is rich. I see bearing falsewitness is no longer a sin to you. This reminds me of how the Vatican put a death order on Joh Huss. Such a godly Christian thing to do
Why follow the popes and the blood shed they unleashed in the Middle Ages? If you think Lutherans follow Luther, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
lol, this is a joke, right?