Excellent thought-provoking. This is coming from a man who loves the gospel but has been unafraid to think and weigh. I am of the third persuasion - Christian.
I never understand why no one ever stated the obvious. When they said "Christ's deciples did not need explanations of the communion, but faith to believe it." Like, did the medival people think the ancients didn't understand metaphor? I dunno, if my friend handed me a cup of wine and said it was a cup of his blood, I wouldn't ask questions, not because I would believe it was LITERALLY his blood, but because I would assume it was a metaphorical blood oath.
I can only conclude that Prof Ryrie avoids quoting Luther, Calvin or other mainstream reformers because their writings do not support his thesis. The central argument about the mass was not about its credibility but about the unscriptural re-sacrificing of the Lord Jesus Christ by purely human priests.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 I'm not sure what J Hume believes personally, but this isn't a bad representation of the Reformers' objections to the mass. The speaker in the video is not wrong though, if he is talking about people's religious attitudes and not a denomination's "official" position. In practice Reform Christians/Anglicans *did* mock transubstantiation as ridiculous and superstitious (I don't know about Lutherans since they are big believers in Real Presence), but that *wasn't* the Protestant theologians' officially stated objection to it; rather it was the notion that Christ was resacrificed in it (and that therefore you could at least in theory pay priests to say masses on behalf of people to "give them more grace"). Protestantism is all about a "direct connection between you and God"; justification based on "faith alone", so naturally the idea that you could say a mass on behalf of someone, especially one of the dead, is going to be an affront to them. No sacrifice, no ability to say a mass on behalf of someone, and therefore no ability to benefit monetarily from it; you have to be there recieving communion to benefit spiritually. The political and theological root of the reformation really was this: an objection to the idea that anyone but Christ could give you grace "by proxy" (a belief the Catholic Church asbolutely took advantage of). It explains the Protestant objections to purgatory, prayers to the saints, and adoration of the sacrament.
I like these debates. I see it as people not able to pull off belief, no matter what they do. I argued that I was always uncertain over any religious belief, that's why I ended up a skeptic over everything. I can see why some Catholics and Orthodox called protestantism as a way to atheism. Thing is, I don't blame Martin Luther for it, I just blame the nature of certain people to be unable to believe certain things. I didn't know Pascal said anything other than Pacal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is some filthy trick used to dupe kids with hellfire and brimstone sermons. I hate the Southern Baptist Convention with a passion.
This guy is hilarious. "Catholics and Protestants taught their people to doubt the other side" Just a shame that they never doubted the entire concept of a deity in the first place. If "doubt" is taken seriousely, the fact that no deity ever has any demonstrable correlation with reality, is not something to brush under the carpet.
Disassembling the apparent connection of "all things" is to look for Reasons why those things are the Logical self-defining elements of Principle, in a Rigourous Observation of Why and How the Operating Function controls these apparent Laws of all inclusive Mind-body behaviours in the distributed generalization of Regulation that Exists. By Observation, the operational elements of Mind are in an apparent focus, to locus of regular behaviours Communicate by AM-FM Quantum Fields Modulation Mechanism of QM-Time, and not in an independent mechanism from the Primary Connection. It's a matter of degree in pulses of potential possibilities +/-, cause-effect, of Infinite-eternal life. Nomenclatures and Beliefs of Faith etc that develope in-dependent views of connection are logically fallacious abstraction. It's necessary to look at the glass and through it, (and see Reflection-resonance in the "Looking Glass"), everything is connected in Principle. Exemplify The Principle.
I find his view on what Catholic think incorrect. If you accept the Magisterium on reason then the mysteries may be difficult but not superstitious. If not being superstitious is number one then dont hold anything as true and you can't be wrong. Given the material view of the sciences for example human rights would seem like superstition. Not all of it he has a good lecture. But perhaps he is talking more how these arguments appeared to them not now that we have digested things. With Foxe he says it sounds gross birth sounds gross to many. So gross would not be an argument that followes through.
This guy is a first-rate lecturer. I love how artfully he uses metaphor and simile.
Excellent thought-provoking. This is coming from a man who loves the gospel but has been unafraid to think and weigh. I am of the third persuasion - Christian.
A wonderful and enjoyable lecture.
Fascinating lecture. And what a great head of hair.
I love how provocative this lecture is.
Differing religious dogmas cannot all be correct. They can all be wrong.
As can atheism.
@@brendanbutler1238
But atheism is not a value system like religion. It is merely an observation on what is likely to be true.
I never understand why no one ever stated the obvious. When they said "Christ's deciples did not need explanations of the communion, but faith to believe it." Like, did the medival people think the ancients didn't understand metaphor? I dunno, if my friend handed me a cup of wine and said it was a cup of his blood, I wouldn't ask questions, not because I would believe it was LITERALLY his blood, but because I would assume it was a metaphorical blood oath.
I can only conclude that Prof Ryrie avoids quoting Luther, Calvin or other mainstream reformers because their writings do not support his thesis. The central argument about the mass was not about its credibility but about the unscriptural re-sacrificing of the Lord Jesus Christ by purely human priests.
The Mass isn’t a re-sacrifice
@@carsonianthegreat4672 I'm not sure what J Hume believes personally, but this isn't a bad representation of the Reformers' objections to the mass.
The speaker in the video is not wrong though, if he is talking about people's religious attitudes and not a denomination's "official" position. In practice Reform Christians/Anglicans *did* mock transubstantiation as ridiculous and superstitious (I don't know about Lutherans since they are big believers in Real Presence), but that *wasn't* the Protestant theologians' officially stated objection to it; rather it was the notion that Christ was resacrificed in it (and that therefore you could at least in theory pay priests to say masses on behalf of people to "give them more grace"). Protestantism is all about a "direct connection between you and God"; justification based on "faith alone", so naturally the idea that you could say a mass on behalf of someone, especially one of the dead, is going to be an affront to them. No sacrifice, no ability to say a mass on behalf of someone, and therefore no ability to benefit monetarily from it; you have to be there recieving communion to benefit spiritually. The political and theological root of the reformation really was this: an objection to the idea that anyone but Christ could give you grace "by proxy" (a belief the Catholic Church asbolutely took advantage of). It explains the Protestant objections to purgatory, prayers to the saints, and adoration of the sacrament.
I like these debates. I see it as people not able to pull off belief, no matter what they do. I argued that I was always uncertain over any religious belief, that's why I ended up a skeptic over everything.
I can see why some Catholics and Orthodox called protestantism as a way to atheism. Thing is, I don't blame Martin Luther for it, I just blame the nature of certain people to be unable to believe certain things.
I didn't know Pascal said anything other than Pacal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is some filthy trick used to dupe kids with hellfire and brimstone sermons. I hate the Southern Baptist Convention with a passion.
Weird, I thought this got posted a couple weeks ago already.
To medieval people reason meant intuition.
Well then it's not reason, is it? calling a puddle an ocean does not mean you need a compass to cross it.
This guy is hilarious. "Catholics and Protestants taught their people to doubt the other side" Just a shame that they never doubted the entire concept of a deity in the first place. If "doubt" is taken seriousely, the fact that no deity ever has any demonstrable correlation with reality, is not something to brush under the carpet.
Disassembling the apparent connection of "all things" is to look for Reasons why those things are the Logical self-defining elements of Principle, in a Rigourous Observation of Why and How the Operating Function controls these apparent Laws of all inclusive Mind-body behaviours in the distributed generalization of Regulation that Exists.
By Observation, the operational elements of Mind are in an apparent focus, to locus of regular behaviours Communicate by AM-FM Quantum Fields Modulation Mechanism of QM-Time, and not in an independent mechanism from the Primary Connection. It's a matter of degree in pulses of potential possibilities +/-, cause-effect, of Infinite-eternal life.
Nomenclatures and Beliefs of Faith etc that develope in-dependent views of connection are logically fallacious abstraction.
It's necessary to look at the glass and through it, (and see Reflection-resonance in the "Looking Glass"), everything is connected in Principle.
Exemplify The Principle.
I find his view on what Catholic think incorrect. If you accept the Magisterium on reason then the mysteries may be difficult but not superstitious.
If not being superstitious is number one then dont hold anything as true and you can't be wrong.
Given the material view of the sciences for example human rights would seem like superstition.
Not all of it he has a good lecture. But perhaps he is talking more how these arguments appeared to them not now that we have digested things.
With Foxe he says it sounds gross birth sounds gross to many. So gross would not be an argument that followes through.