A great session! When I was attending an SBC seminary, my professors only said Luther was not "loving" during the Marburg Colloquy. By chance, I read up on the detail of the Lord's Supper debate. While I was mesmerized by both reformers, I became more convinced by Luther's argument. It became the main reason for leaving the Baptist and Presbyterian. I am fascinated by Martin Luther and Lutheran denomination though. So many things that I was taught about Lutheranism turned out to be false or disinformation.
Confessional Lutheran here. To be fair, we have a bad habit of insularity. Just try buying any Lutheran book from Concordia Publishing House. Expeeeeensive.
we are taught the same thing in reformed Anglican seminaries. then again many evangelicals don't even know what the Anglican position is on the eucharist (hint its real presence) preferring zwinglis view without being able to accurately define zwinglis perspective
@@cwstreeper The1689 London Baptist Confession, early reformed Baptists believed in the "spiritual presence". Different from Lutheran but was never just the memorial view. "The body and blood of Christ are not present bodily or physically in the ordinance but spiritually to the faith of believers"
“ I do not ask how Christ can be God and man, and how his natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments, as for example, that a large body could not fill a small space. God is above and beyond all mathematics, and his words are to be adored and observed with awe. God, however, commands: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’. I request, therefore, a valid proof from Holy Writ that these words do not mean what they say.”
I’ve been studying a lot on the topic of auto Theos and I believe that it leads to modal collapse. I know there has been some talk about you doing a podcast on the topic and I personally would love to see it. Great video dr cooper keep up the good work.
Thank you for your videos. I'm interested in Lutheranism and learning more about their Christology and sacramentology. I hope to get into Martin Chemnitz's works soon.
Also, even R.C. Sproul, who is more Nestorian than orthodox Calvinism is (as he said God didn't die on the cross), says that we encounter Christ as the God-man everywhere because, although the human nature isn't omnipresent, the natures are so inseparably united that we encounter the whole person, not just a nature. So I know Zwingli will always be Zwingli, but I don't see the problem with the Christology of real Calvinists in that particular regard.
Cooper lays out the issues much better than the many ignorant local Lutheran Pastors/ but the great debate with White goes begging. I for one, accept the Luther view of Communion, but not a lot else of the Polity and Romish customs.
(Calvinist here) if Christ filling all things means His human nature fills all things, then how is His presence unique in the Lord's Supper? Wouldn't that mean the presence of His human nature is everywhere? Could one argue that if we don't encounter Christ's humanity DIRECTLY on this earth, that makes the Lord's Supper unique because we can? (by the mystical operations of the Spirit) Also, I appreciate the fair treatment with which you describe Calvinists, not calling us Nestorians.
"then how is His presence unique in the Lord's Supper" This is why we have to be careful with the language; it also helps to study higher mathematics and things like Cantor sets. Christ is in all things, but what does that mean? What it means is that there is no place that we can go or look, from the center of the Earth to the furthest star, where we cannot pray to Him and be heard. On the other hand, while He is in even a pile of Martian dirt, He is not there _for us_. That Martian dirt will not do us any spiritual good. Even if we water it and grow potatoes in it, they will only feed our body, not our souls. However, He _is_ in the bread and the wine of Holy Communion, just as He is in the water of Baptism, _for us_. He has promised that the bread and wine will bring us His presence and grace and will feed our spirits and strengthen us, just as He promised us that the water and words of baptism will bring us the Holy Spirit and sanctification. In the Words of Institution, when Jesus says "do this in remembrance of me" the Greek can be read either way, and almost certainly means both: "do this so that you remember me" and "do this so that _I_ remember _you_".
@@paulblase3955 That is a profoundly Lutheran answer. "That person is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: _'Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.'_ ... For these words, _'for you',_ require all hearts to believe." --Small Catechism, Sacrament of the Altar
@@Sam-ux7cn but until I know Lutheranism is not iconoclastic. That’s the reason I would like to know what Dr. Cooper says about it. I am really interested to know it.
@@j.a674 the adoration of saints is rejected, the Lutheran community takes a position between that of Nicaea II and Hieria, which would be best articulated by the council of Frankfurt and the work attributed to Charlemagne on the subject.
In ephesians 4, the semantic range of the word for "fills" all things could allow for fulfill in the sense of accomplishes and not simply fills in the sense of pervasiveness. I could be wrong, not a Greek expert...
I wouldn't say it's modalism to suggest that Christ could have been talking about the Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:20. In Zechariah 12:10 we have God referring to Christ as "me" and "him" in the same breath. The angel of the Lord does this too, switching between the first and third person. Then we have the Holy Spirit discourses in John where Christ says HE sends the Spirit, but then it's the FATHER who sends him, or when he says he and his Father will make their abode with you, but then it's the Spirit that dwells with you, etc. It seems to me each member of the Trinity can freely identify with the other two without violating their distinctions. Which makes perfect sense if they're one God.
When exactly does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ? In the oven while its baking? In the church fridge? When a Latin phrase is spoken over it? When its set out on the Communion table? When does the magic happen?
I’ve been thinking buying some books from the Westminster John Knox Press specifically the Luther-Erasmus debate and some of their other publications. Are they a trusted publisher & are their translations reliable?
Recently an SBC pastor urged me (a recent Lutheran catechumen) to be extremely wary of Lutherans because he is convinced that the Real Presence has monophysite tendencies (he says that for it to be true, Christ's physical body would have to be omnipresent and that is a divine trait). I told him that if the attributes don't communicate, then the atonement is null. He didn't know how to answer that.
His view was that God the Son can be anyhwere He wants, but Jesus the Man can only be in heaven. Cyril's Nestorius-strawman was that Mary is the mother of Jesus the Man, but Mary is not the mother of God the Son.
@@Mygoalwogel From what I've read of Zwingly he didn't frame the issue quite like that. He didn't say that "God the Son can be anywhere ... but Jesus the Man can only be in heaven." He said that God/the Son/Jesus is omnipresent in terms of his divine nature but localized in terms of his human nature. One person, two natures.
@@michael6549 _"He said that God/the Son/Jesus is omnipresent in terms of his divine nature but localized in terms of his human nature."_ In this opinion, the Son of God is omnipresent and present in the Sacrament. And the Son of Mary is localized in heaven and not present in the Sacrament. One person, two natures. That's precisely Cyril's version of Nestorianism. That's *TWO* persons, two natures.
@@Mygoalwogel What I said (as opposed to what you said) is not Nestorianism. If it is you'll have to condemn Ambrose, Augustine, and many other Fathers of being Nestorians.
So am I understanding you correctly that you understand “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:18 ESV), Jesus speaking about the sacraments?
@@Mygoalwogel Well I agree that Christ is present by the Holy spirit because his spirit is poured out in our hearts,but that's how I understand Matt. 28,20 even though Jesus said there (and John 14) "I (Jesus with his body speaking) will come to you and will be with you".
Zwingli vs Luther is why Switzerland and swabia has a distinct culture from its northern Protestant neighbors in germany and the nordic countries right?
I've always wondered how many of these theologians arguing about infinities and their relation to reality have ever actually studied Cantor sets and the mathematics of infinities.
Beyond some folks in the analytic or neo-Scholastic traditions who study philosophical theology and have dabbled in mathematical logic and the philosophy of mathematics, I suspect very few would be able to give even a cursory definition of matters like transfinite cardinals and the continuum hypothesis. Nevertheless, even among Christian analytic or neo-Scholastic philosophers, you find folks coming down on all sides of the Eucharist debate. I’m Anglican who holds to consubstantiation, my advisor for philosophy in college was Lutheran (I majored in philosophy, math, and computer science and wrote my senior thesis in philosophy of mathematics-quite amateurishly, in retrospect, for whatever that’s worth), you get folks like Richard Swinburne who are Eastern Orthodox, Alexander Pruss for Roman Catholicism, Alvin Plantinga for the Reformed, and William Lane Craig for American Evangelicalism. It takes all kinds, I guess. But I’m guessing very few who count themselves theologians more so than analytic or neo-Scholastic philosophers have worked with axiomatic set theory, transfinite cardinals, or the continuum hypothesis firsthand.
@@paulblase3955 The concept of infinity under discussion in this video, and in most of the ones involving the infinitude of God is not the quantitative mathematical notion of infinity, but the qualitative notion of a maximally great being (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, Necessary, etc...). For example when William Lane Craig offers his philosophical arguments against the existence of an actual infinity people have objected "But isn't God infinite?" To which he has responded with the answer I'm giving here. It's a qualitative notion of infinity, not the quantitative one that's being used here. In which case it would be a contradiction to say the finite could encompass the infinite.
@@PresbyterianPaladin Then the term is not being used precisely, furthermore that it is being interpreted incorrectly. When one says that "the finite cannot encompass the infinite", then they are using the mathematical definition. Or else, the definition used is so vague that it means nothing. To use the term to describe "a maximally great being (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, Necessary, etc...)" is to essentially say nothing, since we can know so little about such a being that we cannot say whether He can do something or not. You say "In which case it would be a contradiction to say the finite could encompass the infinite." Why? For that matter, what does "encompass" mean? To my knowledge, the term means to surround, to contain. But no-one says that Jesus the human "encompasses" all of God, only that His humanity is integrated with His deity. Mathematically, of course, one can contain infinities within a finite volume; other than mathematically, the terms are so vague as to mean nothing. God says what He says, and tells us what we can comprehend. To think that we can say God can't do X because of our understanding of how things work is the height of arrogance. It should be true that, as I believe C.S. Lewis expressed it, God cannot do those things that logically cannot be done; on the other hand, He knows a lot more about the laws of nature and what can and can't be done than we do.
@@paulblase3955 just because the term isn't being used mathematically doesn't mean it's not being used precisely. Further I'm almost certain that when the reformed thinkers in the 16th century came up with the statement "the finite cannot encompass the infinite" they were not using infinite in the quantitative mathematical sense for the simple reason that most of them were not mathematicians. In this context they were speaking specifically about his omnipresence. The definition is not vague, nor do these terms lack a definite meaning. For example omnipresent means to be present and causally active at every point in space and time as opposed to having a limited spatially extended presence. This brings me to the point on contradictions, to say that one is both omnipresent and yet has a limited spatial extension in the same way and at the same time is a strict contradiction, it is to say that one is both omnipresent and not omnipresent, a and not a. The reformed position is that Christ in his person is both omnipresent and has a limited spatial extension in different ways. He is omnipresent in his divine nature, and has a limited spatial extension in his human nature. But if the Lutheran communication of attributes is correct then omnipresence has been communicated to Christ's human nature which means he is both omnipresent and has limited spatial extension at the same time, in the same way. A and not a. This is why it is ironic that you say it's arrogant for me to say what God can and cannot do, but then give the caveat that God cannot do the logically impossible, when it is precisely a logical impossibility, a hard contradiction, a and not a, which I am saying he is incapable of. All that to say I think that your importing a mathematical concept of infinity into this discussion where it is not pertinent in order to salvage your view from logical contradiction, but in the context of the actual debate it's of no help. Lastly just asserting that defining infinity in a qualitative way is so vague as to mean nothing and that we know so little about such a being (God) that we cannot say whether he can do something, is essentially to throw millennia of theological work down the drain. It results in an unwarranted agnosticism about God.
I think it's wrong to suggest that these issues hadn't been addressed at councils in the patristic era. This impression is a problem that arises when people isolate Chalcedon as if it's the definitive conciliar statement on Christology. It's not, and the Fathers never pretended it was. Chalcedon was meant to supplement, not replace, Ephesus, and Constantinople II in turn supplemented Chalcedon. Zwingli's Christology is in serious tension with Ephesus, and explicitly contradicts Constantinople II.
Very nicely done, Doctor. Thank you. One question: I thought that the whole question of the presence of Christ's ascended natural flesh in relation to the Blessed Sacrament was sorted out in the Ratramnus and Radbertus controversy well before the reformation. Is it not the case that all (papist and prot) agree that Christ's natural flesh is *not* present in the sacrament? Perhaps Christ's human *nature* is present in spiritual substance hypostatically united to the divine nature in one person, but is his natural flesh present in material substance? I thought not, given the mediaeval debate, but your clarity on that would be good to know.
This is what the Lutheran Confessions say on the matter: “Hence we hereby utterly [reject and] condemn the Capernaitic eating of the body of Christ, as though [we taught that] His flesh were rent with the teeth, and digested like other food, which the Sacramentarians, against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests, wilfully force upon us, and in this way make our doctrine odious to their hearers; and on the other hand, we maintain and believe, according to the simple words of the testament of Christ, the true, yet supernatural eating of the body of Christ, as also the drinking of His blood, which human senses and reason do not comprehend, but as in all other articles of faith our reason is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and this mystery is not apprehended otherwise than by faith alone, and revealed in the Word alone.” -Formula of Concord (Epitome), Article VII, Negative Thesis 21 “We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.” -Formula of Concord (Epitome), Article VII, Affirmative Thesis 7
I’d like to know the citation for where Zwingli said he was not influenced by Luther in his Swiss reforms. From what I understand he acknowledged his indebtedness to Luther.
"Before anyone in the area had ever heard of Luther, I began to preach the gospel of Christ in 1516...Luther, whose name I did not know for at least another two years, had definitely not instructed me. I followed Holy Scripture alone."
That was way over my head. I'm new to being a Lutheran and fairly new to moving from an Armenian theology, which is to say no real theology, to a theology more Calvinistic/Lutheran. I'm gonna need a translation of this video, and probably a translation of the translation.
Im with you on multiple presences. Christ skaod where two are more are gathered in my name, there i am with them. Christ is present at every liturgy held around the world.
About ephesians 4, if I say about a person that his presence filled the whole room, am I saying that he is literal multilocated? I agree that the language of "being at the right hand of the father" doesn't need to be strict literal, but from Hebrews, John 14 I would strongly conclude that Jesus ministry on earth has come to an end and is now ministring in the most holy place as the high priest before the father. The only one who has a ministry on earth right now is the holy spirit.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ according to I Peter 1, Romans 8. If the Holy Spirit is with you then Christ is with you by His Spirit. Also if I'm understanding correctly we can't truly, really, fully encounter Jesus Christ except during communion/ Eucharist? If so shouldn't Christians take communion as often as physically possible, multiple times daily? Move next to the church building to be able to request communion as often as possible and a pastor would be awful to deny them?
By the way, speaking of Christology. Being Oriental Orthodox, I came to the conclusion that effectively Rome was the main if not the sole reason why Christianity worldwide mostly shares the dyophysite/dyothelite point of view. Eastern emperors were willing to find common ground with Alexandria (Henotikon of Zeno and Typos of Constans, for example), but Rome and pro-Roman theologians, starting with Leo I, won by not willing to compromise. We could've had a miaphysite Greece and a different course of history were it not for the will of Rome and their authority claims starting from that era. And it's one of the strongest arguments for Roman Catholicism / Papal infallibility as opposed to Greek Orthodoxy in my mind: if we accept that their shared stance against Alexandria was appropriate, effectively it was Rome who set the terms for Orthodox theology when Constantinople was willing to compromise. I'm honestly interested in your thoughts on that. P. S. Love your content.
@@Mygoalwogel I honestly don't know. But I will say that the very ecclesiology of the Assyrian Church of the East (its genesis, development, external perception) is extremely intriguing. It doesn't get much attention compared to the empire-centric models of both Rome and Constantinople, although we could find some curious things there. I mean, if it's the case that there was the same Church of the East back then, their claims were recognized as legitimate, their Christology was to be dealt with, we kind of have to correct a lot in our Church history textbooks, no? Same goes for the Armenian Church which, despite belonging to this oriental family, kind of sees itself as its own entity historically. I think the same is true if we're talking about the Ethiopian Chruch. And generally, it's not like the Greek Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox ecclesiastical "mega-polities", so to speak, are exactly the same. So, I think Oriental traditions might become one day extremely important in analyzing various contentious topics like this. Maybe that's the providential reason why we've been divided for so long: even though there are those schism and opposing views on some issues, the opposing sides still recognize the same Bible and mostly have more or less the same set of general beliefs and customs, and thus we can argue that Christianity is not this Roman or Greek cultural endeavor and it's not made up.
No, i believe in the consensus of the church. And if the whole consus of the church does not agree to the doctrine, then it should not be taught as binding on ones soul. This is the reason mainline protestants need to get back to their roots and start working these things out ecumenically.
My problem with Lutheran Christology is not asserting that it falls into Monophysitism, “that in the person of Christ there was only one nature-the divine” (Wikipedia). Rather my problem is that it goes against the Chalcedonian Definition when it says Christ is “without confusion or change” or admixture between the two natures. I don’t see how a Lutheran can argue for Communication of (divine) Attributes (i.e. omnipresence) to the human nature and not transgress the definition. And because of that, it doesn’t seem to me that the Lutheran position is just part of the tradition going all the way back, as Dr. Cooper says.
“Against this condemned heresy the Christian Church has always simply believed and held that the divine and the human nature in the person of Christ are so united that they have true communion with each other. The natures are not mingled in one essence. But, as Dr. Luther writes, they come together in one person. So on account of this personal union and communion, the ancient teachers of the Church, before and after the Council of Chalcedon, frequently used the word mixture, in a good sense and with true discrimination. To prove this, many testimonies of the Fathers, if necessary, could be quoted. These are to be found frequently also in the writings of our divines, and they explain the personal union and communion using the illustration of the soul and body, and of glowing iron. For the body and the soul, as also fire and iron, have communion with each other. This is not by a phrase or mode of speaking, or in mere words, that is, so that it is merely a form of speech or mere words. But the communion is true and real. Nevertheless, there is no mixing or equalizing of the natures introduced like when mean is made from honey and water, which is no longer pure water or purse honey, but a mixed drink.” - The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord
@@HenryLeslieGraham Two questions :) 1. If there is communication of attributes from the divine nature to the human nature (communicatio idiomatum) is there also a communication of attributes from the human nature to the divine nature? 2. How can you say that there is absolutely no change in the human nature if it gets communicated a attribute it never had of himself?
@@mikeschmoll7762 1. No (dealt with in the Formula of Concord) 2. It's like sin, being divinised or corrupted doesn't stop one being human (Adam is just as human as us and as Jesus). Many in the early church see this (glorification/divinisation) as God's intended goal for mankind.
This comment befuddles me. The authors of the Creed and the Chalecedonian Definition had no controversy as to the reality of Christ's true body and true blood in the sacrament. In this the Lutherans agree. Are you suggesting: 1. The Fathers of Chalcedon were not Chalcedonian? 2. The Fathers of Chalcedon didn't really believe in the reality of Christ's true body and true blood in the sacrament? 3. Something else I can't imagine, just as I can't imagine your initial comment making any sense?
There is an interesting aspect for consideration with regard to the "modes of presence", seeing as how Lutherans would not _necessarily_ deny that Christ's 'local presence' is circumscribed in Heaven. That there is a distinction between a sacramental mode whereby his body and blood are "spiritually" united to bread and wine while His local body and blood are and remain in Heaven -- demonstrates the Lutheran desire to maintain (along with the Dominican and Reformed) a general Augustinian-Platonism with regard to signum/res; while simultaneously leaning toward a Cyrillic christology within that Augustinian framework. For those wondering what the difference is, the idea is that the substance/essence of a thing can in-form or be present within participating matter (bread and wine) without the thing itself being _locally_ realized (body and blood).
I often find that in these sorts of theological and philosophical debates, things always boil down to definitions. Somewhere in the background is a term or set of terms that both sides are taking for granted but actually have different definitions for. In this case, what does it mean to "encounter God"? Very few of us have ever had the fortune, or misfortune, to actually encounter God face-to-face, and the vast majority of those encounters are in Scripture. If we saw Him face-to-face and lived, like Moses, then the odds are pretty good that we were in fact seeing the Second Person of the Triune God (and the fact that Moses, Jacob, and Hagar saw Him and lived indicates something about His humanity, even pre-incarnation). Outside of that and the Second Coming, in which case we will see Him in His Body, I'm not sure what the term means. We certainly encounter Him in our prayers, but His bodily presence is not required for that.
Every body has a specific location. Jesus MUST have a specific location "on the right hand of the father", because in his incarnation the eternal Son was united with the human nature (BODY and soul) for ETERNITY. Because Christ will be the God-Man for eternity, his body must have a specific location. If you deny this, you deny the full scope of the Son's incarnation!
I don't think you were listening. The case Cooper made was that to deny the ability for the human side of Christ to share in the divine attributes is actually to deny the full scope of the incarnation by denying a full hypostasis of the two natures. Omnipresence would be one of those attributes.
These are why I think God offered us the Protestant movements. He wants us to reopen these conversations. To think deeply about topics we had become too comfortable with. It is one way we grow closer to God. Thanks for your offering to the Catholic Church.
Jesus said, I am *the true* vine. _John 15:1_ And he proved it by turning water into wine. This means that the garden variety grapevine is "passing away." 1 Cor 7:31. Mere allegories don't destroy their own figures. Instead the garden plant is the allegory (type) and Jesus is the reality (antitype). This is clearly not the same as if he had said, "The kingdom of God is *like* a vine" or even “I am *like* a vine.” It’s truer to say, “Are you impressed with green gardens and new sweet wine? That’s nothing at all. I’m the true vine.” _John 10:7 So Jesus said _*_again, “Amen, Amen,_*_ I tell you: I am _*_the_*_ door for the sheep._ Jesus literally is the door. There is no other entrance to the Kingdom of God. That's what the *Amen, Amen* is for. Moreover, ancient Near Eastern sheep pens often had a mere opening in the wall for a doorway. A shepherd would sleep in the doorway, keeping the sheep in and animals out, so he literally was the door of the sheep. In these two parables, Christ points us *away from* the elements and toward himself, emphatically claiming their reality for himself. i.e. Forget your silly backyard garden. *I am* the true vine. Amen, Amen, I am *the* door. There is no other. When he says, "Take and eat. *This is* my body," he points directly *to* the element 🍞 and grants it reality. For more, read _The Incarnation of the Word_ by St. Athanasius.
yep a portal not made of wood, metal, stone, plastic, or grass but a man; not rectangular, square, round or triangular, but man shaped; not to another room, inside or outside, but the Kingdom of God.
@@chrisharris9710 no, he is a literal gate, the only gate into the kingdom of God. Just as He is the light of the world, the good Shepherd, the resurrection and the life, and just as the bread and wine in Holy Communion are literally His Body and Blood
You channel has given me a new good perspective on Lutheranism. I find the world need more people like you
Dr. Cooper, thank you for this series on Christology. I appreciate you so much.
A great session! When I was attending an SBC seminary, my professors only said Luther was not "loving" during the Marburg Colloquy. By chance, I read up on the detail of the Lord's Supper debate. While I was mesmerized by both reformers, I became more convinced by Luther's argument. It became the main reason for leaving the Baptist and Presbyterian.
I am fascinated by Martin Luther and Lutheran denomination though. So many things that I was taught about Lutheranism turned out to be false or disinformation.
Confessional Lutheran here. To be fair, we have a bad habit of insularity. Just try buying any Lutheran book from Concordia Publishing House. Expeeeeensive.
@@Mygoalwogel Another confessional Lutheran here, I concur.
we are taught the same thing in reformed Anglican seminaries. then again many evangelicals don't even know what the Anglican position is on the eucharist (hint its real presence) preferring zwinglis view without being able to accurately define zwinglis perspective
I had a similar experience at a "non-denominational" Baptist seminary.
@@cwstreeper The1689 London Baptist Confession, early reformed Baptists believed in the "spiritual presence". Different from Lutheran but was never just the memorial view.
"The body and blood of Christ are not present bodily or physically in the ordinance but spiritually to the faith of believers"
Christ himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. Luther at Marburg
“ I do not ask how Christ can be God and man, and how his natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments, as for example, that a large body could not fill a small space. God is above and beyond all mathematics, and his words are to be adored and observed with awe. God, however, commands: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’. I request, therefore, a valid proof from Holy Writ that these words do not mean what they say.”
Do you worship the elements of Communion then?
@@c.m.granger6870 I believe Jesus and do it in remembrance of Him. Peace.
@@jamessheffield4173 Then you take a memorial view of the sacrament?
@@c.m.granger6870 The Real Presence, but not Transubstantiation. Peace.
This was a beautiful exposition. Thank you for your work, Dr. Cooper!
This is truly a great video. It answered so many questions. Thank you
Thanks Dr. Cooper. Enjoying the Christology study.
I’ve been studying a lot on the topic of auto Theos and I believe that it leads to modal collapse. I know there has been some talk about you doing a podcast on the topic and I personally would love to see it. Great video dr cooper keep up the good work.
Thank you for your videos. I'm interested in Lutheranism and learning more about their Christology and sacramentology. I hope to get into Martin Chemnitz's works soon.
Also, even R.C. Sproul, who is more Nestorian than orthodox Calvinism is (as he said God didn't die on the cross), says that we encounter Christ as the God-man everywhere because, although the human nature isn't omnipresent, the natures are so inseparably united that we encounter the whole person, not just a nature. So I know Zwingli will always be Zwingli, but I don't see the problem with the Christology of real Calvinists in that particular regard.
Cooper lays out the issues much better than the many ignorant local Lutheran Pastors/ but the great debate with White goes begging. I for one, accept the Luther view of Communion, but not a lot else of the Polity and Romish customs.
Thoughts on the claim penal substitution atonement is Nestorian
Thank you Dr. Cooper. I was always troubled by the Reformed theologians who made God and Man forever separate. I asked, "What about Christ then?"
Another excellent commentary and presentation on a very important issue. Thank you.
Are there any good patristic sources that speak to the omnipresence of Christ's human nature?
Yes. I'll be getting there.
I plan on attending seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Godspeed
Both my brothers and my father went there. God bless you.
Just so good (so well done).
Thank you for that.
Right in the middle of this video was a very sensual Lindt chocolate commercial that I could not skip. The contrast lmao
(Calvinist here) if Christ filling all things means His human nature fills all things, then how is His presence unique in the Lord's Supper? Wouldn't that mean the presence of His human nature is everywhere? Could one argue that if we don't encounter Christ's humanity DIRECTLY on this earth, that makes the Lord's Supper unique because we can? (by the mystical operations of the Spirit) Also, I appreciate the fair treatment with which you describe Calvinists, not calling us Nestorians.
"then how is His presence unique in the Lord's Supper" This is why we have to be careful with the language; it also helps to study higher mathematics and things like Cantor sets. Christ is in all things, but what does that mean? What it means is that there is no place that we can go or look, from the center of the Earth to the furthest star, where we cannot pray to Him and be heard. On the other hand, while He is in even a pile of Martian dirt, He is not there _for us_. That Martian dirt will not do us any spiritual good. Even if we water it and grow potatoes in it, they will only feed our body, not our souls.
However, He _is_ in the bread and the wine of Holy Communion, just as He is in the water of Baptism, _for us_. He has promised that the bread and wine will bring us His presence and grace and will feed our spirits and strengthen us, just as He promised us that the water and words of baptism will bring us the Holy Spirit and sanctification.
In the Words of Institution, when Jesus says "do this in remembrance of me" the Greek can be read either way, and almost certainly means both: "do this so that you remember me" and "do this so that _I_ remember _you_".
@@paulblase3955 Great answer!
@@paulblase3955 That is a profoundly Lutheran answer. "That person is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: _'Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.'_ ... For these words, _'for you',_ require all hearts to believe." --Small Catechism, Sacrament of the Altar
@@Mygoalwogel Gee, I wonder why that is?
@@paulblase3955 Haha. Well I don't know. Some people who are good at science and math struggle with contemporary Lutheran options.
I know the topic today is different. But what is the opinion of the Lutheranism about Nicea II?
That it's true.
Martin Chemnitz call it a pseudosynod.
@@Sam-ux7cn but until I know Lutheranism is not iconoclastic. That’s the reason I would like to know what Dr. Cooper says about it. I am really interested to know it.
@@j.a674 the adoration of saints is rejected, the Lutheran community takes a position between that of Nicaea II and Hieria, which would be best articulated by the council of Frankfurt and the work attributed to Charlemagne on the subject.
Good discussion, everybody. I'd like citations for Sam and Roberto's comments. NOT arguing. I just like knowing where that sort of thing is.
It seems to me that if the finite is not capable of the infinite, then you can kiss the Incarnation itself goodbye.
In ephesians 4, the semantic range of the word for "fills" all things could allow for fulfill in the sense of accomplishes and not simply fills in the sense of pervasiveness. I could be wrong, not a Greek expert...
I wouldn't say it's modalism to suggest that Christ could have been talking about the Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:20. In Zechariah 12:10 we have God referring to Christ as "me" and "him" in the same breath. The angel of the Lord does this too, switching between the first and third person. Then we have the Holy Spirit discourses in John where Christ says HE sends the Spirit, but then it's the FATHER who sends him, or when he says he and his Father will make their abode with you, but then it's the Spirit that dwells with you, etc. It seems to me each member of the Trinity can freely identify with the other two without violating their distinctions. Which makes perfect sense if they're one God.
When exactly does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ? In the oven while its baking? In the church fridge? When a Latin phrase is spoken over it? When its set out on the Communion table? When does the magic happen?
Thanks so much for this and all you do. It's very helpful.
As for half video/half audio, I count in both. I watch the video and then listen to the audio later to really absorb the material.
I’ve been thinking buying some books from the Westminster John Knox Press specifically the Luther-Erasmus debate and some of their other publications. Are they a trusted publisher & are their translations reliable?
Recently an SBC pastor urged me (a recent Lutheran catechumen) to be extremely wary of Lutherans because he is convinced that the Real Presence has monophysite tendencies (he says that for it to be true, Christ's physical body would have to be omnipresent and that is a divine trait).
I told him that if the attributes don't communicate, then the atonement is null. He didn't know how to answer that.
I'm skeptical about Zwingli advocating Nestorian views. Can you provide a quote or two where you think he actually does this?
His view was that God the Son can be anyhwere He wants, but Jesus the Man can only be in heaven.
Cyril's Nestorius-strawman was that Mary is the mother of Jesus the Man, but Mary is not the mother of God the Son.
@@Mygoalwogel From what I've read of Zwingly he didn't frame the issue quite like that. He didn't say that "God the Son can be anywhere ... but Jesus the Man can only be in heaven." He said that God/the Son/Jesus is omnipresent in terms of his divine nature but localized in terms of his human nature. One person, two natures.
@@michael6549 _"He said that God/the Son/Jesus is omnipresent in terms of his divine nature but localized in terms of his human nature."_
In this opinion, the Son of God is omnipresent and present in the Sacrament. And the Son of Mary is localized in heaven and not present in the Sacrament. One person, two natures. That's precisely Cyril's version of Nestorianism. That's *TWO* persons, two natures.
@@Mygoalwogel What I said (as opposed to what you said) is not Nestorianism. If it is you'll have to condemn Ambrose, Augustine, and many other Fathers of being Nestorians.
@@michael6549 Is the Son of Mary present in the Sacrament?
Please explain how I have to condemn those fathers.
Very insightful thoughts
So am I understanding you correctly that you understand “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."
(John 14:18 ESV), Jesus speaking about the sacraments?
@@Mygoalwogel Listen what Dr. Coopers says on 28:30. How is it any different in John 14?
@@mikeschmoll7762 My bad. Wrongly assumed you were including verse 17 in your idea.
@@Mygoalwogel Well I agree that Christ is present by the Holy spirit because his spirit is poured out in our hearts,but that's how I understand Matt. 28,20 even though Jesus said there (and John 14) "I (Jesus with his body speaking) will come to you and will be with you".
Zwingli vs Luther is why Switzerland and swabia has a distinct culture from its northern Protestant neighbors in germany and the nordic countries right?
Would the 2nd Council of Constantinople eliminate the Reformed position? It says that the difference of natures is only in contemplation.
I've always wondered how many of these theologians arguing about infinities and their relation to reality have ever actually studied Cantor sets and the mathematics of infinities.
Beyond some folks in the analytic or neo-Scholastic traditions who study philosophical theology and have dabbled in mathematical logic and the philosophy of mathematics, I suspect very few would be able to give even a cursory definition of matters like transfinite cardinals and the continuum hypothesis. Nevertheless, even among Christian analytic or neo-Scholastic philosophers, you find folks coming down on all sides of the Eucharist debate. I’m Anglican who holds to consubstantiation, my advisor for philosophy in college was Lutheran (I majored in philosophy, math, and computer science and wrote my senior thesis in philosophy of mathematics-quite amateurishly, in retrospect, for whatever that’s worth), you get folks like Richard Swinburne who are Eastern Orthodox, Alexander Pruss for Roman Catholicism, Alvin Plantinga for the Reformed, and William Lane Craig for American Evangelicalism. It takes all kinds, I guess. But I’m guessing very few who count themselves theologians more so than analytic or neo-Scholastic philosophers have worked with axiomatic set theory, transfinite cardinals, or the continuum hypothesis firsthand.
@@augustinian2018 The thing is, you have to be very careful when asserting things like "the finite cannot encompass the infinite"!
@@paulblase3955 The concept of infinity under discussion in this video, and in most of the ones involving the infinitude of God is not the quantitative mathematical notion of infinity, but the qualitative notion of a maximally great being (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, Necessary, etc...). For example when William Lane Craig offers his philosophical arguments against the existence of an actual infinity people have objected "But isn't God infinite?" To which he has responded with the answer I'm giving here. It's a qualitative notion of infinity, not the quantitative one that's being used here. In which case it would be a contradiction to say the finite could encompass the infinite.
@@PresbyterianPaladin Then the term is not being used precisely, furthermore that it is being interpreted incorrectly. When one says that "the finite cannot encompass the infinite", then they are using the mathematical definition. Or else, the definition used is so vague that it means nothing. To use the term to describe "a maximally great being (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, Necessary, etc...)" is to essentially say nothing, since we can know so little about such a being that we cannot say whether He can do something or not.
You say "In which case it would be a contradiction to say the finite could encompass the infinite." Why? For that matter, what does "encompass" mean? To my knowledge, the term means to surround, to contain. But no-one says that Jesus the human "encompasses" all of God, only that His humanity is integrated with His deity. Mathematically, of course, one can contain infinities within a finite volume; other than mathematically, the terms are so vague as to mean nothing.
God says what He says, and tells us what we can comprehend. To think that we can say God can't do X because of our understanding of how things work is the height of arrogance. It should be true that, as I believe C.S. Lewis expressed it, God cannot do those things that logically cannot be done; on the other hand, He knows a lot more about the laws of nature and what can and can't be done than we do.
@@paulblase3955 just because the term isn't being used mathematically doesn't mean it's not being used precisely.
Further I'm almost certain that when the reformed thinkers in the 16th century came up with the statement "the finite cannot encompass the infinite" they were not using infinite in the quantitative mathematical sense for the simple reason that most of them were not mathematicians. In this context they were speaking specifically about his omnipresence.
The definition is not vague, nor do these terms lack a definite meaning. For example omnipresent means to be present and causally active at every point in space and time as opposed to having a limited spatially extended presence.
This brings me to the point on contradictions, to say that one is both omnipresent and yet has a limited spatial extension in the same way and at the same time is a strict contradiction, it is to say that one is both omnipresent and not omnipresent, a and not a. The reformed position is that Christ in his person is both omnipresent and has a limited spatial extension in different ways. He is omnipresent in his divine nature, and has a limited spatial extension in his human nature. But if the Lutheran communication of attributes is correct then omnipresence has been communicated to Christ's human nature which means he is both omnipresent and has limited spatial extension at the same time, in the same way. A and not a.
This is why it is ironic that you say it's arrogant for me to say what God can and cannot do, but then give the caveat that God cannot do the logically impossible, when it is precisely a logical impossibility, a hard contradiction, a and not a, which I am saying he is incapable of.
All that to say I think that your importing a mathematical concept of infinity into this discussion where it is not pertinent in order to salvage your view from logical contradiction, but in the context of the actual debate it's of no help. Lastly just asserting that defining infinity in a qualitative way is so vague as to mean nothing and that we know so little about such a being (God) that we cannot say whether he can do something, is essentially to throw millennia of theological work down the drain. It results in an unwarranted agnosticism about God.
I think it's wrong to suggest that these issues hadn't been addressed at councils in the patristic era. This impression is a problem that arises when people isolate Chalcedon as if it's the definitive conciliar statement on Christology. It's not, and the Fathers never pretended it was. Chalcedon was meant to supplement, not replace, Ephesus, and Constantinople II in turn supplemented Chalcedon. Zwingli's Christology is in serious tension with Ephesus, and explicitly contradicts Constantinople II.
Very nicely done, Doctor. Thank you. One question: I thought that the whole question of the presence of Christ's ascended natural flesh in relation to the Blessed Sacrament was sorted out in the Ratramnus and Radbertus controversy well before the reformation. Is it not the case that all (papist and prot) agree that Christ's natural flesh is *not* present in the sacrament? Perhaps Christ's human *nature* is present in spiritual substance hypostatically united to the divine nature in one person, but is his natural flesh present in material substance? I thought not, given the mediaeval debate, but your clarity on that would be good to know.
This is what the Lutheran Confessions say on the matter:
“Hence we hereby utterly [reject and] condemn the Capernaitic eating of the body of Christ, as though [we taught that] His flesh were rent with the teeth, and digested like other food, which the Sacramentarians, against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests, wilfully force upon us, and in this way make our doctrine odious to their hearers; and on the other hand, we maintain and believe, according to the simple words of the testament of Christ, the true, yet supernatural eating of the body of Christ, as also the drinking of His blood, which human senses and reason do not comprehend, but as in all other articles of faith our reason is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and this mystery is not apprehended otherwise than by faith alone, and revealed in the Word alone.”
-Formula of Concord (Epitome), Article VII, Negative Thesis 21
“We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.”
-Formula of Concord (Epitome), Article VII, Affirmative Thesis 7
I’d like to know the citation for where Zwingli said he was not influenced by Luther in his Swiss reforms. From what I understand he acknowledged his indebtedness to Luther.
"Before anyone in the area had ever heard of Luther, I began to preach the gospel of Christ in 1516...Luther, whose name I did not know for at least another two years, had definitely not instructed me. I followed Holy Scripture alone."
@@ryanward72 thank you for this quote, do you know where it comes from?
That was way over my head. I'm new to being a Lutheran and fairly new to moving from an Armenian theology, which is to say no real theology, to a theology more Calvinistic/Lutheran. I'm gonna need a translation of this video, and probably a translation of the translation.
Im with you on multiple presences. Christ skaod where two are more are gathered in my name, there i am with them. Christ is present at every liturgy held around the world.
Very good video and highly informative! Thanks Pr. Cooper
About ephesians 4, if I say about a person that his presence filled the whole room, am I saying that he is literal multilocated?
I agree that the language of "being at the right hand of the father" doesn't need to be strict literal, but from Hebrews, John 14 I would strongly conclude that Jesus ministry on earth has come to an end and is now ministring in the most holy place as the high priest before the father. The only one who has a ministry on earth right now is the holy spirit.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ according to I Peter 1, Romans 8. If the Holy Spirit is with you then Christ is with you by His Spirit.
Also if I'm understanding correctly we can't truly, really, fully encounter Jesus Christ except during communion/ Eucharist? If so shouldn't Christians take communion as often as physically possible, multiple times daily? Move next to the church building to be able to request communion as often as possible and a pastor would be awful to deny them?
Why wasn't Luther a transcendentalist then?
By the way, speaking of Christology. Being Oriental Orthodox, I came to the conclusion that effectively Rome was the main if not the sole reason why Christianity worldwide mostly shares the dyophysite/dyothelite point of view. Eastern emperors were willing to find common ground with Alexandria (Henotikon of Zeno and Typos of Constans, for example), but Rome and pro-Roman theologians, starting with Leo I, won by not willing to compromise. We could've had a miaphysite Greece and a different course of history were it not for the will of Rome and their authority claims starting from that era. And it's one of the strongest arguments for Roman Catholicism / Papal infallibility as opposed to Greek Orthodoxy in my mind: if we accept that their shared stance against Alexandria was appropriate, effectively it was Rome who set the terms for Orthodox theology when Constantinople was willing to compromise. I'm honestly interested in your thoughts on that.
P. S. Love your content.
That's an intriguing notion. Do you think some vague desire to not worsten the schism with the Assyrian Church of the East played a role?
@@Mygoalwogel I honestly don't know. But I will say that the very ecclesiology of the Assyrian Church of the East (its genesis, development, external perception) is extremely intriguing. It doesn't get much attention compared to the empire-centric models of both Rome and Constantinople, although we could find some curious things there. I mean, if it's the case that there was the same Church of the East back then, their claims were recognized as legitimate, their Christology was to be dealt with, we kind of have to correct a lot in our Church history textbooks, no? Same goes for the Armenian Church which, despite belonging to this oriental family, kind of sees itself as its own entity historically. I think the same is true if we're talking about the Ethiopian Chruch. And generally, it's not like the Greek Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox ecclesiastical "mega-polities", so to speak, are exactly the same. So, I think Oriental traditions might become one day extremely important in analyzing various contentious topics like this. Maybe that's the providential reason why we've been divided for so long: even though there are those schism and opposing views on some issues, the opposing sides still recognize the same Bible and mostly have more or less the same set of general beliefs and customs, and thus we can argue that Christianity is not this Roman or Greek cultural endeavor and it's not made up.
I hear Eastern Orthodox people stating that the humanity alone died and not the divinity…are they Nestorian?
No, i believe in the consensus of the church. And if the whole consus of the church does not agree to the doctrine, then it should not be taught as binding on ones soul. This is the reason mainline protestants need to get back to their roots and start working these things out ecumenically.
Low key the best sweater to date
My problem with Lutheran Christology is not asserting that it falls into Monophysitism, “that in the person of Christ there was only one nature-the divine” (Wikipedia). Rather my problem is that it goes against the Chalcedonian Definition when it says Christ is “without confusion or change” or admixture between the two natures. I don’t see how a Lutheran can argue for Communication of (divine) Attributes (i.e. omnipresence) to the human nature and not transgress the definition. And because of that, it doesn’t seem to me that the Lutheran position is just part of the tradition going all the way back, as Dr. Cooper says.
Exactly my feelings, I cannot fathom how a Lutheran can truly confess Chalcedon...
“Against this condemned heresy the Christian Church has always simply believed and held that the divine and the human nature in the person of Christ are so united that they have true communion with each other. The natures are not mingled in one essence. But, as Dr. Luther writes, they come together in one person. So on account of this personal union and communion, the ancient teachers of the Church, before and after the Council of Chalcedon, frequently used the word mixture, in a good sense and with true discrimination. To prove this, many testimonies of the Fathers, if necessary, could be quoted. These are to be found frequently also in the writings of our divines, and they explain the personal union and communion using the illustration of the soul and body, and of glowing iron. For the body and the soul, as also fire and iron, have communion with each other. This is not by a phrase or mode of speaking, or in mere words, that is, so that it is merely a form of speech or mere words. But the communion is true and real. Nevertheless, there is no mixing or equalizing of the natures introduced like when mean is made from honey and water, which is no longer pure water or purse honey, but a mixed drink.” - The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord
@@HenryLeslieGraham Two questions :)
1. If there is communication of attributes from the divine nature to the human nature (communicatio idiomatum) is there also a communication of attributes from the human nature to the divine nature?
2. How can you say that there is absolutely no change in the human nature if it gets communicated a attribute it never had of himself?
@@mikeschmoll7762 1. No (dealt with in the Formula of Concord)
2. It's like sin, being divinised or corrupted doesn't stop one being human (Adam is just as human as us and as Jesus). Many in the early church see this (glorification/divinisation) as God's intended goal for mankind.
This comment befuddles me. The authors of the Creed and the Chalecedonian Definition had no controversy as to the reality of Christ's true body and true blood in the sacrament. In this the Lutherans agree. Are you suggesting:
1. The Fathers of Chalcedon were not Chalcedonian?
2. The Fathers of Chalcedon didn't really believe in the reality of Christ's true body and true blood in the sacrament?
3. Something else I can't imagine, just as I can't imagine your initial comment making any sense?
There is an interesting aspect for consideration with regard to the "modes of presence", seeing as how Lutherans would not _necessarily_ deny that Christ's 'local presence' is circumscribed in Heaven. That there is a distinction between a sacramental mode whereby his body and blood are "spiritually" united to bread and wine while His local body and blood are and remain in Heaven -- demonstrates the Lutheran desire to maintain (along with the Dominican and Reformed) a general Augustinian-Platonism with regard to signum/res; while simultaneously leaning toward a Cyrillic christology within that Augustinian framework.
For those wondering what the difference is, the idea is that the substance/essence of a thing can in-form or be present within participating matter (bread and wine) without the thing itself being _locally_ realized (body and blood).
I often find that in these sorts of theological and philosophical debates, things always boil down to definitions. Somewhere in the background is a term or set of terms that both sides are taking for granted but actually have different definitions for. In this case, what does it mean to "encounter God"? Very few of us have ever had the fortune, or misfortune, to actually encounter God face-to-face, and the vast majority of those encounters are in Scripture. If we saw Him face-to-face and lived, like Moses, then the odds are pretty good that we were in fact seeing the Second Person of the Triune God (and the fact that Moses, Jacob, and Hagar saw Him and lived indicates something about His humanity, even pre-incarnation). Outside of that and the Second Coming, in which case we will see Him in His Body, I'm not sure what the term means. We certainly encounter Him in our prayers, but His bodily presence is not required for that.
Every body has a specific location. Jesus MUST have a specific location "on the right hand of the father", because in his incarnation the eternal Son was united with the human nature (BODY and soul) for ETERNITY. Because Christ will be the God-Man for eternity, his body must have a specific location. If you deny this, you deny the full scope of the Son's incarnation!
I don't think you were listening. The case Cooper made was that to deny the ability for the human side of Christ to share in the divine attributes is actually to deny the full scope of the incarnation by denying a full hypostasis of the two natures. Omnipresence would be one of those attributes.
"Spirit of Christ"
Great video, lots to think about. I am pretty sure I won't be going Catholic, Just so you know. ;)
These are why I think God offered us the Protestant movements. He wants us to reopen these conversations. To think deeply about topics we had become too comfortable with. It is one way we grow closer to God. Thanks for your offering to the Catholic Church.
(In jest): Luther denied I will be the next pope. That is was eat worms. Lol
This blows my mind lol - Jesus really took on our flesh
All I can say about this is Christ also said he is a door and a gate…… just saying.
Jesus said, I am *the true* vine. _John 15:1_ And he proved it by turning water into wine. This means that the garden variety grapevine is "passing away." 1 Cor 7:31. Mere allegories don't destroy their own figures. Instead the garden plant is the allegory (type) and Jesus is the reality (antitype). This is clearly not the same as if he had said, "The kingdom of God is *like* a vine" or even “I am *like* a vine.” It’s truer to say, “Are you impressed with green gardens and new sweet wine? That’s nothing at all. I’m the true vine.”
_John 10:7 So Jesus said _*_again, “Amen, Amen,_*_ I tell you: I am _*_the_*_ door for the sheep._ Jesus literally is the door. There is no other entrance to the Kingdom of God. That's what the *Amen, Amen* is for.
Moreover, ancient Near Eastern sheep pens often had a mere opening in the wall for a doorway. A shepherd would sleep in the doorway, keeping the sheep in and animals out, so he literally was the door of the sheep.
In these two parables, Christ points us *away from* the elements and toward himself, emphatically claiming their reality for himself. i.e. Forget your silly backyard garden. *I am* the true vine. Amen, Amen, I am *the* door. There is no other.
When he says, "Take and eat. *This is* my body," he points directly *to* the element 🍞 and grants it reality.
For more, read _The Incarnation of the Word_ by St. Athanasius.
yep a portal not made of wood, metal, stone, plastic, or grass but a man; not rectangular, square, round or triangular, but man shaped; not to another room, inside or outside, but the Kingdom of God.
@@j.g.4942 right, and not a literal gate, so too the bread and wine are not literally his body and blood.
@@chrisharris9710 no, he is a literal gate, the only gate into the kingdom of God. Just as He is the light of the world, the good Shepherd, the resurrection and the life, and just as the bread and wine in Holy Communion are literally His Body and Blood
The reformation failed in Luther’s lifetime.
Nuh-uh.