I am a new Lutheran. I saw one comment on Twitter about Christ not being local in the supper and I started asking my pastor and the elders at church a million questions. Nobody really understood what I was talking about. This video is a huge blessing, because it answered all the questions I had about what the formula of Concord is addressing in article 7. So just know that this video was worth making, if only because it will settle a (friendly) controversy at my church.
Hi Sean my brother in Christ. Man has a propencity to only believe in that which we can see and touch. It's for this reason that Christians began believing we actually needed to eat Christ during communion to have Christ in us. Jesus said if his word abides in us we will abide in him. Jesus said we would be in Christ. Jesus said we would be filled with the Holy Spirit. That is a spiritual truth. Thats why we take communion. Its to remember and acknowledge that Christ is in us, the hope of Glory.
@@seanmoore9713 Yep, and Paul a said it is actually the COMMUNION (ie partaking of, sharing) of the Body and Blood of Christ. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” I Corinthians 10:16 NKJV Seems like the anti-sacramentalists want to just focus on the MEMORIAL aspect (and certainly that is true and important) while ignoring the COMMUNION ASPECT of the Supper.
I disagree. The eating is literal which means physical. Either you are really eating Christ's body or it's symbolic and/or spiritual. That is the word physical is to be distinguished from the merely spiritual. Denying that it's physical doesn't help at all.
This was super helpful for me. Coming from a non-denominational background, I felt like I was having a crisis of faith when I learned about Communion being the real Body and Blood of Christ. I had only ever heard it was symbolic and thought I was becoming Catholic, which I always thought was a false religion, and was terrified, honestly. I had no idea that this is a traditional Christian belief, even within Protestantism. I really needed this video. Thank you so much for making it.
So you're disqualified from preaching because you're too precise!? 😳 Coming from a penticostal / charismatic background it is because there is precision in doctrine and how the doctrine is taught and talked about is why I became Lutheran.
Although not Lutheran we really appreciate your wisdom and insight. Do not let the criticism get to you! You are a gift to the church! To Christ be the Glory!
Thank you for this video and for your ministry Pastor. You’re certainly apt to teach! For your encouragement, your videos along with my own study started me on the road to Lutheranism. My wife and I were confirmed into the Lutheran church on the Sunday before Christmas this year. Praying for you and your family.
18:00 "What we're doing is trying to say, 'We want to affirm everything that the Scriptures say'." Yep, that's why I'm still Lutheran and don't know where else I can go.
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
I liked at the end when you mentioned the people who need to hear this but who probably won't and the people who don't need to hear it but are listening anyway. I'm in that second camp but I still found this very helpful. Coming from the reformed tradition I'd always been told Lutherans held to consubstantiation in the eucharist, so your explanation was very helpful. 😁
This hour long episode IS VERY APPRECIATED. I'm a relatively new Lutheran who discovered you by listening to IssuesETC, and I benefited greatly from your discussion of the nature of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. Thank you
This video really helped me! Considering Christ says he is present where 2 or 3 are gathered in his name, or that he is with them until the end of the age, this presentation is very interesting and helpful
I loved this, Pastor. So thorough. I will listen to this several times. I feel sorry for folks who take communion as a memorial service with a bunch of emotion. Why would anyone value it? I can “remember” Jesus on my couch at home…
For anyone interested in further reading, Martin Chemnitz devotes an entire chapter to this question in his book on the Lord's Supper. His work is excellent.
To put it simply, Lutherans believe that Christ is truly and substantially present; a sacramental union in, with and under the elements of the supper; given for faith and to be received by faith in the oral reception of the elements. We do NOT believe that the sacraments are merely spiritual/symbolic, nor that they confer grace ex opere operato (ie merely as an act done, apart from faith) but are given by Christ TO declare personally to the believer, their reconciliation to the Father paid for by His once-for-all shed blood on the cross. Only faith receives, believes and clings to promise and so this is intensely personal and enlivening.
I removed my last comments. I will not leave the Lutheran church. My pastor gave me a simple explanation that made good sense. He also asked me to stay off RUclips and the internet for things relating to the church and what we believe and confess.
Okey, so, I’m gonna write in this comment the things I learned by your great and extensive explanation of the presence of Christ in His (Lord’s) Supper according to traditional and confessional Lutheranism: It IS 1) sacramental, 2) true and real, 3) substantial, 4) mystical - supernatural - incomprehensible; and it IS NOT 1) local or physical. I already understand the Roman Catholic theology or view on the Eucharist, so now, I am going to watch a video in which I can truly understand better the symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper (to which I currently hold to). Correct me if I’ve understood wrongly the Lutheran position, please. And, by the way, I would truly appreciate a video of you giving patristic examples of different views related to the significance of the Lord’s Supper / Eucharist… divided in pre-nicene / nicene / and post-nicene Church “fathers”. Thanks for your content and patience!!!!!!!
This is excellent. I would like to second the comments about anti-intellectualism being some sort of virtue in certain circles. Considering the enormous influence of Reformed theology and American evangelicalism, we have to model a better way. I would not be shocked if your Prolegomena work would be dismissed similarly, even though the recovery of the scholastic tradition is THE way forward in our post-modern, expressive individualistic world. I tried to translate your book for a Pastor friend of mine as Gerhard > Paulson and Chemnitz > Forde, which if course means you are actually confessional!
Also, we can "walk and chew gum at the same time." I'm pretty sure that as a parish Pastor, you could visit shut-ins utilizing simple Bible passages, discuss the modes of Christ's presence, prep a sermon, and play Star Wars with your kids, all in the same day!
30:56 to 32:30 about “confessional” Lutherans not actually knowing the Lutheran confessions (at least philosophical categories employed therein) warranted a mic drop. It reminds me (an Anglican) of an argument I once got into with a “confessional” Lutheran about whether after the fall, the essence of man is entirely evil (his position) or the same essence created by God yet deeply corrupted-deeply deprived of that which makes it good (my position). I couldn’t understand why he didn’t see the absurdity of his position, that it was basically Manichaean. I only later learned that his position is explicitly rejected in Article I of the Formula of Concord.
I honestly don’t think those those distinctions are too hard for the little old ladies in the parish to grasp. It’s just a more refined way of distinguishing what they probably already intuitively believe about the Eucharist as Lutherans.
16:30 I would agree that of course Christ can do anything he wants, he is everywhere at all time and any form or mode he deems. But that’s different than saying that what he commanded us in communion was that he would allow us to chew on his flesh carnally That’s definitely not the case. We receive him spiritually.
This is helpful video. Being in Refromed circles before I was Lutheran, I would often hear the differences between Lutherans and refromed sumarized as, Lutherans belive christ is phisiscaly present and reformed belive he is spiritually present. Obviously this is a misrepresentation and ive since mooved beyond it but it shows that dumbed down explanations usually dont get the job done.
Aside from this being a great reply to the insanity of Twitter, I want to express how excited I am to hear you'll be republishing The Conservative Reformation! Krauth is, probably, my favorite theologian, and this book was massively influential on my reversion to Lutheranism. This is amazing news!
10:54 mystery solved, the picture HE painted was “just like this bread is broken and consumed for carnal life, HIS body would be broken for eternal life, and just like the wine was consumed for earthly life, his blood would be spilled for eternal life” In what way do we cooperate with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection? In spirit and truth. In faith and hope through Christ our Lord. Mystery solved, read the Bible
The example of our vision not literally taking up the space of everything in our field of vision brings to mind the scene of Patrick "focusing" in the chocolate episode of Spongebob 😂
Good video, I appreciate how much effort you put into this video and I'm sorry to here you're being falsely accused of being an improper Pastor simply because you engage in scholastic thought. In fact, I would say that refusal to explain using logical and scholastic thought is what turned me away from contemporary Lutheran thought on the Supper at many points, as it gave me the misinterpretation that Lutherans believed in a *physical* presence due to the lack of qualification given in what is meant to say Christ is present in the Supper. I've learned better, and I'm glad I can find Lutheran Pastors defending themselves against such charges in a clear manner. That being said, I have two questions coming from my own Anglican perspective: First, I often find Lutherans bringing up the post-resurrection state of Christ and attributing some other mode of presence to this than the corporeal presence. I find this to be quite strange. To the best of my knowledge, it's alien to my own tradition as well as most others and a topic I find quite distinctive to Lutherans. Would you be willing to do a video talking about more about how the Lutheran tradition views the 40 days of Christ post-resurrection? I've heard many things such as the belief in a Bodily descent into hell post-resurrection, views on Christ bilocating, etc.. I ask this because it seems to be a part of Christ's life that Lutherans have unique emphases and thoughts on which I don't hear from other traditions. Second, it is my belief that at some point, the real disagreement between our traditions seems to be mostly on eating. Whether or not the reception is oral. To my surprise the Anglican Tradition seems more subject to criticism on this point from a Lutheran perspective than some other Reformed traditions, as we state in the rubric at the end of The Communion of the Sick in the BCP: "But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness... or by any other just impediment, does not receive the sacrament [that is, the bread and wine] of Christ's body and blood, the pastor shall instruct him that if he truly repents him of his sins, and steadfastly believes that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby and giving him hearty thanks for the same, *he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he does not receive the sacrament with his mouth.*" Obviously this isn't normative for reception in our tradition and requires a "just impediment" to oral reception. My question is this: does the Lutheran tradition have any theology or instruction where this could be seen as true? Any idea of reception despite not being able to eat, perhaps akin to the theology of "Baptism of Desire?" Thanks for taking the time to read this, I pray you recover swiftly from whatever illness still afflicts you.
I really find the anti-intellectualism in most churches very frustrating. I find myself going to dictionary every time i hear a word dont understand but that just encourages learning. I dont see anything bad with some esoteric vocabulary here and there
As a Calvinist attending a LCMS local church, I partake of the Lords Supper without affirming or denying the “real presence” in faith as a mystery…most of those Lutheran members in attendance probably have not even read or understand the Lutheran Augsburg/Concord confessions as requirements prior to becoming members…!
I got a copy of the Conservative Reformation and its theology off of Amazon as one of the "scholar selects". On the bright side, it's affordable, but the formatting leaves much to be desired...
Do you think headway could be made with the Mercersburg school of Reformed theology? I've heard that recent scholarship on Calvin (Vermigli, Cranmer) has established a more complex view that might allow ecumenical development with Lutherans. In the past, often Lutherans drifted toward the Reformed.. but I think the trajectory demonstrates that in the future, the Reformed will drift toward us.
Scholarship is starting to suggest that Calvin's main concern was in objecting to a local/Capernaitic presence but that he would've been fine affirming a sacramental/substantial mode of the body and blood (in the bread and wine) and he in fact affirmed the manducatio indignorum.
I don’t know about all Reformed groups but I can tell you the RCUS specifically rejects any movement towards the Mercerberg theologians. And, Ursinus being the author of the Heidelberg, his commentary on it is typically unquestionable. He definitely rejects that Christ’s Body and Blood are received orally, as the Formula states.
@@kellyosullivan691 Dr. Brett Salkeld (a Roman Catholic), in particular is doing work on this. I'd have to re-look at the other sources. The Mercersburg school of Reformed theology (Francis Schaeffer, T. F. Torrance) are distinct older figures that hold to a higher sacramentology. Those are places off the top of my head that I'd start looking at.
Side note next time you have the flu do not stay bed ridden. One day of immobility takes about 3 days to recover from. Get up every couple of hours it restores the circulation, provides better gas exchange (which can prevent pnuemonia) and other positive effects.
Yet another example, as if one was needed, of how the church invented and perpetuates cancel culture. That said, I found your presentation really helpful. I knew the general shape of how Lutherans understood communion and this helped me flesh that out. To those who insist on a simple, pietistic Christianity without big words: I don't need to understand the physics that allow an airliner to fly in order to ride in one. But I don't want to get on one where the folks who built and maintain it don't. Practice your pietism to your heart's content. Just try not to impose your practice on everyone else in the building. Some of us have been made to serve our Lord differently. If you don't like that, take it up with Him.
How do we account for the presence of Christ in the Supper pre-ascension and pre-resurrection? He said “this is my body…” but he was sitting at the table itself. How do I overcome this objection? Would it be a matter of communication of attributes because he was the God-man even during the Supper he was performing? I’m trying to wrap my mind around this.
Thank you for the wonderful explanation! I grew up in the Lutheran church, but as a teenager I started attending the Baptist church with a friend from school. I very often heard it said of those who believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist were cannibals, and sadly most baptists I know still believe that. I've never heard anyone explain it before and often wondered if the Baptists were right. This has been very helpful! I now understand what is meant by the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and know we're not a bunch of cannibals, which is clearly contrary to God's Word. Thank you so much for this wonderful explanation!
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
@@nichill7474 The individuals in question have gone far beyond this. Not only have they refused to consider Jordan's arguments, and that of many others who have made many attempts to educate them, they are openly accusing Jordan, and everyone defending him, of being a Sacramentarian and denying the Real Presence entirely. Most of them are also avowed kinists. These are vile, incorrigible people.
(i watched like 10 mins into this video, keep that in mind) a good way to talk about your views on any particular subject is to give flaws about other views that people can understand and be convinced of. i hope Cooper does this in this video with the historic presbyterian view (excluding zwingly's view, he's nuts)
My layman's understanding on the difference between the Roman Catholic view and the Lutheran view (in terms of Christ's presence only, I'm not commenting on the idea of the recurring sacrifice) is that Roman Catholics believe the bread and wine cease to exist and only the body and blood are truly and substantially present (though they have the accents of bread and wine), whereas Lutherans believe Jesus never indicated what happened to the bread and wine and so it is a faulty assumption to say they have been destroyed. Bread, wine, body, and blood all exist in the same space simultaneously. Would you say that is correct or incorrect? Correct but an over simplification?
I appreciate your confessions, but as an outsider who subscribes to sola scriptura it would be super helpful for you to provide bible passages rather than the works of theologians from your tradition. I know the key verse probably will come down to “this is my body” but seeing how often Lutherans talk about this, one would assume there’s more of a scriptural grounding for their view. Especially since an alternative and more basic interpretation can be offered for that particular citation.
I think that the podcast you're referring to suffers from a class-distinction bias we see in the broader conservative spectrum. The elite-vs-populist or intellectual/anti-intellectual divide that manfested in the 2016 election. (This is something Paul Vanderklay has done a lot of work on) Keep in mind that you (Jordan) are a Northeastern WASP by culture and the host of the other podcast is Appalachian... there are deep-seated divides between Northern and Southern cultural and class identity that haven't been resolved since the Civil War. Most of the LCMS is middleclass Midwest and so somewhere in the middle culturally. I just think style and personality differences (even resulting in different theological approaches) can be culture and class-based in origin.
@@DrJordanBCooper Nothing wrong with being from the cultural elite. There's nothing more anti-traditional than populist anti-credentialism, it's killing "conservatism"
This is especially problematic when the populist base of any movement tends toward the reactionary-extreme and their despised elites toward an "educated nuance" and general moderation. You can't reason with those that reject rational discourse as de facto compromise. Very scary stuff. But a conversation for another time.
Sorry you had the twitter spat to put up with but - thankfully - you seem cheerful and robust enough to handle it. Thank you for your educational videos which, as a Catholic, I feel privileged to hear. God bless you.
I grew up Lutheran and now attend church that is non-denominational. Without being insulting, I do wish that people who are very intellectual spend an awful lot of time trying to define and interpret things that our limited brains do not have the ability to come close to comprehending because we are human beings and God is so infinitely more of everything than we are! I choose to accept this fact and submit to the fact of my inability to understand Him. I trust Him and I put my mind in a place where I am open, cognizant and grateful for what He has done for me and the magnitude of it. The details of it all is not essential for my belief of Jesus’ sacrifice or the minutiae of what communion means to anyone else. It is not necessary for my belief! It is simply based on FAITH. I hear all of the intellectual discussion as personal showcases of the orators’ own brainpower.
This is not a hard concept to grasp, once you accept one simple truth. I repeat, Truth. There are mysteries surrounding God. We are mortal, mutable created beings. He is immortal immutable and uncreated. Why would we be surprised that there are things we simply cannot understand fully, i.e. "mysteries" regarding the nature of God. Christ clearly states in Matthew that His body is the bread, His blood is the wine. Not that He physically became said elements, but within those elements, in that setting He was/is truly present. He did not use that exact terminology, but it does not take a great deal of brain cells to deduce the meaning. The Roman's read it incorrectly. And many protestants threw the baby out with the bath water to get as far away from Rome as they could. Rome stands on very shaky ground. And they know it. The non-conformists are on shaky ground but refuse to admit it. God wants not just your heart. But your brain as well. Love Him wholly, with everything. And, when reading, studying scripture use your brain as well as your heart.
As a reformed I believe in spiritual presence but in a more Calvinistic way. Not just a memorial non-presence as the Zwinglian caricature. I do not think you are horrible or heretical even though I slightly disagree with your view. Actually I am very sympathetic and maybe even close to a Lutheran or maybe Orthodox view of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. But i do have questions. 1. How different is the Lutheran view from the Orthodox view? To be truthful, I always thought of the Lutheran view as a real substantial presence. Just not explained like the Roman Catholics. Is that more of the Orthodox view? 2. I do not know if the multiple views of presence works which you started to discuss in minute 17. You assume at approximately 17:50 the exact item that is being discussed. That is the Jesus Christ is present in communion on earth. Jesus is present through the Spirit and he will be fully bodily and personally present again at the 2nd coming. We can all agree on that. I think. But we must do some more digging scripturally to show that Jesus' human body is present in the Eucharist. 3. I have sympathy of Christ being present in communion without being physically present but I cannot see how one can have a physical body without have the body physically present. Angels do not have bodies, they are spiritual beings only, so that example does not fit. I cannot wrap my head around that someone can be corporeal present and yet not have physical or corporeal presence. The rub for me is that I cannot believe in physical presence without the physical since a body is physical. Jesus does pass through walls and appears and disappears but he also can be touched. So when he is physically present in a space then he is. Light and heat are not like a body so that really does not seem to work. I guess the problem I am having is that this view seems to ay Jesus body is present, which is a physical thing, with never actually being physically present. I do not see anything that Jesus did with his glorified body that would fix my concerns. In all those examples he is actually physically present. In communion Luther seem to be saying he is not physically present at all. Thus, just saying that his body does not behave in all the ways our physical bodies do does not seem to be enough of an explanation.
Good video. I was most surprised by the Gerhard quote shying away of a corporeal presence, which seems to go against what the confessions say of a bodily presence in places like Apology X.55.
Luther: “the papists teach … and we with them that Christ’s body is not present locally like straw in a sack in the sacrament, but definitively.” Brief Confession on the Holy Sacrament 1544
" "For in him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:28 God is in everything but he is not the substance of anything. He is so to speak the nuclear glue that holds all things together, Col. 1:17, so technically speaking Christ is in all things but he is not anything. If you want to say he is in the supper fine, but he is just as much in everything else as well. We attach an infinitely greater degree of importance to the supper because it represents the death and shed blood of our savior for our sins. Paul also tells us that, "It is Christ in you the hope of glory." Col 1:27. So to have Christ in you is better than having Christ in the supper. Something else you might want to think about; if Christ doesn't dwell in temples made with hands why would he choose to manifest himself in anything else made with hands. 2 Cor. 4:7, "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may. be of God, and not of us."
So would you say that Christ is spiritually present withing the physical elements of the bread and wine, indwelt in them ? That way when a believer eats bread and wine, with chrsit spiritually indwelt in them, they recieved Christ. However when a disbeliever recieves the bread and wine with Christ indwelt in them, they do recieve Christ, however their lack of faith brings upon spiritual condemnation instead of spiritual strengthening ? Almost like a reverse calvaniat approach. Calvinists things you ascend through faith, whereas I am asking if Christ is present is spiritually but withing physical means, so anyone can atill partake of him?
The terms "American Lutheranism" and "Unionism" are two terms that get after the same idea; that is colonial German families compromising confessionalism (or simply not understanding) as they were starting out in the new world and formed churches. Many cases of congregations having a Lutheran and Reformed side that often had joint services, allowed pulpit interchange, etc., which obviously influenced religious life back on the continent as the promise of protestant unity spread.
A quick question on the Ascension and the modes of presence: What do you think the apostles meant when they wrote that Jesus ascended into heaven? Do you think that means he physically went upward, or some other form of ascension, and should we try to deliberate between the two meanings, or just that he now dwells with the Father, wherever that may be? I ask this question for a few reasons, but mainly because I wonder about the 'physical' description of what is being described, and how that relates to the modes of presence, and what the apostles were trying to communicate when they wrote the word 'ascension.'
There is a short lecture by Fulton Sheen on the ascension, it does a great job of explaining and is basically the same sort of explanation you’ll get from Luther
Dr Cooper, I am so sorry "several sanctified idiots" (loved by God!) totally distorted your explanation of the Lutheran position. I thought you did a fantastic job in provoking me to better accommodate Luther's position into my quasi-Calvin position. Given the amount of ink and sweat exerted on understanding this fascinating mystery, it defies me how any "believer" could call you out on a position simply because it does not conform to their 30 second Sunday School definition. How sad that a sacrament/ordinance that was given to unite, has divided the brethren. Regardless, I want to encourage you to draw strength from your predecessor and after your wrestling with Scripture and reading those giants from the past, and say " I neither can nor will retract anything; for it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen." (I like to think he said these words 😀) May God continue to bless your work!
Dr. Cooper, thank you so much for this it was very helpful, was wondering if there was a chance you could cite the books you speak about and read from in the podcasts in the descriptions? it would greatly help me in my own studies and many others
Concordia The Lutheran Confessions, Second Edition (Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord) Charles Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and It's Theology Heinrich Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Adolf Hoenecke, Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics (Volume 4)
Hello Pastor, I am an evangelical Christian, Argentine, and in the Church we are studying Christian history. We are quite surprised with Luther. He would like to ask you a few questions regarding what the Lutheran Church understands about the Lord's Supper. Suppose that on Tuesday the Christian sins, he asks God for forgiveness on Tuesday, and on Sunday he participates in the Lord's Supper. Did he receive forgiveness on Tuesday by faith without the Lord's Supper or did he receive it on Sunday at the Supper? If he received it on Tuesday, it was on Sunday and he was already forgiven. So in the Lord's Supper we do NOT receive "forgiveness of sins, life and salvation" (as the Lutheran Small Catechism says), but rather the strengthening of faith in those things. Is that so? Thank you so much. Greetings.
I'm not an expert, but I would say the person was already forgiven on Tuesday (1 John 1:9 - "if we confess our sins He is just and faithful to forgive us") The Lord's Supper is a cleansing of the soul and to unite us with Christ on the Sunday
9:48 and you’re not if you read the scripture you would understand. He is with us in spirit. This is just a fact, that’s God’s nature, that’s God’s character. The old and New Testament also forbid drinking blood.
To think that Christ needs to be physically ingested for someone to transmit sanctifying grace is a gross misrepresentation of what Christ meant by saying that bread and wine are to be taken as His body and blood in remembrance of Him.
I thought in scripture when someone has an issue, we should contact them directly first, then bring an extra person etc. I’m not sure why pastors would air out issues to public like that. I’m sure you would talk to them too!
Christ is present in people of faith in Jesus. Anything else is speculation.The name of Jesus does heal without any religious acts. Have experienced that myself having been healed several times ,and in praying for others to be healed and they were.
None other than Jacob Andrea made the same precise distinctions you do in his debate with Beza. These categories have literally been used by Lutherans for centuries. I have also seen similar tendencies among some Lutherans not to delve deeper, think about, or even address the more difficult issues. The “surfacy”, “don’t ask too many questions” attitude toward theology among many Lutherans is regrettable.
So - while Jesus was “taking up a place in time snd space” at the Last Supper - “he took the bread used in that commemorative meal - and after given thanks for it, broke it, and divided it up amongst his disciples, saying, ‘This is my body given for you’ - ‘do this in remembrance of me.’” Jesus was corporally present with others and took the bread of their nations commemorative meal and said: this bread which commemorates the historical deliverance of people from bondage now represents me and when you eat it “this I my body” - this is the thing in time and space which will be used to remind you of how I delivered humanity from bondage to sin and death. This corporeal object is now representative of the incarnate Christ and how he destroyed the works of the devil and delivered us from the curse of original sin. Clearly the bread Jesus broke was not him - for he was present in time and space doing the breaking of the bread. It was representative. In Jesus changing the meal of commemoration the bread that served to represent deliverance of the Abrahamic people from Egypt was now reassigned to represent his once-for-all sacrifice as the Son of God. The commemoration is now about the deliverance of the human race from its bondage to sin and death and the devil. All who believe, believe in the sacrificial and atoning death of Jesus Christ. To participate in this communion on any other basis is according to the Apostle Paul, to eat and drink condemnation. So - the bread - used in the Passover feast of deliverance now represents he who God sent and what he did to set humanity free from the Adamic curse of the Fall. Jesus gave thanks, broke bread, and gave it to the others telling them - from now on do this - in this manner - in remembrance of me. Obviously this is a commemorative statement. Christ is thus establishing a memorial act through which the meaning of who he is and what he did - in taking our place in death and judgement and propitiating justice and atoning for sins - is made effective to redeemed people in time and space history. In the same way, after supper Jesus took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” In Luke 17:15 the gospel writer tells us that Jesus specifically told his disciples: “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” The “Cup of Redemption” is the cup of wine taken after the Seder meal signifying the slaying of the Passover lamb that spared the Israelites from the 10th plague - the slaying of the first born. This cup traditionally remembers how YHWH redeemed Israel with an outstretched arm. So it is poignant when Jesus tells his disciples that the wine in the cup he held was “My blood of the covenant” - which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” As the blood of the Passover Lamb covered believers preventing their judgment from the angel of death back in Egypt, so the blood of Jesus covers believers today - and is the legal premise/foundation for the grace of God’s justification, given/imputed to sinners through faith Jesus in accordance with the New Covenant - of which Jeremiah prophesied and Jesus is the testator. When we eat and drink we are not merely remembering what God has so freely given - we are also receiving what God has given - and according to the Apostle Paul, this is how the Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation he brings is supposed to be remembered and proclaimed as the gospel until Jesus himself returns in the consummation. That Christ himself is really spiritually present with the believing recipients of the commemorative bread and wine, strengthening them in grace through the knowledge of himself - and feeding them in their faith and fellowship with him - as prophetically spoken of in all the OT historical events of God feeding his people that Jesus cites in reference to himself and his work in John 6 and elsewhere - is supported from Matt. 18:20; 28:20 where Jesus affirms that he will be present among his followers as they seek unity in the Spirit and in the proclamation of the gospel. So Holy Eucharist - “thanksgiving for our common salvation” - is a great truth in history and mystery - and it is dramatizes Jesus in bread and wine for the purpose of bringing who he is and what he did before all as the sole means of humanity’s deliverance from sin and reconciliation to God. That being said - I think the superstitious Roman Catholicism add-ons are wrong. And I think the Protestant divisions over how Christ is present with us - are a terrible distraction from “the message” God intends to come to everyone without distinction, in order to bring to salvation everyone who believes without exception: “I am with you always” (Matthew 28: 20). This the crucial element of discipleship: the presence of the Master, who is “God with us.” Thanks for your broadcasts. Cheers.
So... Don't educate the laymen about what's confused the laymen because it will confuse the laymen and doing so makes you not qualified to preach to the laymen? So did they even read their small or large catechisms on that podcast? Pretty sure you, a teacher/pastor/leader/Dr/scholar /ect, are doing exactly, EXACTLY what God called you to do. Educated me and other laymen as to the mysteries of God. Thank you.
I think proper exegesis of the last supper passage would go against the transubstantiation. Firstly, the Last Supper is being given over the Passover meal. The Passover had a massive symbolic meaning, and Jesus is adding to this supper with the Communion. Why would he break this trend of symbolic food elements by saying these are his literal body any blood? It makes much more sense for Jesus instead to be adding new symbolic meaning to an already symbolic meal. Secondly, if Jesus is saying that the bread and wine are his actual body and blood, why did none of the Apostles rise up and object? Drinking blood is a violatin of the Mosaic Law, and later in Acts with Peter’s vision of all of the animals, Peter says he never ate anything unclean. It makes much more sense for the Apostles to understand Communion as a symbolic meaning, and it does not actually contain Christ’s body and blood.
hi! Wondering if you can clarify where luther says that jesus is not to be imagined corporeally physically present at the right hand of God but rather its figurative? yet at the same time we confess that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father..? Doesn't this almost tend to lead to the idea of divorcing Christ from his human/corporal nature? For example: The RCC says this in their catechism "In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant, that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, “Decree concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist”, chapter 1)" As lutherans, we would agree with this for the most part right?
When he said he would be with us always it's because he sent the holy Spirit. And the other discussion is it symbolic when he said this is my body and this is my blood. Stop trying to explain something you can't.
Is it OK to say that God dresses himself in the water of baptism and the bread and wine of communion in order for us to find him in this physical world and be assured that we have had the sacrament? A Bible verse for this might be Luke 12:37.
So we are supposed to interpret John 6 as metaphorical and the words of institution as literal? That’s confusing, as I have thought of John 6 as a support text for the real presence. Can anyone explain?
Vs 54, "Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day." Did He say to eat the symbol of His flesh? Vs 55, Jesus said, "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Vs 56, Jesus said, "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him." Did He say, 'He that eats a symbol of My flesh...'. How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise? Does only a symbol of Christ dwell in us? I thought GOD Himself dwelt within us, 1John 4:12-13. Vs 59, This verse shows that Jesus taught this discourse to all the people. Vs 60,They doubt a third time when many disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it"? The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood. See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism. Is this what you think too? At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" He knew their thoughts and He certainly knew the Old Testament verses about the consumption of blood. In the next verse, He separated spiritual things from earthly things. Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life." Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view? See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding. In John, chapter 6, Jesus had not only called the 12 Apostles, there was also much larger group of other disciples. Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Simon Peter gives the same answer that I find myself saying to those who tell me I should leave the Catholic Church for this reason or that one, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” No matter what a certain priest does, no matter what scandals hit the church, despite whatever corruption or abuse of power might exist, and despite whatever mistakes the Church has made throughout history, “to whom shall we go?” for here is the body and blood of Christ given for a sinner as miserable as I. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood. Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Toutoestin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.😎😎
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
Dr. Cooper, you say that some people claim that your authority to teach is not valid because you teach advanced subjects. In Paul's terminology they want you to stick to the "milk" and not teach the "meat". They are very mistaken. The book of James is so difficult to understand that Luther reportedly considered leaving it out of his translation because it is too difficult for many people to understand and his translation was for everyone. Someone needs to bring the "hard stuff " to laymen like me. That, at least for now, is you.
I agree. I would say that hard academic theology can still be milk compared to the hard spiritual teachings that can help us love God and neighbor more but might be less academic. I am not against precise and academic theology. Far from it. But as a chaplain, I see people all the time that know their theology academically but their theology does not help them live out their Christian life especially during times of suffering. There are so many topics I thought were important in seminary that I think are not so important now.
I am a new Lutheran. I saw one comment on Twitter about Christ not being local in the supper and I started asking my pastor and the elders at church a million questions. Nobody really understood what I was talking about. This video is a huge blessing, because it answered all the questions I had about what the formula of Concord is addressing in article 7. So just know that this video was worth making, if only because it will settle a (friendly) controversy at my church.
Hi Sean my brother in Christ. Man has a propencity to only believe in that which we can see and touch. It's for this reason that Christians began believing we actually needed to eat Christ during communion to have Christ in us. Jesus said if his word abides in us we will abide in him. Jesus said we would be in Christ. Jesus said we would be filled with the Holy Spirit. That is a spiritual truth. Thats why we take communion. Its to remember and acknowledge that Christ is in us, the hope of Glory.
@@MMAD-Rob Jesus also said, "This is my body."
@@seanmoore9713 Yep, and Paul a said it is actually the COMMUNION (ie partaking of, sharing) of the Body and Blood of Christ.
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”
I Corinthians 10:16 NKJV
Seems like the anti-sacramentalists want to just focus on the MEMORIAL aspect (and certainly that is true and important) while ignoring the COMMUNION ASPECT of the Supper.
I disagree. The eating is literal which means physical. Either you are really eating Christ's body or it's symbolic and/or spiritual. That is the word physical is to be distinguished from the merely spiritual. Denying that it's physical doesn't help at all.
@@thethikboy if you watched the video, you would understand why Lutherans deny form 1 (physical) in Article 7.
It is so hard for people to simply say "I don't know how it works".
If Christ is fully God and fully Man, then the eucharist can be fully Christ and fully bread. I don't see why this is complicated.
This was super helpful for me. Coming from a non-denominational background, I felt like I was having a crisis of faith when I learned about Communion being the real Body and Blood of Christ. I had only ever heard it was symbolic and thought I was becoming Catholic, which I always thought was a false religion, and was terrified, honestly.
I had no idea that this is a traditional Christian belief, even within Protestantism.
I really needed this video. Thank you so much for making it.
So you're disqualified from preaching because you're too precise!? 😳
Coming from a penticostal / charismatic background it is because there is precision in doctrine and how the doctrine is taught and talked about is why I became Lutheran.
Although not Lutheran we really appreciate your wisdom and insight. Do not let the criticism get to you! You are a gift to the church! To Christ be the Glory!
Thank you for this video and for your ministry Pastor. You’re certainly apt to teach!
For your encouragement, your videos along with my own study started me on the road to Lutheranism. My wife and I were confirmed into the Lutheran church on the Sunday before Christmas this year. Praying for you and your family.
Welcome!
18:00 "What we're doing is trying to say, 'We want to affirm everything that the Scriptures say'."
Yep, that's why I'm still Lutheran and don't know where else I can go.
Research the Orthodox church.
@@patioprimate4740 Ew
@@Mygoalwogel Lord have mercy
@@patioprimate4740 He certainly has.
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
As a non-Lutheran seeking to understand the Lutheran-Reformed debate on this, I found this extremely useful. Thank you
This is such a fascinating episode! I kept rewinding to listen to different parts a second or third time.
I liked at the end when you mentioned the people who need to hear this but who probably won't and the people who don't need to hear it but are listening anyway. I'm in that second camp but I still found this very helpful. Coming from the reformed tradition I'd always been told Lutherans held to consubstantiation in the eucharist, so your explanation was very helpful. 😁
This hour long episode IS VERY APPRECIATED. I'm a relatively new Lutheran who discovered you by listening to IssuesETC, and I benefited greatly from your discussion of the nature of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. Thank you
TYSM for doing this, esp. in light of how ill you've been. Prayers for your continued recovery.
This video really helped me! Considering Christ says he is present where 2 or 3 are gathered in his name, or that he is with them until the end of the age, this presentation is very interesting and helpful
16:33 *John 14:28* _"I am going to the Father"_ *John 14:18* _"I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you."_
I loved this, Pastor. So thorough. I will listen to this several times. I feel sorry for folks who take communion as a memorial service with a bunch of emotion. Why would anyone value it? I can “remember” Jesus on my couch at home…
Actually, I found this incredibly helpful, and was hoping when the controversy broke out that you would go into it in a video at some point.
Thanks
For anyone interested in further reading, Martin Chemnitz devotes an entire chapter to this question in his book on the Lord's Supper. His work is excellent.
To put it simply, Lutherans believe that Christ is truly and substantially present; a sacramental union in, with and under the elements of the supper; given for faith and to be received by faith in the oral reception of the elements. We do NOT believe that the sacraments are merely spiritual/symbolic, nor that they confer grace ex opere operato (ie merely as an act done, apart from faith) but are given by Christ TO declare personally to the believer, their reconciliation to the Father paid for by His once-for-all shed blood on the cross. Only faith receives, believes and clings to promise and so this is intensely personal and enlivening.
I removed my last comments. I will not leave the Lutheran church. My pastor gave me a simple explanation that made good sense. He also asked me to stay off RUclips and the internet for things relating to the church and what we believe and confess.
Okey, so, I’m gonna write in this comment the things I learned by your great and extensive explanation of the presence of Christ in His (Lord’s) Supper according to traditional and confessional Lutheranism:
It IS 1) sacramental, 2) true and real, 3) substantial, 4) mystical - supernatural - incomprehensible; and it IS NOT 1) local or physical.
I already understand the Roman Catholic theology or view on the Eucharist, so now, I am going to watch a video in which I can truly understand better the symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper (to which I currently hold to).
Correct me if I’ve understood wrongly the Lutheran position, please.
And, by the way, I would truly appreciate a video of you giving patristic examples of different views related to the significance of the Lord’s Supper / Eucharist… divided in pre-nicene / nicene / and post-nicene Church “fathers”. Thanks for your content and patience!!!!!!!
I really appreciate the indepth study you do and share with us. Thanks!
This is excellent. I would like to second the comments about anti-intellectualism being some sort of virtue in certain circles. Considering the enormous influence of Reformed theology and American evangelicalism, we have to model a better way. I would not be shocked if your Prolegomena work would be dismissed similarly, even though the recovery of the scholastic tradition is THE way forward in our post-modern, expressive individualistic world. I tried to translate your book for a Pastor friend of mine as Gerhard > Paulson and Chemnitz > Forde, which if course means you are actually confessional!
this video helped me a lot to completely understand the lutheran view with regards to lord's supper
Well done my friend. Excellent teaching! I continue to learn more and more from you!
Also, we can "walk and chew gum at the same time." I'm pretty sure that as a parish Pastor, you could visit shut-ins utilizing simple Bible passages, discuss the modes of Christ's presence, prep a sermon, and play Star Wars with your kids, all in the same day!
"God is everywhere, but not necessarily 'for you'". Christ is in the bread and wine 'for me'.
30:56 to 32:30 about “confessional” Lutherans not actually knowing the Lutheran confessions (at least philosophical categories employed therein) warranted a mic drop.
It reminds me (an Anglican) of an argument I once got into with a “confessional” Lutheran about whether after the fall, the essence of man is entirely evil (his position) or the same essence created by God yet deeply corrupted-deeply deprived of that which makes it good (my position). I couldn’t understand why he didn’t see the absurdity of his position, that it was basically Manichaean. I only later learned that his position is explicitly rejected in Article I of the Formula of Concord.
@dr Jordan Cooper as always another thought provoking material. By the way happy new year and best wishes 2023 🙏❤️🌹
Thank you for taking the opportunity to teach and confess.
Glad it was helpful!
I honestly don’t think those those distinctions are too hard for the little old ladies in the parish to grasp. It’s just a more refined way of distinguishing what they probably already intuitively believe about the Eucharist as Lutherans.
16:30 I would agree that of course Christ can do anything he wants, he is everywhere at all time and any form or mode he deems.
But that’s different than saying that what he commanded us in communion was that he would allow us to chew on his flesh carnally
That’s definitely not the case. We receive him spiritually.
This is helpful video. Being in Refromed circles before I was Lutheran, I would often hear the differences between Lutherans and refromed sumarized as, Lutherans belive christ is phisiscaly present and reformed belive he is spiritually present. Obviously this is a misrepresentation and ive since mooved beyond it but it shows that dumbed down explanations usually dont get the job done.
Thank you for this great teaching! May the Lord bless you and protect you
Aside from this being a great reply to the insanity of Twitter, I want to express how excited I am to hear you'll be republishing The Conservative Reformation! Krauth is, probably, my favorite theologian, and this book was massively influential on my reversion to Lutheranism. This is amazing news!
Dr. Cooper is far braver than I.... I won't tread into the dangerous waters of Twitter!
@@cwstreeper You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany... and a few nice people.
Dumbing down the faith never ends well.
10:54 mystery solved, the picture HE painted was “just like this bread is broken and consumed for carnal life, HIS body would be broken for eternal life, and just like the wine was consumed for earthly life, his blood would be spilled for eternal life”
In what way do we cooperate with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection? In spirit and truth. In faith and hope through Christ our Lord.
Mystery solved, read the Bible
Isaiah 53:5 plus many more
Ditto !
This was superinformative. Grateful thanks from this GAFCON Anglican.
The example of our vision not literally taking up the space of everything in our field of vision brings to mind the scene of Patrick "focusing" in the chocolate episode of Spongebob 😂
Good video, I appreciate how much effort you put into this video and I'm sorry to here you're being falsely accused of being an improper Pastor simply because you engage in scholastic thought. In fact, I would say that refusal to explain using logical and scholastic thought is what turned me away from contemporary Lutheran thought on the Supper at many points, as it gave me the misinterpretation that Lutherans believed in a *physical* presence due to the lack of qualification given in what is meant to say Christ is present in the Supper. I've learned better, and I'm glad I can find Lutheran Pastors defending themselves against such charges in a clear manner.
That being said, I have two questions coming from my own Anglican perspective:
First, I often find Lutherans bringing up the post-resurrection state of Christ and attributing some other mode of presence to this than the corporeal presence. I find this to be quite strange. To the best of my knowledge, it's alien to my own tradition as well as most others and a topic I find quite distinctive to Lutherans. Would you be willing to do a video talking about more about how the Lutheran tradition views the 40 days of Christ post-resurrection? I've heard many things such as the belief in a Bodily descent into hell post-resurrection, views on Christ bilocating, etc.. I ask this because it seems to be a part of Christ's life that Lutherans have unique emphases and thoughts on which I don't hear from other traditions.
Second, it is my belief that at some point, the real disagreement between our traditions seems to be mostly on eating. Whether or not the reception is oral. To my surprise the Anglican Tradition seems more subject to criticism on this point from a Lutheran perspective than some other Reformed traditions, as we state in the rubric at the end of The Communion of the Sick in the BCP:
"But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness... or by any other just impediment, does not receive the sacrament [that is, the bread and wine] of Christ's body and blood, the pastor shall instruct him that if he truly repents him of his sins, and steadfastly believes that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby and giving him hearty thanks for the same, *he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he does not receive the sacrament with his mouth.*"
Obviously this isn't normative for reception in our tradition and requires a "just impediment" to oral reception. My question is this: does the Lutheran tradition have any theology or instruction where this could be seen as true? Any idea of reception despite not being able to eat, perhaps akin to the theology of "Baptism of Desire?"
Thanks for taking the time to read this, I pray you recover swiftly from whatever illness still afflicts you.
I really find the anti-intellectualism in most churches very frustrating. I find myself going to dictionary every time i hear a word dont understand but that just encourages learning. I dont see anything bad with some esoteric vocabulary here and there
Every new day that the sun rises on, I am grateful I don't have Twitter. Lol.
@P¡nned By Dr. Jordan B Cooper• lol scambots even here
As a Calvinist attending a LCMS local church, I partake of the Lords Supper without affirming or denying the “real presence” in faith as a mystery…most of those Lutheran members in attendance probably have not even read or understand the Lutheran Augsburg/Concord confessions as requirements prior to becoming members…!
I got a copy of the Conservative Reformation and its theology off of Amazon as one of the "scholar selects". On the bright side, it's affordable, but the formatting leaves much to be desired...
Do you think headway could be made with the Mercersburg school of Reformed theology? I've heard that recent scholarship on Calvin (Vermigli, Cranmer) has established a more complex view that might allow ecumenical development with Lutherans.
In the past, often Lutherans drifted toward the Reformed.. but I think the trajectory demonstrates that in the future, the Reformed will drift toward us.
Scholarship is starting to suggest that Calvin's main concern was in objecting to a local/Capernaitic presence but that he would've been fine affirming a sacramental/substantial mode of the body and blood (in the bread and wine) and he in fact affirmed the manducatio indignorum.
I don’t know about all Reformed groups but I can tell you the RCUS specifically rejects any movement towards the Mercerberg theologians. And, Ursinus being the author of the Heidelberg, his commentary on it is typically unquestionable. He definitely rejects that Christ’s Body and Blood are received orally, as the Formula states.
I’d love to know what scholarship you’re referring to… where could I learn more about this?
@@kellyosullivan691 Dr. Brett Salkeld (a Roman Catholic), in particular is doing work on this. I'd have to re-look at the other sources.
The Mercersburg school of Reformed theology (Francis Schaeffer, T. F. Torrance) are distinct older figures that hold to a higher sacramentology. Those are places off the top of my head that I'd start looking at.
Side note next time you have the flu do not stay bed ridden. One day of immobility takes about 3 days to recover from. Get up every couple of hours it restores the circulation, provides better gas exchange (which can prevent pnuemonia) and other positive effects.
Yet another example, as if one was needed, of how the church invented and perpetuates cancel culture. That said, I found your presentation really helpful. I knew the general shape of how Lutherans understood communion and this helped me flesh that out. To those who insist on a simple, pietistic Christianity without big words: I don't need to understand the physics that allow an airliner to fly in order to ride in one. But I don't want to get on one where the folks who built and maintain it don't. Practice your pietism to your heart's content. Just try not to impose your practice on everyone else in the building. Some of us have been made to serve our Lord differently. If you don't like that, take it up with Him.
Coming from a completely different context... From a very zwinglian and background, this was super helpful!
How do we account for the presence of Christ in the Supper pre-ascension and pre-resurrection?
He said “this is my body…” but he was sitting at the table itself. How do I overcome this objection?
Would it be a matter of communication of attributes because he was the God-man even during the Supper he was performing?
I’m trying to wrap my mind around this.
Thank you for the wonderful explanation! I grew up in the Lutheran church, but as a teenager I started attending the Baptist church with a friend from school. I very often heard it said of those who believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist were cannibals, and sadly most baptists I know still believe that. I've never heard anyone explain it before and often wondered if the Baptists were right. This has been very helpful! I now understand what is meant by the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and know we're not a bunch of cannibals, which is clearly contrary to God's Word. Thank you so much for this wonderful explanation!
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
Imagine confessional Lutherans objecting to categories the Confessions themselves use.
@@nichill7474 The individuals in question have gone far beyond this. Not only have they refused to consider Jordan's arguments, and that of many others who have made many attempts to educate them, they are openly accusing Jordan, and everyone defending him, of being a Sacramentarian and denying the Real Presence entirely. Most of them are also avowed kinists. These are vile, incorrigible people.
Thank you very much for your explanation.
But Jordan Cooper is present and teaching in my house in Australia every week or so?
Perhaps humanity is a bit different from what Calvin believed?
14:37 I am a member of the LCMS. I need to talk to my pastor about this.
(i watched like 10 mins into this video, keep that in mind) a good way to talk about your views on any particular subject is to give flaws about other views that people can understand and be convinced of. i hope Cooper does this in this video with the historic presbyterian view (excluding zwingly's view, he's nuts)
Thank you for this. If someone would have asked me before if Lutherans believe in a physical presence, I would have said yes. Not anymore.
My layman's understanding on the difference between the Roman Catholic view and the Lutheran view (in terms of Christ's presence only, I'm not commenting on the idea of the recurring sacrifice) is that Roman Catholics believe the bread and wine cease to exist and only the body and blood are truly and substantially present (though they have the accents of bread and wine), whereas Lutherans believe Jesus never indicated what happened to the bread and wine and so it is a faulty assumption to say they have been destroyed. Bread, wine, body, and blood all exist in the same space simultaneously. Would you say that is correct or incorrect? Correct but an over simplification?
The presence of the body and blood does not take up space, but is united to the spacial elements of bread and wine.
The Roman Catholic view is a re presentation of the once for all sacrifice of Christ for all time.
@@dominic6038 The Lutheran view is a union with Christ including His once for all sacrifice for all time
I appreciate your confessions, but as an outsider who subscribes to sola scriptura it would be super helpful for you to provide bible passages rather than the works of theologians from your tradition.
I know the key verse probably will come down to “this is my body” but seeing how often Lutherans talk about this, one would assume there’s more of a scriptural grounding for their view. Especially since an alternative and more basic interpretation can be offered for that particular citation.
I think that the podcast you're referring to suffers from a class-distinction bias we see in the broader conservative spectrum. The elite-vs-populist or intellectual/anti-intellectual divide that manfested in the 2016 election.
(This is something Paul Vanderklay has done a lot of work on)
Keep in mind that you (Jordan) are a Northeastern WASP by culture and the host of the other podcast is Appalachian... there are deep-seated divides between Northern and Southern cultural and class identity that haven't been resolved since the Civil War. Most of the LCMS is middleclass Midwest and so somewhere in the middle culturally.
I just think style and personality differences (even resulting in different theological approaches) can be culture and class-based in origin.
That's certainly true. I'm a waspy New Englander. One of those "East coast elites" that people constantly criticize.
@@DrJordanBCooper Nothing wrong with being from the cultural elite. There's nothing more anti-traditional than populist anti-credentialism, it's killing "conservatism"
This is especially problematic when the populist base of any movement tends toward the reactionary-extreme and their despised elites toward an "educated nuance" and general moderation. You can't reason with those that reject rational discourse as de facto compromise.
Very scary stuff. But a conversation for another time.
@@vngelicath1580 yep. This is what I'm constantly encountering.
Sorry you had the twitter spat to put up with but - thankfully - you seem cheerful and robust enough to handle it. Thank you for your educational videos which, as a Catholic, I feel privileged to hear. God bless you.
I grew up Lutheran and now attend church that is non-denominational.
Without being insulting, I do wish that people who are very intellectual spend an awful lot of time trying to define and interpret things that our limited brains do not have the ability to come close to comprehending because we are human beings and God is so infinitely more of everything than we are!
I choose to accept this fact and submit to the fact of my inability to understand Him. I trust Him and I put my mind in a place where I am open, cognizant and grateful for what He has done for me and the magnitude of it. The details of it all is not essential for my belief of Jesus’ sacrifice or the minutiae of what communion means to anyone else. It is not necessary for my belief! It is simply based on FAITH.
I hear all of the intellectual discussion as personal showcases of the orators’ own brainpower.
Excellent video. You are such a good teacher.
Very well said.
Yep!!! 35:00 that is it!!! Great video
19:41 marking to share this excellent point in a convo later today
also: 45:30
I prefer the " body and blood's" presence in an heavenly and spiritual manner received in faith, found in the 39 articles of the anglican faith.
This is not a hard concept to grasp, once you accept one simple truth. I repeat, Truth.
There are mysteries surrounding God. We are mortal, mutable created beings.
He is immortal immutable and uncreated.
Why would we be surprised that there are things we simply cannot understand fully, i.e. "mysteries" regarding the nature of God.
Christ clearly states in Matthew that His body is the bread, His blood is the wine. Not that He physically became said elements, but within those elements, in that setting He was/is truly present.
He did not use that exact terminology, but it does not take a great deal of brain cells to deduce the meaning.
The Roman's read it incorrectly. And many protestants threw the baby out with the bath water to get as far away from Rome as they could.
Rome stands on very shaky ground. And they know it. The non-conformists are on shaky ground but refuse to admit it.
God wants not just your heart. But your brain as well. Love Him wholly, with everything. And, when reading, studying scripture use your brain as well as your heart.
As a reformed I believe in spiritual presence but in a more Calvinistic way. Not just a memorial non-presence as the Zwinglian caricature. I do not think you are horrible or heretical even though I slightly disagree with your view. Actually I am very sympathetic and maybe even close to a Lutheran or maybe Orthodox view of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. But i do have questions.
1. How different is the Lutheran view from the Orthodox view? To be truthful, I always thought of the Lutheran view as a real substantial presence. Just not explained like the Roman Catholics. Is that more of the Orthodox view?
2. I do not know if the multiple views of presence works which you started to discuss in minute 17. You assume at approximately 17:50 the exact item that is being discussed. That is the Jesus Christ is present in communion on earth. Jesus is present through the Spirit and he will be fully bodily and personally present again at the 2nd coming. We can all agree on that. I think. But we must do some more digging scripturally to show that Jesus' human body is present in the Eucharist.
3. I have sympathy of Christ being present in communion without being physically present but I cannot see how one can have a physical body without have the body physically present. Angels do not have bodies, they are spiritual beings only, so that example does not fit. I cannot wrap my head around that someone can be corporeal present and yet not have physical or corporeal presence. The rub for me is that I cannot believe in physical presence without the physical since a body is physical. Jesus does pass through walls and appears and disappears but he also can be touched. So when he is physically present in a space then he is. Light and heat are not like a body so that really does not seem to work. I guess the problem I am having is that this view seems to ay Jesus body is present, which is a physical thing, with never actually being physically present. I do not see anything that Jesus did with his glorified body that would fix my concerns. In all those examples he is actually physically present. In communion Luther seem to be saying he is not physically present at all. Thus, just saying that his body does not behave in all the ways our physical bodies do does not seem to be enough of an explanation.
@@shy_guy2814_IndigoLantern In what way do Lutherans fall into panentheism?
Isn't Christ clear about God being in us and preserving us?
@@shy_guy2814_IndigoLantern I'll just keep believing scripture then.
I'm confused with the John 6 vs the institution distinction. Can someone help me understand? it starts around 54:00
Good video. I was most surprised by the Gerhard quote shying away of a corporeal presence, which seems to go against what the confessions say of a bodily presence in places like Apology X.55.
Luther: “the papists teach … and we with them that Christ’s body is not present locally like straw in a sack in the sacrament, but definitively.” Brief Confession on the Holy Sacrament 1544
20:10… Dr.J good distinctions similarly as the laws of logic, values or ethics are not physical material properties.
Anonymous trolls claiming to be the only true Lutherans. Very strange.
"
"For in him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:28 God is in everything but he is not the substance of anything. He is so to speak the nuclear glue that holds all things together, Col. 1:17, so technically speaking Christ is in all things but he is not anything. If you want to say he is in the supper fine, but he is just as much in everything else as well. We attach an infinitely greater degree of importance to the supper because it represents the death and shed blood of our savior for our sins. Paul also tells us that, "It is Christ in you the hope of glory." Col 1:27. So to have Christ in you is better than having Christ in the supper. Something else you might want to think about; if Christ doesn't dwell in temples made with hands why would he choose to manifest himself in anything else made with hands. 2 Cor. 4:7, "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may. be of God, and not of us."
So would you say that Christ is spiritually present withing the physical elements of the bread and wine, indwelt in them ? That way when a believer eats bread and wine, with chrsit spiritually indwelt in them, they recieved Christ. However when a disbeliever recieves the bread and wine with Christ indwelt in them, they do recieve Christ, however their lack of faith brings upon spiritual condemnation instead of spiritual strengthening ? Almost like a reverse calvaniat approach. Calvinists things you ascend through faith, whereas I am asking if Christ is present is spiritually but withing physical means, so anyone can atill partake of him?
The terms "American Lutheranism" and "Unionism" are two terms that get after the same idea; that is colonial German families compromising confessionalism (or simply not understanding) as they were starting out in the new world and formed churches. Many cases of congregations having a Lutheran and Reformed side that often had joint services, allowed pulpit interchange, etc., which obviously influenced religious life back on the continent as the promise of protestant unity spread.
I wish Martin Luther had existed at the same time as Twitter. Dude would've been epic
A quick question on the Ascension and the modes of presence: What do you think the apostles meant when they wrote that Jesus ascended into heaven? Do you think that means he physically went upward, or some other form of ascension, and should we try to deliberate between the two meanings, or just that he now dwells with the Father, wherever that may be?
I ask this question for a few reasons, but mainly because I wonder about the 'physical' description of what is being described, and how that relates to the modes of presence, and what the apostles were trying to communicate when they wrote the word 'ascension.'
There is a short lecture by Fulton Sheen on the ascension, it does a great job of explaining and is basically the same sort of explanation you’ll get from Luther
@@AnUnhappyBusiness I'll check it out, thank you
Dr Cooper, I am so sorry "several sanctified idiots" (loved by God!) totally distorted your explanation of the Lutheran position. I thought you did a fantastic job in provoking me to better accommodate Luther's position into my quasi-Calvin position. Given the amount of ink and sweat exerted on understanding this fascinating mystery, it defies me how any "believer" could call you out on a position simply because it does not conform to their 30 second Sunday School definition. How sad that a sacrament/ordinance that was given to unite, has divided the brethren. Regardless, I want to encourage you to draw strength from your predecessor and after your wrestling with Scripture and reading those giants from the past, and say " I neither can nor will retract anything; for it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen." (I like to think he said these words 😀) May God continue to bless your work!
5:59 only in Spirit John 6:60-64
Did Christ say we should eat Gods hand. Obviously symbolic unlike how he presented communion
Dr. Cooper, thank you so much for this it was very helpful, was wondering if there was a chance you could cite the books you speak about and read from in the podcasts in the descriptions? it would greatly help me in my own studies and many others
Concordia The Lutheran Confessions, Second Edition (Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord)
Charles Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and It's Theology
Heinrich Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
Adolf Hoenecke, Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics (Volume 4)
Hello Pastor, I am an evangelical Christian, Argentine, and in the Church we are studying Christian history. We are quite surprised with Luther. He would like to ask you a few questions regarding what the Lutheran Church understands about the Lord's Supper.
Suppose that on Tuesday the Christian sins, he asks God for forgiveness on Tuesday, and on Sunday he participates in the Lord's Supper. Did he receive forgiveness on Tuesday by faith without the Lord's Supper or did he receive it on Sunday at the Supper? If he received it on Tuesday, it was on Sunday and he was already forgiven. So in the Lord's Supper we do NOT receive "forgiveness of sins, life and salvation" (as the Lutheran Small Catechism says), but rather the strengthening of faith in those things. Is that so?
Thank you so much. Greetings.
I'm not an expert, but I would say the person was already forgiven on Tuesday (1 John 1:9 - "if we confess our sins He is just and faithful to forgive us") The Lord's Supper is a cleansing of the soul and to unite us with Christ on the Sunday
@@r.o.b thanks
9:48 and you’re not if you read the scripture you would understand. He is with us in spirit.
This is just a fact, that’s God’s nature, that’s God’s character. The old and New Testament also forbid drinking blood.
To think that Christ needs to be physically ingested for someone to transmit sanctifying grace is a gross misrepresentation of what Christ meant by saying that bread and wine are to be taken as His body and blood in remembrance of Him.
I thought in scripture when someone has an issue, we should contact them directly first, then bring an extra person etc. I’m not sure why pastors would air out issues to public like that. I’m sure you would talk to them too!
Christ is present in people of faith in Jesus. Anything else is speculation.The name of Jesus does heal without any religious acts. Have experienced that myself having been healed several times ,and in praying for others to be healed and they were.
None other than Jacob Andrea made the same precise distinctions you do in his debate with Beza. These categories have literally been used by Lutherans for centuries.
I have also seen similar tendencies among some Lutherans not to delve deeper, think about, or even address the more difficult issues. The “surfacy”, “don’t ask too many questions” attitude toward theology among many Lutherans is regrettable.
So - while Jesus was “taking up a place in time snd space” at the Last Supper - “he took the bread used in that commemorative meal - and after given thanks for it, broke it, and divided it up amongst his disciples, saying, ‘This is my body given for you’ -
‘do this in remembrance of me.’”
Jesus was corporally present with others and took the bread of their nations commemorative meal and said: this bread which commemorates the historical deliverance of people from bondage now represents me and when you eat it “this I my body” - this is the thing in time and space which will be used to remind you of how I delivered humanity from bondage to sin and death.
This corporeal object is now representative of the incarnate Christ and how he destroyed the works of the devil and delivered us from the curse of original sin.
Clearly the bread Jesus broke was not him - for he was present in time and space doing the breaking of the bread. It was representative.
In Jesus changing the meal of commemoration the bread that served to represent deliverance of the Abrahamic people from Egypt was now reassigned to represent his once-for-all sacrifice as the Son of God. The commemoration is now about the deliverance of the human race from its bondage to sin and death and the devil. All who believe, believe in the sacrificial and atoning death of Jesus Christ. To participate in this communion on any other basis is according to the Apostle Paul, to eat and drink condemnation.
So - the bread - used in the Passover feast of deliverance
now represents he who God sent and what he did to set humanity free from the Adamic curse of the Fall.
Jesus gave thanks, broke bread, and gave it to the others telling them - from now on do this - in this manner - in remembrance of me.
Obviously this is a commemorative statement. Christ is thus establishing a memorial act through which the meaning of who he is and what he did - in taking our place in death and judgement and propitiating justice and atoning for sins - is made effective to redeemed people in time and space history.
In the same way, after supper Jesus took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”
In Luke 17:15 the gospel writer tells us that Jesus specifically told his disciples: “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”
The “Cup of Redemption” is the cup of wine taken after the Seder meal signifying the slaying of the Passover lamb that spared the Israelites from the 10th plague - the slaying of the first born. This cup traditionally remembers how YHWH redeemed Israel with an outstretched arm.
So it is poignant when Jesus tells his disciples that the wine in the cup he held was “My blood of the covenant” - which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.”
As the blood of the Passover Lamb covered believers preventing their judgment from the angel of death back in Egypt, so the blood of Jesus covers believers today - and is the legal premise/foundation for the grace of God’s justification, given/imputed to sinners through faith Jesus in accordance with the New Covenant - of which Jeremiah prophesied and Jesus is the testator.
When we eat and drink we are not merely remembering what God has so freely given - we are also receiving what God has given - and according to the Apostle Paul, this is how the Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation he brings is supposed to be remembered and proclaimed as the gospel until Jesus himself returns in the consummation.
That Christ himself is really spiritually present with the believing recipients of the commemorative bread and wine, strengthening them in grace through the knowledge of himself - and feeding them in their faith and fellowship with him - as prophetically spoken of in all the OT historical events of God feeding his people that Jesus cites in reference to himself and his work in John 6 and elsewhere - is supported from Matt. 18:20; 28:20 where Jesus affirms that he will be present among his followers as they seek unity in the Spirit and in the proclamation of the gospel.
So Holy Eucharist - “thanksgiving for our common salvation” - is a great truth in history and mystery - and it is dramatizes Jesus in bread and wine for the purpose of bringing who he is and what he did before all as the sole means of humanity’s deliverance from sin and reconciliation to God.
That being said - I think the superstitious Roman Catholicism add-ons are wrong. And I think the Protestant divisions over how Christ is present with us - are a terrible distraction from “the message” God intends to come to everyone without distinction, in order to bring to salvation everyone who believes without exception: “I am with you always” (Matthew 28: 20). This the crucial element of discipleship: the presence of the Master, who is “God with us.”
Thanks for your broadcasts. Cheers.
So... Don't educate the laymen about what's confused the laymen because it will confuse the laymen and doing so makes you not qualified to preach to the laymen?
So did they even read their small or large catechisms on that podcast? Pretty sure you, a teacher/pastor/leader/Dr/scholar /ect, are doing exactly, EXACTLY what God called you to do. Educated me and other laymen as to the mysteries of God. Thank you.
Great video and very helpful. God can even turn arguing with idiots on Twitter into something fruitful. Thanks
I think proper exegesis of the last supper passage would go against the transubstantiation. Firstly, the Last Supper is being given over the Passover meal. The Passover had a massive symbolic meaning, and Jesus is adding to this supper with the Communion. Why would he break this trend of symbolic food elements by saying these are his literal body any blood? It makes much more sense for Jesus instead to be adding new symbolic meaning to an already symbolic meal.
Secondly, if Jesus is saying that the bread and wine are his actual body and blood, why did none of the Apostles rise up and object? Drinking blood is a violatin of the Mosaic Law, and later in Acts with Peter’s vision of all of the animals, Peter says he never ate anything unclean. It makes much more sense for the Apostles to understand Communion as a symbolic meaning, and it does not actually contain Christ’s body and blood.
hi! Wondering if you can clarify where luther says that jesus is not to be imagined corporeally physically present at the right hand of God but rather its figurative? yet at the same time we confess that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father..?
Doesn't this almost tend to lead to the idea of divorcing Christ from his human/corporal nature?
For example: The RCC says this in their catechism "In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant, that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, “Decree concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist”, chapter 1)"
As lutherans, we would agree with this for the most part right?
As an independent fundamental baptist, i cracked up when you that about antiintellectualism.
What podcast was it?
When he said he would be with us always it's because he sent the holy Spirit. And the other discussion is it symbolic when he said this is my body and this is my blood. Stop trying to explain something you can't.
Even as Catholics, we still see it as a mystery.
Is it OK to say that God dresses himself in the water of baptism and the bread and wine of communion in order for us to find him in this physical world and be assured that we have had the sacrament? A Bible verse for this might be Luke 12:37.
So we are supposed to interpret John 6 as metaphorical and the words of institution as literal? That’s confusing, as I have thought of John 6 as a support text for the real presence. Can anyone explain?
I'm going to do a walk through John 6. I do take a eucharistic interpretation.
@@DrJordanBCooper thank you! I would very much appreciate a discussion of that text.
Vs 54, "Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life; and I will
raise him up on the last day." Did He say to eat the symbol of His flesh?
Vs 55, Jesus said, "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
Vs 56, Jesus said, "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him."
Did He say, 'He that eats a symbol of My flesh...'. How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise?
Does only a symbol of Christ dwell in us? I thought GOD Himself dwelt within us, 1John 4:12-13.
Vs 59, This verse shows that Jesus taught this discourse to all the people.
Vs 60,They doubt a third time when many disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it"?
The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood.
See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism.
Is this what you think too?
At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?"
He knew their thoughts and He certainly knew the Old Testament verses about the consumption of blood.
In the next verse, He separated spiritual things from earthly things.
Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?
See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding.
In John, chapter 6, Jesus had not only called the 12 Apostles, there was also much larger group of other disciples. Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Simon Peter gives the same answer that I find myself saying to those who tell me I should leave the Catholic Church for this reason or that one, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” No matter what a certain priest does, no matter what scandals hit the church, despite whatever corruption or abuse of power might exist, and despite whatever mistakes the Church has made throughout history, “to whom shall we go?” for here is the body and blood of Christ given for a sinner as miserable as I.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Toutoestin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.😎😎
Have you read Beza’s “Simple Treatise on the Lord’s Supper?”
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
Dr. Cooper, you say that some people claim that your authority to teach is not valid because you teach advanced subjects. In Paul's terminology they want you to stick to the "milk" and not teach the "meat". They are very mistaken. The book of James is so difficult to understand that Luther reportedly considered leaving it out of his translation because it is too difficult for many people to understand and his translation was for everyone.
Someone needs to bring the "hard stuff " to laymen like me. That, at least for now, is you.
I agree. I would say that hard academic theology can still be milk compared to the hard spiritual teachings that can help us love God and neighbor more but might be less academic. I am not against precise and academic theology. Far from it. But as a chaplain, I see people all the time that know their theology academically but their theology does not help them live out their Christian life especially during times of suffering. There are so many topics I thought were important in seminary that I think are not so important now.