In the wise lyrics of Iris Dement, "I think I'll just let the mystery be." Been an Anglican for most of my life now, and my head has yet to explode from taking that conception honestly and solemnly to the altar. I hope the efficacy of the offering isn't dependent on my exhaustively understanding it.
"Twas God the Word that spake it, He took the Bread and brake it: And what that Word did make it, That I believe and take it." - the imprisoned Queen Elizabeth I.
This was so encouraging. I got such a passion in my chest as they you were discussing both the unity with Christ and unity with one another that we experience through the table. I love too see the trend of low church groups undergoing what seems to be a eucharistic revival.
My big confession is that i struggle with the whole thing of eating a bit of bread and drinking wine. With an "ordinary" view, what difference does it make? But studying the Jewish feasts has opened my eyes to the importance of rememberance. Without Passover and first fruits and Pentecost we would miss the care that God put into planning and executing salvation through Jesus. The expectation and the perfect timing.
If you join one of the ancient churches, Catholic or Orthodox, your ecclesial anxiety will disappear overnight. How could anyone feel ecclesial anxiety while looking at an image of Jesus like the Sacred Heart or of His Blessed Mother, all the tender compassion in the world looking at you and loving you unconditionally?
Very Insightful! I especially appreciated the connecting of the divine & physical union in the incarnation with the physical & divine pancarnation! A true reality! Let’s get back to our Baptisticostal roots!
Kudos to both of you. It was a very interesting interview with Dr. Arcadi. What made it a good interview, in my mind, is your generous setups to help Dr. Arcadi express his ideas. Showing his tables, reading his quotes (and giving him time off screen to enjoy a hot beverage!). I'm in my 50's and still searching for the truth of this topic. I think, most importantly, is to take the elements in a respectful manner with a ready heart (not weighed down with unforgiven sins, and having forgiven others who may have trespassed against you). A regular remembrance of Christ's sacrifice can only help to keep him centered in our lives. If there is more to it, may your faith make it so. God bless you all. And about John 6... my impression is that the entire crowd - and the disciples - didn't really follow up on the flesh eating. That leads me to believe they took Christ's statements about his flesh to be figurative. The overarching topic of that chapter is the crowd not believing that Jesus came from heaven. As Jesus was want to do, he upped the ante on his statement. Like others times where he said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Here, Jesus ups the ante again... paraphrased, I think he's saying, "so you don't believe I descended from heaven from the Father? Well, not only did I do that, you're going to have to eat my flesh in order to find eternal life." Well, even after such an intense statement, the crowd and disciples to back to the topic of where Jesus came from! And, in verse 61&62 this is confirmed: "... “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" We have no record of the disciples saying, "Jesus, yeah, about that eating your flesh thing. What's up with that? You know we're Jewish, and we thought you were a Jewish rabbi. How can you tell us to be cannibals?" Instead, as paralleled in other gospels, the questions about who do the disciples say Jesus is comes up and in answered. If we are going to take things so literally, then during the Last Supper, ONLY that loaf of bread was Christ's body and ONLY that cup of wine was his blood. May it not be so! If there is Impanation, maybe there's also Apanstolic Succession happening with each loaf of bread we dedicate to Christ. I'm being a little tongue in cheek here for the fun of it. Please forgive me.
THANKYOU !! So much Gavin , this has been so helpful and Thank God this was heaven sent . I’ve been praying for clarity on this subject for some time now , and have had some strong convictions with the Lords supper being a remembrance / memorial . Your ministry has been such a blessing from God to me and I believe answered prayer . Thank you 🙏🙏🙏
Just listened to this a second time and I bought your Hunslingers book recommendation , awesome book I’m studying through it now . THANK YOU THANK YOU THANKYOU MR GAVIN ORTLUND for this
Thanks for another great video! As a Catholic, I was surprised to hear such a heavily theological examination of the Eucharist. I do wonder, however, why you would consider the Catholic view (or others like it that have clear rules about how Jesus willed for us to "do this in memory of Me") to be a "restriction" of Jesus. I'd like to hear more on this because God has always been very clear about how He wants to be worshiped, and Jesus doesn't say "do whatever you want in memory of me" but rather, "do this". We clearly do not have the option of making up our own minds about this topic, and yet you seem to argue that all Christian groups, regardless of their sometimes very significant differences in belief and practice, don't have to worry much about their view on the Eucharist, just maybe try to think about it a little more. Looking forward to more great videos! Thanks again!
I think that the main limiting point in Transubstantiation is that it appears that the priest says an incantation and in some way causes the matter of the elements to change. It seems to make man able to call God down rather than man being brought to God.
@@RobertG3567my brother in Christ, What appears to happen and what does happen are not the same. And to call it an "incantation" is disrespectful as magic is a sin. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1348 All gather together. Christians come together in one place for the Eucharistic assembly. At its head is Christ himself, the principal agent of the Eucharist. He is high priest of the New Covenant; it is he himself who presides invisibly over every Eucharistic celebration. It is in representing him that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings, and says the Eucharistic Prayer. All have their own active parts to play in the celebration, each in his own way: readers, those who bring up the offerings, those who give communion, and the whole people whose "Amen" manifests their participation. 1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing180) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis). In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all. 1354 In the anamnesis that follows, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him. 1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did: On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.' When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.171
What about Christians who cannot read or write, or are so preoccupied with surviving in hostile social and/or physical environments that they don't have the luxury of indulging in philosophical and theological debates like this? These sort of debates were impossible for most Christian lay people to participate in for most of Christian history.
The Anglican 39 Articles actually give a spiritual presence, not a corporeal one. The official Anglican view is more Reformed than Lutheran. “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.” -39 Articles of Religion
Heavenly and spiritual does not necessarily mean non corporeal. Was the Saviour's heavenly and spiritual Transfiguration not corporeal? The Anglican prayer book liturgy makes it clear that the communion is truly His Body and Blood.
@@anselman3156The Black Rubric of the BCP explicitly denies corporeal presence. Anglicans affirming corporeal presence was and is a Tractarian phenomenon.
@@anselman3156 Cranmer, Vermigli and the other authors and influences to the prayerbook explicitly meant the wording "spiritual" to contrast with "corporeal" as was standard language at the time, because a "spirit has not flesh or bones" to quote our Lord. The idea of a corporeal presence was interchangeable with local presence in their thought, and when they denied one they denied the other. The Spirit of Christ is within the consecrated elements, and by partaking of it we mystically partake of the Body which resides in Heaven and does not bilocate down to earth. As cited by another commentator, the black rubric makes this clear, as well as the final rubric of Communion of the Sick, and Article 29 identifies the mode of reception contrary to the Lutherans as being not by the teeth but with faith. It took a few centuries for our it to become fashionable to deny the authorial intent of the formularies. Cranmer's "A Defence of the true and Catholick doctrine of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ." As well as Peter Martyr Vermigli's "Oxford Treatise and Disputation" should sufficiently show the authorial intent of the Articles and the prayerbook: “How often do I teach and repeat again and again, that as corporeally with our mouths we eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, so spiritually with our hearts, by faith, do we eat Christ’s very flesh and drink his very blood, and do both feed and live spiritually by him, although corporeally he be absent from us, and sitteth in heaven at his Father’s right hand.” -Abp. Thomas Cranmer.
Thank you so much for this video. It was very informative. As a Salvationist, I am so disappointed that the Salvation Army does not practice the sacraments of the Lord’s Supper or baptism. Those high ranking in the Salvation Army have discussed implementing the sacraments but that came to naught. I go to a weekly prayer meeting at a Pentecostal church who do a beautiful communion service monthly so I am able to participate in this sacrament with that community of believers. My prayer is that the Salvation Army will reconsider their tradition of not implementing the sacraments.
My recollection is that the Salvation Army traditionally hasn’t celebrated the sacraments due to not wanting to be considered a church. They are drifting in that direction though, so maybe they need to rethink their practice.
I have been praying for the Lord’s leading in regard to leaving but my husband likes attending the Sally Ann. The founder, William Booth, never intended the Salvation Army to be a church but because his ministry was to those who were referred to as “down and outers”, they did not fit in nor felt accepted by those in the established churches. The sacraments were not practiced as Booth did not want the new converts to believe sacraments played a part in Salvation and therefore detract from grace and faith alone. The Salvation Army is over 100 years old and I see no reason why sacraments cannot be instituted now, but I guess every church hates to part with tradition.
Great and helpful discussion thinking outward from the hypostatic union. I think the role of faith can prorivide some light too which was not fully explored here. Faith can be seen as the activating dynamic of the eucharist. This being the way we enter into an experience of its reality and the way we nay please God in it. Since faith itself is the gift of God it is therefore Jesus' own faith which activates or provides the way for the individual to enter into the reality of what is taking place in the eucharist. Vicariously but also in union. Jesus forges humanity into the Godhead in the incarnation. Humanity partakes of this reality in the eucharist. This helps draw the two elements together. The seen and the unseen in the heart and body of the believer through faith. The ingesting is a critical acknowledgement of the true humanity of Jesus. The older I get the more I want the eucharist. It seems to be the apex in the service not just something tacked on.
The first half of my Christian life was spent in a tradition with monthly communion. Since i became an Episcopalian, i am struck by how bizarre a worship service without the eucharist now feels.
@@mj6493 memorialism = pure symbol. Catholic belief is Eucharist is symbol but not *mere* symbol- rather that “sign” and “signified” are really connected… the poll questions didn’t really account for that
@@asgrey22 Unfortunately, they did take that into account. From the study: Just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31%) say they believe that “during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.” Look at the study itself. It leaves little room for misunderstanding.
@@mj6493 I thought I did. It was like 44% said symbolic, but there’s not a dichotomy between sign and Real Presence. People might also think in terms of trans-accidentation rather than transubstantiation. Ultimately I don’t think a poll can really give much clarity around people’s beliefs. More people could be properly informed, that’s for sure, though.
The Jews for years of doing the Passover meal had waited for messiah to come and explain WHY did they practice the Seder meal in the way they did. It was said that Elijah would come and explain these things. They still do to this day. So when Jesus said “this is my body” he was explaining to them that THIS is what this means it was for telling of me.
The main question in my mind is, why would Jesus want us to believe in the Real Presence? That is, what purpose did He intend for Communion? Since God the Holy Spirit already indwells us, we cannot intake more of God by physical means. We cannot ingest God with the digestive tract and expect to have more of His Real Spirit Presence as a result. Why would Jesus intend us to understand the Lord's Supper in such a manner? Look at the root of the Last Supper. Jesus and the Apostles were engaged in the traditional, annual Passover celebration which God commanded them to observe _as a remembrance_ of God's provision and temporal salvation when the death angel saw the blood of lambs on the Israelites' doorposts and passed over those homes. It was a remembrance, not a way of coming to God in the present; and it was also a prophetic foreshadow of the coming Messiah. Jesus re-purposed this remembrance when He said, "This is my body..." but notice that He also stated _the purpose_ for which it was to be observed in the future: "Do this in remembrance of Me." Notice that Jesus did not say, Do this to take Me into yourself. Nor did He say, Do this to obtain grace. He said nothing of the like. Instead, Jesus took a remembrance meal and re-purposed it by _changing what it signified and what was to be remembered._ Because we are born-again and Spirit-indwelt followers of Christ, Holy Communion serves as a tangible, physical _reminder_ of the terrible price Jesus paid when He hung on the cross to make full propitiation for our sins. It reminds us that, by God's grace and through faith in Christ's sacrifice 2,000 years ago, we have been granted full remission of our sins, we have been accounted just and righteous, and we have been regenerated by God. It reminds us that we have been made partakers of the divine nature, that Christ is in us through faith, and that we are in Christ. It reminds us that we have been made children of God, joint heirs with Jesus, brethren with all like-minded believers, and members of Christ's body on earth ("the church"). All of this is true without requiring recourse to a Real Presence interpretation. What more does the Christian gain by ingesting Christ through the mouth, throat and stomach, when God is already locally present in the Christian? When we get to the discussion of Communion in 1 Corinthians 10, nothing in the text requires a Real Presence view (even though nothing disallows it, either). But the mention of Communion is made in the context of an exhortation _to avoid idolatry._ That might make a difference in how we interpret the passage. It says the broken bread is a communion with Christ's body, and this is true since we are identifying with Christ in His suffering, death, and resurrection. But it goes on in the next verse to say that "we are all partakers of that one _bread."_ If we were partaking of the Real Presence of God the Son, this would have been a great place to say so. But no; it simply says we are partaking of "that one bread." I think there is good reason to view this as evidence for the memorial/symbolic view. Then we have 1 Cor. 11, in which certain people were "pigging out" on the elements because they failed to recognize their special, set-apart significance. The Corinthians were thus exhorted to "examine themselves" for proper motives and proper deference toward both the elements (bread and wine) and their fellow believers. Again there's nothing stated which requires a Real Presence viewpoint. I'm not saying that a belief in Real (Spiritual, not corporal) Presence is problematic; I'm just saying I cannot see the Bible clearly teaching it. FWIW, I was raised Roman Catholic, beginning in my mid-20s God urged me out of the RCC and I attended congregational Protestant churches for 30+ years, then for the last 5 years the Holy Spirit has planted me in an ACNA Anglican parish. 5 years of participation in the Anglican Eucharistic liturgy and extensive reading & discussion have not been able to convince me that the Bible teaches us a Real Presence viewpoint. (John 6, taken in proper context, shows that Jesus was speaking metaphorically/figuratively in verses 53-58; if we take those words literally, then Jesus was presenting _a fleshly work_ of consuming His _physical_ flesh and blood as an absolute condition one must meet before receiving eternal life; this would mean we are saved through faith PLUS works.)
It also leads unbelievers to think that by eating communion they will have God dwelling in them. I hope, especially with the current climate, that people see where this is leading. I was also raised catholic but never saved in it. My entire family was raised catholic. None are saved. I have friends raised as catholics. None are saved. Catholicism is a false gospel. I'm not surprised the Holy Spirit lead you out. He taught me not to return by showing me truths in His word of all the unbiblical teachings.
You raise valid questions and, more importantly, focus on the purpose of the remembrance meeting as it reflects the existing scriptural realities of a believer’s eternal union with Christ and the equally blessed indwelling Holy Spirit. The remembrance aspects of the exercise may be far more beneficial than focusing on a real presence beyond what is already explained and demonstrated by those spiritual realities. Christ promised to be with us always in a spiritual sense, and He explained why He would leave bodily so the Holy Spirit could come.
i've always said Christ is present spiritually, not knowing the terminology or history. Its very refreshing to see my view reprisented and validated historically
Recommended readings.... All of Luther! I'm shocked at how little Lutheranism is in this talk. If you want to hang onto the ancient church, remain Protestant, and have an incarnational view of the Eucharist confessional Lutheranism is exactly what you want. I'd love to see a Jordan Cooper response to this.
@@brianh2477 Lutheranism is a reform movement within the one ancient Church. From the Augsburg Confession, "...our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times..."
The concept is called the "conservative reformation." The radical reformers like the Anabaptists wanted to throw out all of tradition. The Lutheran reformers wanted to conserve all the tradition possible while removing the unhelpful, unbiblical, or evil accretions that built up over time. It is the belief of Lutherans that they are the true western Catholic church. Obviously a Roman Catholic would disagree with that. My suggestion would be to either laugh and move along or study up on the conservative reformation. I recommend "The Conservative Reformation and its Theology by Charles Porterfield Krauth @@brianh2477
@@brianh2477 The view of Protestants is that we removed traditions of men that had been embraced by the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Protestants beleive we started with Christ's ministry and it was the Catholics that strayed. I don't say this with any negativity. It is healthy for Christians to understand one another's beleifs. One of the major false claims I see among my Catholic brothers is that the Protestant church started in the 16th century
For what it's worth, the Orthodox do reject impanation - at least, they did at the Synod of Jerusalem: "He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world."
My Roman Catholic mother-in-law loves your videos, can you please do a video on the sacrament of confession/penance? She says the only thing still keeping her a Roman Catholic is that she believes Jesus gave that sacrament to the apostles. Thank you 🙂
Penance is no where to be found in the Bible. If we could pay for our own sins, then there is no need of the cross. We confess our sins directly to God, and as the Bible makes clear, we have but one mediator between us and God, Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). And 1John 1:9 goes hand in glove with this - If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Therefore, we do not confess sins to a so called priest, or do penance to obtain forgiveness. This does not mean we shouldn't make amends towards those we have sinned against as Zachaeus did in Luke 19. However, this is very different from penance. But the Catholic church manufactures it's own demonically inspired doctrines of which is the notion of "alter Christos" which in the Latin is "another Christ", which is what the Catholics call their priests. Thus they deceive people who have not read their Bibles into thinking they need a priest to obtain forgiveness. This is wickedness.
@@scottb4579It was actually AFTER I read my Bible that I became an ex-Protestant and am now a happy Catholic who gives thanks to God for the sacraments. You might find these scripture references helpful: Mt 9:2-8 - Son of Man has authority to forgive sins Jn 20:23 - whose sins you forgive/retain are forgiven/retained Jn 20:22 breathed on them, “receive the Holy Spirit” ( recall Gen 2:7) 2Cor 5:17 -20 given us the ministry of reconciliation James 5:13-15 - confess your sins to one another Mt 18:18 - whatever you bind and loose on earth, so it is in heaven 1Jn 5:16 - there is sin that is not deadly
Your right Baptism John 3:5 - “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Matthew 28:19 - “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Confirmation Luke 24:49 - “But stay you in the city of Jerusalem till you be endued with power from on high.” The Eucharist John 6:54 - “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” Sacrament of Penance [Confession] Psalm 41:4 - “Heal, O Lord, my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.” John 20:22-23 - “And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’” Anointing of the Sick [Extrem Unction] James 5:14-15 - “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” Matrimony Matthew 19:4-6 - “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Holy Orders Matthew 10:1 - Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. John 20:22-23 - “And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’”
@@TheNarrowGate101 The problem is that none of those verses establish a foundation for believing the power given to the apostles was given in a chain of succession to the modern day. You can be Protestant and fully affirm the need to confess your sins. To do so is biblical. But confessing sins can be done to a trusted friend, a parent, spouse, etc. and doesn’t have to be a religious leader- though it can be, of course.
@@jncon8013Acts 1:20 - Let another take his office Acts 1:25-26 Matthias takes Judas’ apostolic ministry 1Tim 3:1, 8 , 5:17 - qualifications for bishops, priests, and deacons 1Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands
Fantastic video. Regarding this incarnational view in dialogue with Eastern Orthodoxy, it would be interesting to hear Dr. Arcadi's take on the Confession of Dositheus (1672) that is, at least on paper, the binding view of the EO. Bulgakov appears to be an outlier among EO in his impanation view expressed in his recently translated text, The Eucharistic Sacrifice.
I would have thought that the meaning of the Communion service was very much dependent on the spiritual state of the recipient and their relationship to Jesus. If we try to be too clever like many theologians we probably end up confusing ourselves and others. Christ gave himself for me ie; ‘This is my body- do this in remembrance of me…and in the same way he took the cup - and said; This cup is the new covenant in my blood, do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’. It is obviously a spiritual ‘remembrance’. All other views it seems to me are just variations of ‘externalism’ and helps nobody. And I would say that many evangelical churches today have a better and deeper understanding than many old Church Fathers or big name historical theologians! That is not to disparage the past or,any helpful insights from the past, but we can get ourselves tied up too much trying to be cleverer than God I feel.
I disagree respectfully. I don’t look at the church fathers or theologians from the past as infallible but when the Reformers (Zwingli excepted) agreed for the most part with the church fathers, it should at least cause us to examine what they said. There is definitely mystery involved in the nature of his presence and how it differs from his daily presence with us. But there seems to be an added measure of grace given in the Lord’s supper as we commune with the Savior through partaking of the bread and the cup. 1 Cor 11:29. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. This verse seems to imply some level of participation in the body and the blood that goes beyond a mere remembering. I’m a member of a non-denom evangelical contemporary church but my imagination was fired up by Gavin’s video on Thomas Watson’s little book on the Lord’s supper. Highly recommend it.
@@HiHoSilvey We are all free to appreciate the Lord’s Supper as we see fit, as that is what has happened down the ages hasn’t it? When I say ‘remembrance’ I am not just saying it is something superficial, but on the contrary, because Jesus gave his life for me, it ‘spiritually’ means everything to me as I ‘remember’ him and what he has done, and I appreciate that, and of course that is a means of grace. My point was that so much theologising can go too far. Jesus categorically says ‘ do this in remembrance of me’, why do we need to go any further? Christianity is alive and well, and there are more Christians in the world today than at any one time. Jesus said that he will build his Church, and he is doing just that!
I might be inclined to agree. Groeing up in an Anglican Church full of cultural Christians and taking communion there was not as powerful as with my evangelical Church family where we aim to do Christianity all week
I agree. I think people take something simple and make much out of it. Communion points to Christ’s sacrifice-full stop. It’s all about His sacrifice on the cross, that, and His resurrection which saves us. I think that many of the other views are in some way not coming back completely from the RCC. They want it to be something in and of itself forgetting that it ultimately points to the great work of Christ.
@tomplantagenet i think it's a remembrance. Like the passover is a remembrance. Do we don't forget, from generation to generation, and so people see what is important.
@@morghe321 watched it this morning! It was good, but I got the impression that the guest wasn’t so interested in answering some of the Qs Gavin put forth to him, ha.
Best simply to participate in what ultimately remains (as Eastern Christians understand) for us humans a divine mystery, the heavenly banquet which brings us forgiveness, healing and sustenance.
No, that’s not it. I thought that at first, but he’s not advocating reincarnation. He’s saying the same metaphysical principles he uses to explain the incarnation he can use to explain real presence.
@@donatist59 yes, that is exactly what he is saying, "same principles". Real presence is very bad theology with absolutely no Biblical support. The people that stopped following Jesus did that exactly because they did not understand that he was talking symbolically. Only a few chapters over Jesus mentioned He is the bread of life, how come you don't believe Jesus is actual bread? Or maybe you do.
Jesus said: "Lo, I am with you always even to the end of the age". In this text Jesu assures us that He is with us personally in a very real way; Therefore the "REAL PRESENCE" of Christ abides with us, as believers, every moment of every day. Communion/Eucharist is, I believe, a reminder of this wonderful truth. Outside of the synoptic Gospels (John does not even detail the "Last Supper"), the celebration of Communion/Eicharist isy detailed on only one other occassion (1 Cor 11). The Holy Spirit is also referred to as "The Spirit of Christ"; thus, as believers in Christ, in dwelt with the Holy Spirit, the "Spirit of Christ" (the REAL PRESENCE of Christ) accompanies us day and night.
I’m a member of a nondenominational evangelical church and yet I take the historic protestant view that we are participating in the body and blood of Christ and that He is present in a way that is mysteriously different than his usual every day presence with us. That’s as close as I can come to explaining it. Gavin has an excellent video on the book by Thomas Watson that he mentioned in this video. I highly recommend it. It changed and challenged my previous view of the Eucharist.
@@HiHoSilvey "Participating in the body and blood of Christ" is, I believe, far more than participating in Communion/Eucharist. The Apostle Paul says "I want to know Christ........and the fellowship of sharing in His suffering, becoming like Him in His death......" (Phil.3v10). This, suffering for the sake of Christ and the Gospel, is what "participating in the body and blood of Christ" is REALLY about. The exact nature of "sharing in His suffering" will differ from person to person: for some it may mean death, for others it may mean being rejected by family and friends, for yet others it may mean rejoicing through terminal illness. While, communion is important, I believe this aspect of "sharing in His suffering" is what Jesus was really referring to when He spoke of "eating His body" and "drinking His blood" (John 6).
In the Eucharist, space and time collapse, heaven and earth meet, and the cosmic power of Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection are made real to us in the elements of bread and wine. He rends the heavens and comes down (Is. 64:1) - not just once, at Bethlehem, but, somehow, every time and every place the Eucharist is celebrated. Somehow, mystically, He is incarnated and present unto us in the bread and wine. Early Church Father Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of Apostle John) says this: They [the Docetists, early Christological heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
This was really helpful! I have always liked what John of Damascus says on this matter, and it seems very much in keeping with what you both are saying. John says three things and in this order (On the Orthodox Faith 4.13). First, the blood and wine are changed into God's body and blood through the Holy Spirit. Second, the bread and wine are not merely figures of body and blood of Christ. However, he feels comfortable expressing this as follows: just as coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire, so the bread of communion is not plain bread but bread (sounds like it's still bread) united with divinity. Finally, he goes on to explain, in rather Chalcedonian fashion, that this is similar to the union of body with divinity as a true union, but of two things that each retain their natures.
It is not accurate to say that in the Roman Catholic view (transubstantiation) the bread is removed; it is rather elevated to a new plane. The signs indicate a higher ontological reality. Dr. Brett Salkeld talks about this in his book Transubstantiation. The misunderstanding has a lot to do with the different philosophical underpinnings.
but it's clear you are eating the true flesh and blood of Christ, if the bread is elevated to a new plane how is the bread still bread once the bread is consecrated? in which plane does the bread exist?
@@junkim5853 The accidents, or the signs, of bread remain unchanged, I.e. it remains on the physical plane. But those signs, instead of pointing to the substance of bread, now serve as signs of body of Christ. It is not as though the the bread is pulled out with something else inserted in its place, but rather at its deepest level of being, the bread is not destroyed but is truly transubstantiated to act as pure “sacramental sign” of Christ - without an autonomous subject
@asgrey22 I really don't think that's a mainstream Catholic view. The bread once it's consecrated becomes the flesh of Christ. The flesh looks like bread, tastes like bread, and when people touch it, it feels like bread, but it's the flesh of christ or both flesh and blood in western rites. Signs and symbols are used more by the likes of reformed. Most Catholics never use such terms. Can you answer my questions like which plane did the bread ascended?
@@junkim5853 This is how St. Aquinas defines it. It is how Pope Benedict XVI describes it (“Jesus is not there like a piece of meat”). Catholics have always used the language of sign to describe the bread (you will see “under the signs of bread and wine” everywhere in Catholic literature and catechesis) - the difference is that we believe the sign and signified (Christ) are truly linked in reality, whereas Protestants tend to see sign as “mere” symbol. Transubstantiation does not occur in the physical plane. I would say many Catholics do take it in a “physical” sense but that is not what the doctrinal concepts underlying “transubstantiation” mean (if you google “Trans-accidentation by Dr. Brett salkeld” you can see more details about this)
@@junkim5853 for your question, the bread itself remains unchanged on the physical plane, but it is elevated in a metaphysical sense in that it now indicates the essence of Christ (are you familiar with matter, form, substance, etc. as described in philosophy of nature? This is what I am referring to)
Will electric guitars still be involved? I'd been looking into Presbyterians and looked into one of their nearby churches, thinking it would be different from the usual Calvary chapel style of worship, but practically speaking it seemed the same deal as that of any evangelical church: contemporary Christian music with a stage and stratocasters and the faithful swaying with holy antenna hands outstretched. Later I discovered the Reformed Zoomer channel and was intrigued by what he had to say about his more conversative Presbyterian sect. Ah, this must be it, a down-to-earth Protestant church. I found they had a church near to me and looked at their website. But there too, Stratocasters and the typical evangelical thang. Saint Les Paul pray for us.
Please, please can we get the "Via Media" thing right! Early Anglicanism was not a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, but a middle way between the magisterial protestantism of Luther and the dissenting protestantism of the Puritans. Nobody reading the 39 Articles would come away thinking they were anywhere near Roman Catholic doctrine... Thank you!!!
@@anselman3156 Right, but that was the problem, and the reason many converted to Rome - they simply couldn't square the clearly reformed Articles with their own desire to get closer to Roman Catholicism. The content of many of the Articles is a complete repudiation of Roman teaching, not a 'half way house' between Rome and Protestantism; whereas there is within them no repudiation of anything within magisterial Lutheranism or Calvinism.
@@Crucian1 You might find Alexander Penrose Forbes's book an interesting read. He did point to the disagreements with Rome's teachings, but also to disagreement with Lutherans and Calvinists.
@Truth Unites This Friday and Saturday, Dr.. James White will be debating Trent "Deception" Horn.... It will be streamed live on TH-cam and the channel is the same channel that uploaded Dr James White vs Tim Stratton
Love your videos, Gavin I was wondering if you had done any research into the Assyrian church of the east I love learning about different denominations and I’ve heard that the Assyrian church of the east is Nestorian. It’d be awesome if you could make a video or two about them.. God bless
Are there any scriptures that support the idea the actual presence of Jesus is in the bread? I don't think so. Communion is no more, no less, than we are declaring His death until He comes again. 1Cor 11:26.
1 Cor 11:29. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. If you are simply remembering or making a declaration, in what way would you be discerning the body of Christ?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 He was speaking of His body. To think He was referring to the bread is absurd. Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” The bread wasn't nailed to the cross. His body was. He gives a command to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Him. This is why Paul writes what he does in 1Cor 11.
@@HiHoSilveyIn context, Paul is speaking of the division in the Corinthian church while partaking of the Lord's Supper. Some ate, while others went hungry. Some became drunk. They didn't recognize the body of believers present is the body of Christ and disrespected their fellow Christians. They should have partaken of the bread and wine together and sharing with those who were poor and had nothing.
When He told His disciples to "do this in remembrance of Me" He was talking about the unleavened bread and cup of wine of Passover. All man made creeds and sacraments are misguided. 1 Corinthians 11:24
If we are to pattern our practice of the Lords Supper on the Last Supper, should we also follow through on all the implications, no one wore special clerical clothes ?
There are all kinds of things they didn’t do which we do now-some ok, some not. The Jews were used to seeing priestly garments and smelling the aroma of incense. These things don’t bother me anymore. In fact, they make me feel as if I am in no ordinary meeting when I enter the sanctuary and see or smell these things.
The interesting thing about Christ institution of the Lord's Supper, is how little there is about order or ceremony. I've often said when it comes to how a church should look, the Bible has so much freedom. God in his wisdom knew the church would cross generations and cultures and needed that flexibility
A couple of questions. 1. I'm no Lutheran, but what he's articulating sounds identical to the Lutheran view of sacramental presence to me. Closer to that than to the 39 Articles, actually. Is there any way in which this view differs from Lutheranism? 2) In the Incarnation, the two natures are united in the one person of Christ. In Inpanation, what unites the two bodies (that is, the bread and the body of Christ)? Is it just that they are in the same location?
That is an interesting take! I’ve yet to come across information that warrants a “higher” view than the ordinary one, but maybe his work or Gavin’s is more compelling!
Gavin has two earlier videos on this that completely changed my view of the Eucharist. One video is a response to Francis Chan but the one I really recommend is the one where he is talking about the Thomas Watson book on the Lord’s supper.
Something that helps me think through John 6 is to ask if the disciples remembered those statements when He instituted The Lord’s Supper later. Thoughts?
Some confusion results from the fact that Matthew and Mark didn't record Jesus' entire statement. They just recorded, "This is my body," but Jesus said more. Luke recorded, "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body _which is given for you:_ this do in remembrance of me." Paul wrote, "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, _which is broken for you:_ this do in remembrance of me." Here's my point: _Jesus had not yet given His body; Jesus' body had not yet been broken for them._ That would occur the next day when He suffered on the cross and died to propitiate for our sins. The Passover bread and wine were a remembrance of the salvation of God in which the death angel passed over the Israelites' homes when he saw the blood of the lamb on their doorposts. Because this was a "type" of the coming Messiah, in the Last Supper Jesus was showing them that the bread and wine signified Him, the Messiah. He re-purposed the Passover bread and wine by telling them that, from now on, instead of remembering the earlier Passover, from now on they were to remember Him whenever they took the bread and the cup; for when God sees the shed blood of Christ on the "doorposts" of our hearts, His wrath passes over us. Through faith in Christ's propitiation on the cross (and apart from works, Rom. 4), God extends His mercy and grace to us; He grants us the gifts of a regenerated spirit and His righteousness, and He comes to indwell us by His Spirit. Just as the Israelites who were yet sinners demonstrated their faith by applying the blood to the doorposts and lintels of their homes, and were spared, likewise we who trust with all our hearts in Christ Jesus have had that blood (which He shed) applied by God to ourselves. God no longer looks at our past iniquities; they are removed from us through faith in the One who fully paid the penalty for them. Taking Communion is our physical touchstone and reminder of the great, wonderful thing Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross 2,000 years ago. But when He took the bread and the cup, He had not yet accomplished it. That is why He said that the bread and wine were His mortal body which He would surrender on the following day for them. You see, _even if the elements were transformed that very night_ into the actual, physical body of Jesus, they were only eating _His mortal flesh (which was about to die)_ and drinking His mortal blood... how could the eating of a body which would soon stop functioning be salvific? Many people _conflate_ the body Jesus gave up on the cross for us, with the resurrected body Jesus now wears.
”For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself. …Yet when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned along with the world.“ 1 Corinthians 11:29, 32 Wouldn’t this verse mean that if we misunderstand communion on any side, that God will discipline us and not condemn us anyway?
no, I think this is a deeply rooted misunderstanding, it refers to the practise disrespecting the poor in the community at Corinth, who had no bread to take with them. please read the text carefully
@@peterk.6930 Hi there! Appreciate the response. I re-read the scripture and I think I see where you’re coming from in light of verse 20-22 and verse 30, but I am not grasping how 29 relates to the church because 28 talks about self-examination. Can you expand on your interpretation for me?
@@Knewms Indeed, I was referring to the context of verses 20-22 mentioning the 'poor.' Apparently a situation had arisen in Corinth where some people ate and drank (too) much. Others had too little. Paul reproaches this practice when he uses the words 'not discerning the body.' The 'self-examination' of verse 28 is related to this. And note also the fact that the Lord's Supper was actually a Passover meal. It was a moment of memory. Jesus is the 'personification' of the Passover lamb eaten in Egypt. I think the whole discussion about whether or not there is a physical presence has more to do with Greek philosophy than with the Bible text. Catholic theologians who defend transubstantiation also literally refer to Aristotle's substantia, essentia, accidentia, etcetera. On the other hand, the term 'self-examination' is also very loaded in Protestant circles. It then turns into a psychological examination of conscience. I don't think that is what the text means. But I wonder if this answers your question?
A few questions and comments. During the Lord’s supper when Jesus broke the bread, said it was his body, took the wine and said it was his blood, were the elements transubstantiated then before he was crucified? Do those who hold to transubstantiation address this? I personally struggle to read John 6 and not see it as spiritual: ex. John 6:35 Jesus said, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” Are we to take this as literal or spiritual? Thank you for this video. I appreciate the conversation.
I recently visited an Anglican church and noticed that all were welcomed to the Lord’s table who had been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. When I was 30 years old, I was baptized by a Oneness Pentecostal preacher in a UPC church. I did it in rebellion against my Baptist pastor who was pressuring me to get baptized publicly. I didn’t know until years later that the Pentecostal pastor did not believe in the Trinity. I’ve often wondered if my baptism was invalid even though I didn’t share the pastor’s heretical beliefs. I wonder what a Baptist preacher and an Anglican priest would counsel in these circumstances. 🤔
I'm no minister, but as a Christian I would not think of your baptism as invalid. I don't even think a valid baptism is an absolute requirement to get to heaven. That's just me as a fellow Christian, though. I suspect that either a Baptist minister or Anglican priest would say it's improper and would offer to baptize you validly. (And there's no harm in doing so.) My advice would be: go talk to one or the other, depending on whether you prefer an immersion or a sprinkling.
Um. If your baptism was non Trinitarian then you didn’t really have at the very least a licit baptism at worse it was totally invalid. I would suggest talking to your pastor and priest and considering whether or not you should be rebaptized. If we are to follow your “oneness Pentecostal baptism” to its logical conclusion then you are not properly baptized into the Trinity.
Don't Lutherans believe that in the Eucharist the Body of Christ is "consubstantial" with the bread and wine, just like Christ's divine nature is consubstantial with his human nature? It makes perfect sense that the Eucharist would bring the divine Presence to be with us, in the same way that God came down to us as Christ. In that case, the priest does not perform a miracle to change the elements, but rather invites God to become present with us and share his body and blood to give us life. We thus receive Christ according to our faith.
Dr. Ortlund, for a really interesting insight into John 6, I recommend the recent book, Least Among the Apostles by William Glass and Brendan Case. The book is generally about Paul's relationships with the other Apostles, but Case has a chapter on John's use of Paul. That use is scant, except that John seemed particularly interested in 1 Corinthians 15, including Paul's puzzling statements about Christ becoming a life-giving Spirit and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom. Rather than race to the conclusion that the "Spiritual body" only means a regular body animated by the Holy Spirit, John seems to entertain the thought that a resurrected body that draws its life directly from the Holy Spirit will somehow be affected in its very constitution. That is not to deny the continuity (and so to give fodder for so much heresy, as those verses in Paul often were). But it is to stress that there is yet something new and surprising about Jesus's resurrected body. ("What we will be has not yet been revealed," and this written by a man who saw the risen Lord!) The main passages where Case detects John drawing on 1 Cor. 15 are in John 3 (what is born of Spirit is spirit, what is born of flesh is flesh) and I also think in John 12 (the discussion of the seed in the ground, etc.). But also John 6. Jesus is the Heavenly One who gives life, whose words are Spirit and life, while the flesh profits nothing (again, compare with Paul's "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom"). Further, central to this discourse is the resurrection, and how Jesus will raise us up. In this context, Jesus tells us we have to eat his flesh. The end of Case's chapter was especially suggestive. He reflects on John's experience of Jesus's resurrected body. To say that Jesus became a life-giving Spirit, who has a Spiritual body, has made many readers nervous. We want to be clear that Jesus is not less than embodied. The incarnation holds up, the tomb is empty, Jesus is bodily resurrected. He's not a mere ghost. Case's closing suggestion (which I'm sure I'll butcher, since I'm writing all this from memory) is rich. To say that Jesus's body is spiritual after his resurrection, while admitting that this means at least something for its ontological status, is not to say that he is less substantial than earthly things, like a shade. Perhaps his bodily life is weightier (more glorious?) and more substantial than the things of this world, so that he walks through walls "as if through a fogbank." The reason I find this so interesting is that it seems to open conceptual possibilities for how we think about Jesus's presence in the Eucharist. We could take a strong view of Jesus's corporeal presence in the Eucharist, while perhaps resisting crude understandings of corporeality. It seems to me this would also work against Transubstantiation, since we might consider that the Lord's resurrected body is not competing with the bread and wine for space. But I would also contend that Protestant concerns about "containment" also lose much of their force in the light of these considerations. Or maybe I would say that this suggests the possibility of integrating talk of "spiritual presence" with talk of "corporeal presence," both being true about the Eucharist exactly because of the meaning of the resurrection. Thanks for orchestrating this interview and sharing it with us. Godspeed.
I think that’s well articulated and interesting. I think Luther made a similar argument against Zwingli that Christ’s body isn’t limited in the same way now that he has a spiritual body. However, having a high view of Scripture, I can’t follow the liberal views of Case. I believe John is recording the teachings of Jesus, so Paul would be following the content of John (Jesus’s teachings), not the other way around (though Paul wrote first).
@@levifox2818 I appreciate your concerns. First, I'm not sure about Luther's views, but I think I've heard things about him along those lines. I certainly would want to be clear that this is not mean to support any suggestion that Jesus's resurrected body becomes coterminous with his divine nature (that is, omnipresent), which I know is one way that things went off track at times, and that the Reformers had to respond to this. There are a few issues at play. One, there is the question of historical reliability. That does not necessarily involve questions of faith. Many historical documents are reliable, and many are not. However, with Scripture there is also clearly the question of trusting the Scriptures as they present themselves. This pertains to faith, but by that I don't mean that such questions are sealed off from normal judgments about historicity. With that, I believe that the Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness. First, because it tells us so. But second, drawn into this trust is the sense that this is credible even on its own terms. (Think "faith seeking understanding," as recommended in this dialogue.) Further, as a historical judgment, I believe the fourth Gospel is written by John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. That's not required by faith. But there seem to be enough clues that suggest this is most likely. So the Fourth Gospel is historically reliable. I think this on simple historical grounds, since it was written by an eyewitness. But beyond that, I trust the Gospel because it tells us of the One who has "the words of life." So a couple points about these issues: one, a high view of the divine authorship of Scripture should be held together with a shameless regard for the humanity of the Scriptures. The Bible, like the Eucharist, is Incarnational. It is fully divine, but also fully human. And it bears the traces of its human authorship. We can attend to this, not only as a concession, but because in Jesus Christ God has elected to reveal himself by way of our lowly humanity. Two, regarding history itself, New Testament authors don't simply tell us "what happened," but they tell us what happened in such a way that we can enter into the meaning and significance of what happened. The story comes already interpreted. The Christian writer is involved in that way as a witness. And our knowledge of Jesus is inseparable from their testimony. So that's a basic point about history, but it's also theologically important. Historiography is not separate from the interpretive judgments of the author (which in this case might be formed in conversation with a wider community--and I'll point out that First Corinthians and John's Gospel were both written in Ephesus, which makes the historic connection between them all the more plausible). But this observation about history is only a matter of spelling out what is involved in the humanity of the Scriptures; and again, we should not see this as being in conflict with the truth that the Holy Spirit's purposes are perfectly realized. Even the tempestuous wind does his will.
@@stephencrawford5452 I agree with what you’re saying that the biblical authors intended to communicate theology in the Gospels, especially the Gospel of John. I don’t believe the fabricated any quotes from Jesus to do so, however, which is what it would seem to take if John is reflecting Paul rather than quoting what Jesus said.
I appreciate his desire to use christology as a basis but those ideas are not from scripture, they are derived from scripture. It’s like basing your belief off a derivative rather than the original. I see the logic and it’s powerful on its face but I don’t think you have the same sort of scriptural basis for a hypostatic union of the bread and wine. Additionally, the union of Christ to natures is of a non physical, spirit which is divine since God is spirit, and a physical, His body and blood. On this model you are trying to mesh two physical item’s together because your not saying it’s Christ spirit or the holy spirit as others view say, your saying it’s the actual body of Christ that is present. That just doesn’t work logically and that is on top of the lack of scriptural support of such a view.
Just thinking out loud, but in the Incarnation, God becomes man (“man” doesn’t become God). In the Eucharist, the bread becomes Jesus. Incarnation is God “sending” his Son as gift, in Eucharist is God the Son “offering” the gift back to the Father. I don’t know that they would be philosophically Interchangeable.
@@toddvoss52 I don’t trust that he categorized RCC teaching correctly or actually understands the concepts underlying transubstantiation - “Transubstantiation” by Dr. Brett Salkeld goes into detail on this
Theological books are notoriously expensive mainly because there is such a relatively small market for them. Publishers have a hard time breaking even. There are exceptions, of course. An exceptionally popular author's books might be more reasonably priced.
I believe the Early Church Fathers wrote where there is no bishop (apostolic succession) there are no valid sacraments. I don't honestly know, so I'd like to hear some thoughts on this
Who says that the Early Church Fathers were correct in everything they said? I don’t know which Church Father may have said something like that, but he was totally wrong. The early Church was already deviating from a true spiritual state into a form of ‘externalism’ where rites and ceremonies, titles and positions had started to corrupt the Church, and replace the true gospel.
Baptism can be valid even if administered by a layman in an emergency. Matrimony is the only sacrament that can be administered by a layman. The bride and groom marry each other, they are the ministers of Christ’s grace. The priest serves as the Church’s official witness and makes the sacrament a richer experience..
@@thejerichoconnection3473 - let me see if I can help you: “But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”” Matthew 12:48-50 ESV Did Jesus’s disciples become his mother here? If not, then we have complete warrant to see that just as he wasn’t being literal on many things he says, Jesus wasn’t being literal there either. This is a “duh” kind of thing.
@@gregmahler9506 of course you need to use common sense when discerning if someone is speaking literally or metaphorically. The fact that Jesus used metaphors doesn’t mean that everything he said was a metaphor. While it’s plain obvious what Jesus meant when he said “those are my brothers and mother”, it makes no sense that he would hold up a piece of bread and declare it metaphorically his body. Why would he do that? What’s the metaphor behind? In the last supper, Jesus was not talking in obscure metaphors. He was instituting a new cult, a New Covenant based on the partaking of his very own body and blood. Obviously you need to connect that language to John 6 to make sense of it. And what happens in John 6 makes absolutely clear Jesus was not simply talking metaphorically. I would urge you to read what the earliest Christians, the very disciples of the Apostle John, write about the Eucharist (see Ignatius of Antioch, above all).
@@thejerichoconnection3473 - well. Since Jesus’s literal body was present in the chair he was speaking from, it makes sense he wasn’t talking literally with the bread. It’s the same exact parallel to the passage I gave because he has a literal mothers and literal brothers too.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 - I don’t trust/count any extra-biblical source as authoritative. In fact it is very apparent based on what Jesus says to the seven churches in revelation, that the Roman paganism was already creeping in. It is my opinion that this view about the Bread arises from the idea of idle worship, and sacrificing things like meat to idols. And if you are a part of the Roman Catholic Church, I would highly suggest you to get out before it’s too late.
14:03 - Doesn’t this quote mean that one should say “the bread is God?” We call the incarnation of Christ “God,” and not calling Him “God” is condemned at the 3rd ecumenical council. So not calling the bread in Holy Communion “God” would be Nestorian If the bread is FULLY Christ, and Christ is FULLY God, then by translation, the bread is FULLY God. This doesn’t seem right to me
So my question is, how can something be both flesh and spirit, or something spiritually become flesh, as the very substance of flesh is carnal, spirit is not flesh. Jesus did say that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Also, Paul(presumably )Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. It seems they are distinct parts or components. Sincerely, it seems a bit confusing.
You nailed it. The idea that we receive the flesh of Christ only “spiritually” is a contradiction in terms. This is exactly why the Reformed view of the Eucharist (spiritual presence) is so wrong.
Joh 3:3 _Jesus answered Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”_ Nicodemus is confused. He thinks Jesus means that one must go through two *natural* births. Joh 3:4 _Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”_ Jesus explains that He is talking about two different *types* of birth: the natural birth and a subsequent supernatural birth. Joh 3:5 _Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God._ In verse 5, Jesus corrects Nicodemus by explaining that He's talking about only 1 natural birth, but an additional 1 spiritual birth (the 2nd birth). The natural birth is this: being born when the woman's "water" (the placental fluid) breaks. The supernatural birth is being "born of the (Holy) Spirit," which is also called, being "born again." Joh 3:6 _That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit._ In verse 6, Jesus clearly *continues to talk about 1 natural birth and 1 spiritual birth,* these being the two separate and distinct births that one needs to be "born again." Interpreting v. 5 to mean that being "born of water" is baptism, rather than natural birth, is not only inconsistent with the context of the surrounding verses (3-6), but it also does violence to Jesus' subsequent promise that "that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life" (v. 15, reiterated for emphasis by Jesus in verses 16 and 18). If Jesus meant (in v. 5) that one must be baptized as the means of being born again, then He would have said 3 times in the following verses, 'whoever is baptized may have eternal life.' The fact that He instead indicated _belief (faith) in Him_ as the determinative factor clearly shows the proper context for v. 5 to be: a natural birth (via the birth canal) followed at some point by a spiritual birth (via belief in Him). Therefore, Jesus was not commanding baptism in John 3:3-7. Baptism is not the instrumental means through which God bestows saving grace and justification unto eternal life. Faith (belief in Him as Savior) is the means which Jesus repeatedly indicates. Read Romans 4, Romans 10, Galatians 3, and Ephesians 2.
@@rexlion4510 “Whoever believes *and is baptized* will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16) So yes, Jesus meant water baptism. John 3 context is all about water baptism. In fact, the first thing Jesus does after talking to Nicodemus is to go down to the Jordan river and baptize with water. What a coincidence! The “placenta” theory is so bizarre that it’s not even funny. Nowhere in the Bible, to refer to natural birth, people talk about being “born of water.” Not to mention the ridiculously obvious “condition” for salvation being the fact that one needs to have first come into existence.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Did Jesus say, Whoever is not baptized will be condemned? No, He didn't. So don't put words in Jesus' mouth, or you might get struck by lightning.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 it's not wrong if you hold that the presence of Lord is there, but it if you say the elements become the body and blood spiritually that seems problematic. I am leaning toward real presence, but not transubstantiation, as I find that repugnant, not consubstantiation, as that makes no sense to me. But, the fact that the presence of the Lord joins us in this remembrance makes perfect sense.
People should research the Eucharistic Miracles in The Catholic Church. These are miracles attesting to the REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST ( Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) in consecrated hosts. The Buenos Aires Argentina miracle occurred in 1996 and was independently forensically studied. The results are astounding. See for yourself.
@@jncon8013 It was studied by a team most notably was Dr. Frederick Zugibe a Forensic Pathologist and Cardiologist. There is a documentary by the title “ The Miracle of Buenos Aires… “ by the TH-cam channel “ Reason to Believe”
@@jncon8013It was studied by a team of scientist most notably Dr. Frederick Zugibe a Forensic Pathologist and cardiologist. There is a documentary on the channel “Reason to Believe “ with the title ‘Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires..’
Catholic Eucharistic miracles are not determinative, because they can be either faked or counterfeited. If I suggested that you read accounts of the many miracles performed through Protestants, would you take that as proof that Protestantism is correct?
I enjoyed this video. However, I am amazed as to how we can have such an extensive conversation about the Eucharist without any mention of the Passover, which is critical context for this institution! I see this trend in many authors as well. For example, John Calvin brings up Jewish roots of circumcision when talking about infant baptism, but does not say anything about the Passover in relation to the Lord’s supper, which was a Passover meal! There is so much depth that this conversation is missing, because Jesus is clearly announcing to His disciples and followers that He is the Passover Lamb, which is what the Israelites had been eating for hundreds of years, commemorating how God passed over them in Egypt, even though they were a sinful people and deserved death as much as the Egyptians. And yet God spared the Hebrews through the future sacrifice of His Son! Jesus is the unleavened (sinless) bread. Jesus’s blood is the lamb’s blood they placed at the base of their door then struck on the top and sides of their door as in the shape of a cross. The Lamb died so we did not have to!
Yes, I think its likely that in addition to being the sacrificial passover lamb, Jesus was probably buried the following day (after sunset of passover) which is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. He rose from the dead 3 days later which was the Feast of Firstfruits and ALSO the first day of the counting of the omer towards Shavuot/Pentecost. It was during these days of counting that Jesus appeared to and ate with his disciples more than once. On the 50th day, the the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out
this comment is very spot on By the way, there is an extensive literature (New perspective on Paul) that states that the original Jewish context has never been understood. This certainly also applies to the Reformers.
@@peterk.6930 Largely thanks to the lies of replacement theology. Another doctrine of demons that makes God a liar and places stumbling blocks before the jewish people.
@@heather602 I wonder if the word "demons" is helpful. We can conclude that any understanding of the Jewish context was completely out of the picture in the 16th century. Maybe we should judge mildly? It is a different matter if replacement theology is still used today.
Jiddu Krishnamurti tells a joke; You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, “What did that man pick up?” “He picked up a piece of Truth,” said the devil. “That is a very bad business for you, then,” said his friend. “Oh, not at all,” the devil replied, “I am going to let him organize it.”
The only time the devil appears in Jewish folklore is when he turned up in the synagogue of Mill Hill on a Saturday, and he scared everybody out except the elderly rabbi; and when he asked him, why aren’t you scared, the rabbi said, because I ‘ve been married to your sister for 45 years.’
The critical issue with the Roman Catholic view (that the bread ceases to exist and only the accidents remain) is that they adore and worship the host. When one realizes that the early church didn't think the substance of bread ceases, one is forced to conclude that worship of the bread host is idolatrous. Pope Gelasius: “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. *Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine do not cease.* And assuredly *the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ* are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries” (Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium, 14) Theodoret: “The mystical tokens or sacraments after the Consecration, depart not from their own nature: for *they remain still in their former substance,* and form, and figure.” Chrysostom: “The very body of Christ itself is not in the holy vessels, but the mystery or Sacrament thereof is there contained.” And, “The nature of bread remaineth in the Sacrament.” Augustine wrote much on this subject: “Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave a token of his body.” “Christ took Judas unto his table, whereat he gave unto his Disciples the figure of his body.” “Unless Sacraments had a certain likeness of the things of which they be sacraments, then indeed they were no Sacraments. And of this likeness oftentimes they bear the names of the things themselves that are *represented by* the sacraments.” “In sacraments we must consider, not what they be,” (in substance and nature,) “but what they signify.” “It is a dangerous matter, and a servitude of the soul, to take the sign instead of the thing that is signified.” “If it be a speech that commandeth, either by forbidding an horrible wickedness, or requiring that which is profitable, it is not figurative: but if it seem to require horrible wickedness, and to forbid what is good and profitable, it is spoken figuratively. Except ye eat (saith Christ) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He seemeth to require the doing of that which is horrible, or most wicked: *it is a figure, therefore,* commanding us to communicate with the passion of Christ, and comfortably and profitably to lay up in our remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.” “It is a more horrible thing to eat man’s flesh, than to kill it: and to drink man’s blood, than it is to shed it.” “Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten Christ. For, believing in Christ is the eating of the bread of life.” Moreover, Augustine made the point that Jesus has ascended into heaven and, according to Scripture, will not be seen again on earth until the Second Advent; at that time, "every eye shall see Him" coming in the clouds. Augustine wrote: “According to the flesh that the word received : according to that he was born of the Virgin : according to that he was taken of the Jews : according to that he was nailed to the Cross : according to that he was taken down, and lapt in a shroud, and laid in the grave, and rose again, and showed himself. In this respect it is true that he said : Ye shall not evermore have me with you.” “Until the world be ended, the Lord is above: yet notwithstanding even here is the truth of the Lord. For the body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place.” Vigilius said likewise: “The flesh of Christ when it was in earth, was not in heaven : and now, because it is in heaven, doubtless it is not on earth.” (Against Eutychus) Athanasius agreed with this: “Unto how many men could Christ’s body have sufficed, that he should be the food of all the world ? Therefore he made mention of his ascension into heaven, that he might *withdraw them from corporal and fleshly understanding.”* Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God." The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it. As punishment, Moses had the calf ground up and made the people ingest the gold. The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, rear them up in monstrances and worship them. Then they ingest the bread. The two are remarkably similar.
So, Jesus was sitting at the last supper table with his apostles, just about to eat the meal when he says "this is my body". Was the bread they were about to eat, chew, swallow and later poop Jesus real physical body or was Jesus body sitting at the table with them? Understanding his words in a "real physical and material presence" makes Jesus body to exist apart from his whole person "for him abides all the fulness of divinity". The reakl physical material presence view must hold that Jesus exist outside of Jesus. A metaphorical or spiritual understanding of his words are more consistent with the natural use of words and the intention of literary form of speech. Jesus used a similar but backwards word construct when he stood before the temple in Jerusalem and said "destroyed this temple and in three days I will raise it up". He was obviously referring to his own body as the evangelist makes clear, but the leaders believed he was referring to the actual building. However, the building itself was a type of Christ's body as we can see later in the book of Hebrews where the writer states that the flesh of Jesus that was torn at the cross was the 'curtain' of the temple. Hence, we can see that the entire temple building and accessories was a metaphor for Christ's physical real body, but it wasn't the real body of Jesus. In like manner, the bread is a metaohor for Jesus spiritual or symbolic presence, not a real physical or material presence. The latter is also mire consistent with the spiritual nature of the New Covenant and the Gospel in the church age.
Another point to consider is this: Jesús said this: John 6:35 (ESV) Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. ONE MEAL AND ONE DRINK IS ENOUGH! If the bread (and wine) SATISFY HUNGER and THIRST for EVER, and the bread and wine are the REAL PRESENCE physically and material body and blood of Jesus, THEN if that's the case, eating 'that' bread JUST ONCE is enough. There is no reason to continue consuming the elements. But, on the other hand, if the reference JESUS is making to 'eating' his BREAD, and 'drinking' his BLOOD is in relation to FAITH or BELIEF, then ALL one needs to do is become a believer ONCE. A true believer is always a believer. And his hunger and THIRST have been FOREVER SATISFIED.
The Church answers those questions. They do not deficate Jesus. Once the accidents have been consumed they break down and are no longer Christ's body from my understanding.
@@dman7668 I know. So that means that the bread gets "detransubstantiated". But Jesus said: Matthew 15:17 (NLT) “Anything you eat passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.
@jltc5478 Yes this isn't contradicting Christ's words here. We consume Christ's body but it does not pass through the stomach. Jesus was not talking about digestion in some absolute sense that EVERYTHING that ends up in the stomach goes into the sewer.
You guys just don't get it. You as Protestants are always directed inward. Everything is about you. By your own admission here, you even think the Lord's Supper is about you. THAT is the real distinction between Catholics and yourselves: Catholics view the Mass (i.e. its centerpiece and focus, the Eucharist) as an offering to God--a gift; an act of giving--of what is most dear to him, his own Son, in the manner he himself prescribed. You view your Supper as something done for yourselves, which you are, moreover, desperate to have God understand doesn't amount to anything substantial. It evokes warm feelings or something, but that's about it. It's hard for a Catholic to fathom why you even bother. I understand that you want to believe you receive grace from your Supper, but why are you tempted to think that? You are not worshiping God. You are not offering him anything. You are simply begging grace from him, like a kid asking Santa for a present. In a way, what you're asking is for God to worship you. (I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds; I offer it simply as food for thought.)
When the speaker on the left before he presents his charts says “I’m going to overwhelm you”, pay attention. He is speaking the truth there. When the speaker on the right dressed as a priest says “I chose the Anglican religion…” (because of this, this, and this..) pay attention. What the Apostles and the Early Church would have done is remained with Tradition and went into deep prayer and contemplation accompanied by fasting to discern what Gods Will was for them whether they “liked” it or not. Ask what Divine Will is for you daily. Remain open minded. And pray for our Brothers and Sisters who are oppressed into misunderstanding that keeps them in heresy and out of Apostolic Succession that protects us with Gods Grace with the Blessed Sacraments. Study the Early Church Fathers. Former Protestant, Joshua T. Charles, is a trusted source. Come back to the Body of Christ. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Evil will attack Her within and without. Get on the boat. Get right with your Sacraments and your Sacramentals. And feel the Grace of God as you worship in the way He intended.
@@Crucian1Back to my point being that when the speaker on the right talks about why he chose the Anglican Church, he does not mention praying for Divine Will in his discernment on where his vocation would be.
How does God live in every believer through the Holy Spirit? How does God sustain all creation here and now? How does God produce 'miracles' in the material world? Mysteries. What we don't know is much more than that which has been revealed. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. Mark 9:38-41
Christ commanded us to not leave His Church. All are welcome to return. To come out of schism and heresy. And truly receive him in an unbroken lineage of Sanctified Presence. See incorrupt Saint Carlos Acutis’s Eucharistic Miracles. Christ did not authorize breaking from the Church and starting new religions. Of Course God is in all of us and Jesus loves all of us. There is a form to proper Transubstantiation that mustn’t be broken to remain valid. That’s a Truth. And that is my point.
In the wise lyrics of Iris Dement, "I think I'll just let the mystery be." Been an Anglican for most of my life now, and my head has yet to explode from taking that conception honestly and solemnly to the altar. I hope the efficacy of the offering isn't dependent on my exhaustively understanding it.
"Twas God the Word that spake it, He took the Bread and brake it: And what that Word did make it, That I believe and take it." - the imprisoned Queen Elizabeth I.
This was so encouraging. I got such a passion in my chest as they you were discussing both the unity with Christ and unity with one another that we experience through the table. I love too see the trend of low church groups undergoing what seems to be a eucharistic revival.
thanks!
My big confession is that i struggle with the whole thing of eating a bit of bread and drinking wine. With an "ordinary" view, what difference does it make?
But studying the Jewish feasts has opened my eyes to the importance of rememberance.
Without Passover and first fruits and Pentecost we would miss the care that God put into planning and executing salvation through Jesus. The expectation and the perfect timing.
Gavin im so tankful for your Work it helped me so much dealing with ecclesial anxiety God bless you
If you join one of the ancient churches, Catholic or Orthodox, your ecclesial anxiety will disappear overnight. How could anyone feel ecclesial anxiety while looking at an image of Jesus like the Sacred Heart or of His Blessed Mother, all the tender compassion in the world looking at you and loving you unconditionally?
@@marksmale827 my esslesial anxiety allready disappeared because now i convinced that EO is not true
And Gavin makes me buy another book. Both me and my wife thank you, but not with the same emotion 😂.
Thank you so much for continuing to draw people's attention to the richness of our Christian, and specifically Protestant, tradition!
Hey Gavin, please consider to invite Dr. Brant Pitre to talk about the Eucharist.
This was very refreshing to watch. I have been thinking about this topic a lot.
agreed, I love my evangelical church, but totally agree a higher emphasis on the Lord's Supper is needed
Gavin the previous logo looked more theologically electrifying! Please bring it back 😭🙏
Very Insightful! I especially appreciated the connecting of the divine & physical union in the incarnation with the physical & divine pancarnation! A true reality! Let’s get back to our Baptisticostal roots!
Kudos to both of you. It was a very interesting interview with Dr. Arcadi. What made it a good interview, in my mind, is your generous setups to help Dr. Arcadi express his ideas. Showing his tables, reading his quotes (and giving him time off screen to enjoy a hot beverage!). I'm in my 50's and still searching for the truth of this topic. I think, most importantly, is to take the elements in a respectful manner with a ready heart (not weighed down with unforgiven sins, and having forgiven others who may have trespassed against you). A regular remembrance of Christ's sacrifice can only help to keep him centered in our lives. If there is more to it, may your faith make it so. God bless you all.
And about John 6... my impression is that the entire crowd - and the disciples - didn't really follow up on the flesh eating. That leads me to believe they took Christ's statements about his flesh to be figurative. The overarching topic of that chapter is the crowd not believing that Jesus came from heaven. As Jesus was want to do, he upped the ante on his statement. Like others times where he said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Here, Jesus ups the ante again... paraphrased, I think he's saying, "so you don't believe I descended from heaven from the Father? Well, not only did I do that, you're going to have to eat my flesh in order to find eternal life."
Well, even after such an intense statement, the crowd and disciples to back to the topic of where Jesus came from! And, in verse 61&62 this is confirmed: "... “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" We have no record of the disciples saying, "Jesus, yeah, about that eating your flesh thing. What's up with that? You know we're Jewish, and we thought you were a Jewish rabbi. How can you tell us to be cannibals?" Instead, as paralleled in other gospels, the questions about who do the disciples say Jesus is comes up and in answered.
If we are going to take things so literally, then during the Last Supper, ONLY that loaf of bread was Christ's body and ONLY that cup of wine was his blood. May it not be so! If there is Impanation, maybe there's also Apanstolic Succession happening with each loaf of bread we dedicate to Christ. I'm being a little tongue in cheek here for the fun of it. Please forgive me.
I enjoyed your thoughts. Thanks
This will be great to listen to while I'm working!
THANKYOU !! So much Gavin , this has been so helpful and Thank God this was heaven sent . I’ve been praying for clarity on this subject for some time now , and have had some strong convictions with the Lords supper being a remembrance / memorial . Your ministry has been such a blessing from God to me and I believe answered prayer . Thank you 🙏🙏🙏
❄️ Snow is cool and very fun 🛷
This teaching is cool and very useful
Fantastic overview of all perspectives
I put this on my car ride back home from church after Ash Wednesday service .....so apt
🙏
Just listened to this a second time and I bought your Hunslingers book recommendation , awesome book I’m studying through it now .
THANK YOU
THANK YOU
THANKYOU
MR GAVIN ORTLUND for this
Thanks for another great video! As a Catholic, I was surprised to hear such a heavily theological examination of the Eucharist. I do wonder, however, why you would consider the Catholic view (or others like it that have clear rules about how Jesus willed for us to "do this in memory of Me") to be a "restriction" of Jesus. I'd like to hear more on this because God has always been very clear about how He wants to be worshiped, and Jesus doesn't say "do whatever you want in memory of me" but rather, "do this". We clearly do not have the option of making up our own minds about this topic, and yet you seem to argue that all Christian groups, regardless of their sometimes very significant differences in belief and practice, don't have to worry much about their view on the Eucharist, just maybe try to think about it a little more. Looking forward to more great videos! Thanks again!
I think that the main limiting point in Transubstantiation is that it appears that the priest says an incantation and in some way causes the matter of the elements to change. It seems to make man able to call God down rather than man being brought to God.
@@RobertG3567my brother in Christ,
What appears to happen and what does happen are not the same. And to call it an "incantation" is disrespectful as magic is a sin.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1348 All gather together. Christians come together in one place for the Eucharistic assembly. At its head is Christ himself, the principal agent of the Eucharist. He is high priest of the New Covenant; it is he himself who presides invisibly over every Eucharistic celebration. It is in representing him that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings, and says the Eucharistic Prayer. All have their own active parts to play in the celebration, each in his own way: readers, those who bring up the offerings, those who give communion, and the whole people whose "Amen" manifests their participation.
1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing180) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).
In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.
1354 In the anamnesis that follows, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him.
1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:
On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.
When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.
He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.
When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.171
Gavin, I would love your perspective on Protestants participating in lent and other liturgical traditions/rituals/days.
Lutherans and Anglicans do
My Baptist parents had us participate in Lent. Fasting is welcome in Christian homes
Gavin, please have a discussion with Dr. Brandt Pitre about the Eucharist. You'll find him very intellectual on the subject.
What about Christians who cannot read or write, or are so preoccupied with surviving in hostile social and/or physical environments that they don't have the luxury of indulging in philosophical and theological debates like this? These sort of debates were impossible for most Christian lay people to participate in for most of Christian history.
Excellent video. Thanks! I learned a lot and I’ll be interview Jameels Arcadi on this topic later this month.
The Anglican 39 Articles actually give a spiritual presence, not a corporeal one. The official Anglican view is more Reformed than Lutheran.
“The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the
mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.”
-39 Articles of Religion
Heavenly and spiritual does not necessarily mean non corporeal. Was the Saviour's heavenly and spiritual Transfiguration not corporeal? The Anglican prayer book liturgy makes it clear that the communion is truly His Body and Blood.
@@anselman3156The Black Rubric of the BCP explicitly denies corporeal presence. Anglicans affirming corporeal presence was and is a Tractarian phenomenon.
@@anselman3156 Cranmer, Vermigli and the other authors and influences to the prayerbook explicitly meant the wording "spiritual" to contrast with "corporeal" as was standard language at the time, because a "spirit has not flesh or bones" to quote our Lord. The idea of a corporeal presence was interchangeable with local presence in their thought, and when they denied one they denied the other.
The Spirit of Christ is within the consecrated elements, and by partaking of it we mystically partake of the Body which resides in Heaven and does not bilocate down to earth.
As cited by another commentator, the black rubric makes this clear, as well as the final rubric of Communion of the Sick, and Article 29 identifies the mode of reception contrary to the Lutherans as being not by the teeth but with faith. It took a few centuries for our it to become fashionable to deny the authorial intent of the formularies.
Cranmer's "A Defence of the true and Catholick doctrine of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ." As well as Peter Martyr Vermigli's "Oxford Treatise and Disputation" should sufficiently show the authorial intent of the Articles and the prayerbook:
“How often do I teach and repeat again and again, that as corporeally with our mouths we eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, so spiritually with our hearts, by faith, do we eat Christ’s very flesh and drink his very blood, and do both feed and live spiritually by him, although corporeally he be absent from us, and sitteth in heaven at his Father’s right hand.” -Abp. Thomas Cranmer.
This is more common sense.
Well, I'm orthodox Lutheran, and we're the ones who got it right. So there!
Thank you so much for this video. It was very informative. As a Salvationist, I am so disappointed that the Salvation Army does not practice the sacraments of the Lord’s Supper or baptism. Those high ranking in the Salvation Army have discussed implementing the sacraments but that came to naught. I go to a weekly prayer meeting at a Pentecostal church who do a beautiful communion service monthly so I am able to participate in this sacrament with that community of believers. My prayer is that the Salvation Army will reconsider their tradition of not implementing the sacraments.
Why not leave?
My recollection is that the Salvation Army traditionally hasn’t celebrated the sacraments due to not wanting to be considered a church. They are drifting in that direction though, so maybe they need to rethink their practice.
I have been praying for the Lord’s leading in regard to leaving but my husband likes attending the Sally Ann. The founder, William Booth, never intended the Salvation Army to be a church but because his ministry was to those who were referred to as “down and outers”, they did not fit in nor felt accepted by those in the established churches. The sacraments were not practiced as Booth did not want the new converts to believe sacraments played a part in Salvation and therefore detract from grace and faith alone. The Salvation Army is over 100 years old and I see no reason why sacraments cannot be instituted now, but I guess every church hates to part with tradition.
Great and helpful discussion thinking outward from the hypostatic union.
I think the role of faith can prorivide some light too which was not fully explored here.
Faith can be seen as the activating dynamic of the eucharist. This being the way we enter into an experience of its reality and the way we nay please God in it.
Since faith itself is the gift of God it is therefore Jesus' own faith which activates or provides the way for the individual to enter into the reality of what is taking place in the eucharist. Vicariously but also in union.
Jesus forges humanity into the Godhead in the incarnation. Humanity partakes of this reality in the eucharist.
This helps draw the two elements together. The seen and the unseen in the heart and body of the believer through faith.
The ingesting is a critical acknowledgement of the true humanity of Jesus.
The older I get the more I want the eucharist. It seems to be the apex in the service not just something tacked on.
The first half of my Christian life was spent in a tradition with monthly communion. Since i became an Episcopalian, i am struck by how bizarre a worship service without the eucharist now feels.
I am afraid that Episcopalism is heritcal
Nicely done, brothers
I suspect that no matter the church tradition, most congregants believe Zwingli's position of memorialism.
According to a recent Pew Research Center study (2019), such is the case even among Roman Catholics.
@@mj6493 memorialism = pure symbol. Catholic belief is Eucharist is symbol but not *mere* symbol- rather that “sign” and “signified” are really connected… the poll questions didn’t really account for that
@@asgrey22 Unfortunately, they did take that into account. From the study: Just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31%) say they believe that “during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.” Look at the study itself. It leaves little room for misunderstanding.
@@mj6493 I thought I did. It was like 44% said symbolic, but there’s not a dichotomy between sign and Real Presence. People might also think in terms of trans-accidentation rather than transubstantiation. Ultimately I don’t think a poll can really give much clarity around people’s beliefs. More people could be properly informed, that’s for sure, though.
@@asgrey22 It's possible that there's more than one study out there. I agree, we need better catechesis.
wonderful help
The Jews for years of doing the Passover meal had waited for messiah to come and explain WHY did they practice the Seder meal in the way they did. It was said that Elijah would come and explain these things. They still do to this day. So when Jesus said “this is my body” he was explaining to them that THIS is what this means it was for telling of me.
The main question in my mind is, why would Jesus want us to believe in the Real Presence? That is, what purpose did He intend for Communion?
Since God the Holy Spirit already indwells us, we cannot intake more of God by physical means. We cannot ingest God with the digestive tract and expect to have more of His Real Spirit Presence as a result. Why would Jesus intend us to understand the Lord's Supper in such a manner?
Look at the root of the Last Supper. Jesus and the Apostles were engaged in the traditional, annual Passover celebration which God commanded them to observe _as a remembrance_ of God's provision and temporal salvation when the death angel saw the blood of lambs on the Israelites' doorposts and passed over those homes. It was a remembrance, not a way of coming to God in the present; and it was also a prophetic foreshadow of the coming Messiah. Jesus re-purposed this remembrance when He said, "This is my body..." but notice that He also stated _the purpose_ for which it was to be observed in the future: "Do this in remembrance of Me."
Notice that Jesus did not say, Do this to take Me into yourself. Nor did He say, Do this to obtain grace. He said nothing of the like. Instead, Jesus took a remembrance meal and re-purposed it by _changing what it signified and what was to be remembered._
Because we are born-again and Spirit-indwelt followers of Christ, Holy Communion serves as a tangible, physical _reminder_ of the terrible price Jesus paid when He hung on the cross to make full propitiation for our sins. It reminds us that, by God's grace and through faith in Christ's sacrifice 2,000 years ago, we have been granted full remission of our sins, we have been accounted just and righteous, and we have been regenerated by God. It reminds us that we have been made partakers of the divine nature, that Christ is in us through faith, and that we are in Christ. It reminds us that we have been made children of God, joint heirs with Jesus, brethren with all like-minded believers, and members of Christ's body on earth ("the church"). All of this is true without requiring recourse to a Real Presence interpretation. What more does the Christian gain by ingesting Christ through the mouth, throat and stomach, when God is already locally present in the Christian?
When we get to the discussion of Communion in 1 Corinthians 10, nothing in the text requires a Real Presence view (even though nothing disallows it, either). But the mention of Communion is made in the context of an exhortation _to avoid idolatry._ That might make a difference in how we interpret the passage. It says the broken bread is a communion with Christ's body, and this is true since we are identifying with Christ in His suffering, death, and resurrection. But it goes on in the next verse to say that "we are all partakers of that one _bread."_ If we were partaking of the Real Presence of God the Son, this would have been a great place to say so. But no; it simply says we are partaking of "that one bread." I think there is good reason to view this as evidence for the memorial/symbolic view.
Then we have 1 Cor. 11, in which certain people were "pigging out" on the elements because they failed to recognize their special, set-apart significance. The Corinthians were thus exhorted to "examine themselves" for proper motives and proper deference toward both the elements (bread and wine) and their fellow believers. Again there's nothing stated which requires a Real Presence viewpoint.
I'm not saying that a belief in Real (Spiritual, not corporal) Presence is problematic; I'm just saying I cannot see the Bible clearly teaching it. FWIW, I was raised Roman Catholic, beginning in my mid-20s God urged me out of the RCC and I attended congregational Protestant churches for 30+ years, then for the last 5 years the Holy Spirit has planted me in an ACNA Anglican parish. 5 years of participation in the Anglican Eucharistic liturgy and extensive reading & discussion have not been able to convince me that the Bible teaches us a Real Presence viewpoint. (John 6, taken in proper context, shows that Jesus was speaking metaphorically/figuratively in verses 53-58; if we take those words literally, then Jesus was presenting _a fleshly work_ of consuming His _physical_ flesh and blood as an absolute condition one must meet before receiving eternal life; this would mean we are saved through faith PLUS works.)
It also leads unbelievers to think that by eating communion they will have God dwelling in them. I hope, especially with the current climate, that people see where this is leading.
I was also raised catholic but never saved in it. My entire family was raised catholic. None are saved. I have friends raised as catholics. None are saved. Catholicism is a false gospel. I'm not surprised the Holy Spirit lead you out. He taught me not to return by showing me truths in His word of all the unbiblical teachings.
You raise valid questions and, more importantly, focus on the purpose of the remembrance meeting as it reflects the existing scriptural realities of a believer’s eternal union with Christ and the equally blessed indwelling Holy Spirit. The remembrance aspects of the exercise may be far more beneficial than focusing on a real presence beyond what is already explained and demonstrated by those spiritual realities. Christ promised to be with us always in a spiritual sense, and He explained why He would leave bodily so the Holy Spirit could come.
This model you have the bread, the human body and the divinity.
i've always said Christ is present spiritually, not knowing the terminology or history. Its very refreshing to see my view reprisented and validated historically
Recommended readings.... All of Luther! I'm shocked at how little Lutheranism is in this talk. If you want to hang onto the ancient church, remain Protestant, and have an incarnational view of the Eucharist confessional Lutheranism is exactly what you want. I'd love to see a Jordan Cooper response to this.
How is it ancient when it started in the 16th century? 😂
@@brianh2477 Lutheranism is a reform movement within the one ancient Church. From the Augsburg Confession, "...our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times..."
The concept is called the "conservative reformation." The radical reformers like the Anabaptists wanted to throw out all of tradition. The Lutheran reformers wanted to conserve all the tradition possible while removing the unhelpful, unbiblical, or evil accretions that built up over time. It is the belief of Lutherans that they are the true western Catholic church. Obviously a Roman Catholic would disagree with that. My suggestion would be to either laugh and move along or study up on the conservative reformation. I recommend "The Conservative Reformation and its Theology by Charles Porterfield Krauth @@brianh2477
@@txgsu43 I’m very curious in regards to the Eucharist, how do you think Lutherans are following the Church Fathers better than Catholics?
@@brianh2477 The view of Protestants is that we removed traditions of men that had been embraced by the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Protestants beleive we started with Christ's ministry and it was the Catholics that strayed. I don't say this with any negativity. It is healthy for Christians to understand one another's beleifs. One of the major false claims I see among my Catholic brothers is that the Protestant church started in the 16th century
Once you start understanding the Eucharist is the body, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ the closer you are to the truth.
Great video. Could you make some videos on divorce, remarriage and use of contraception?
For what it's worth, the Orthodox do reject impanation - at least, they did at the Synod of Jerusalem:
"He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world."
In my book I outline three varieties of impantation (didn't get into the weeds in the video!). I think the version I offer avoids this condemnation
My Roman Catholic mother-in-law loves your videos, can you please do a video on the sacrament of confession/penance? She says the only thing still keeping her a Roman Catholic is that she believes Jesus gave that sacrament to the apostles. Thank you 🙂
Penance is no where to be found in the Bible. If we could pay for our own sins, then there is no need of the cross. We confess our sins directly to God, and as the Bible makes clear, we have but one mediator between us and God, Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). And 1John 1:9 goes hand in glove with this - If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Therefore, we do not confess sins to a so called priest, or do penance to obtain forgiveness.
This does not mean we shouldn't make amends towards those we have sinned against as Zachaeus did in Luke 19. However, this is very different from penance.
But the Catholic church manufactures it's own demonically inspired doctrines of which is the notion of "alter Christos" which in the Latin is "another Christ", which is what the Catholics call their priests. Thus they deceive people who have not read their Bibles into thinking they need a priest to obtain forgiveness. This is wickedness.
@@scottb4579It was actually AFTER I read my Bible that I became an ex-Protestant and am now a happy Catholic who gives thanks to God for the sacraments. You might find these scripture references helpful:
Mt 9:2-8 - Son of Man has authority to forgive sins
Jn 20:23 - whose sins you forgive/retain are forgiven/retained
Jn 20:22 breathed on them, “receive the Holy Spirit” ( recall Gen 2:7)
2Cor 5:17 -20 given us the ministry of reconciliation
James 5:13-15 - confess your sins to one another
Mt 18:18 - whatever you bind and loose on earth, so it is in heaven
1Jn 5:16 - there is sin that is not deadly
Your right Baptism
John 3:5 - “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 28:19 - “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
Confirmation
Luke 24:49 - “But stay you in the city of Jerusalem till you be endued with power from on high.”
The Eucharist
John 6:54 - “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.”
Sacrament of Penance [Confession]
Psalm 41:4 - “Heal, O Lord, my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.”
John 20:22-23 - “And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’”
Anointing of the Sick [Extrem Unction]
James 5:14-15 - “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”
Matrimony
Matthew 19:4-6 - “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Holy Orders
Matthew 10:1 - Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
John 20:22-23 - “And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’”
@@TheNarrowGate101 The problem is that none of those verses establish a foundation for believing the power given to the apostles was given in a chain of succession to the modern day.
You can be Protestant and fully affirm the need to confess your sins. To do so is biblical. But confessing sins can be done to a trusted friend, a parent, spouse, etc. and doesn’t have to be a religious leader- though it can be, of course.
@@jncon8013Acts 1:20 - Let another take his office
Acts 1:25-26 Matthias takes Judas’ apostolic ministry
1Tim 3:1, 8 , 5:17 - qualifications for bishops, priests, and deacons
1Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands
Fantastic video. Regarding this incarnational view in dialogue with Eastern Orthodoxy, it would be interesting to hear Dr. Arcadi's take on the Confession of Dositheus (1672) that is, at least on paper, the binding view of the EO. Bulgakov appears to be an outlier among EO in his impanation view expressed in his recently translated text, The Eucharistic Sacrifice.
I would have thought that the meaning of the Communion service was very much dependent on the spiritual state of the recipient and their relationship to Jesus. If we try to be too clever like many theologians we probably end up confusing ourselves and others. Christ gave himself for me ie; ‘This is my body- do this in remembrance of me…and in the same way he took the cup - and said; This cup is the new covenant in my blood, do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’. It is obviously a spiritual ‘remembrance’. All other views it seems to me are just variations of ‘externalism’ and helps nobody. And I would say that many evangelical churches today have a better and deeper understanding than many old Church Fathers or big name historical theologians! That is not to disparage the past or,any helpful insights from the past, but we can get ourselves tied up too much trying to be cleverer than God I feel.
I disagree respectfully. I don’t look at the church fathers or theologians from the past as infallible but when the Reformers (Zwingli excepted) agreed for the most part with the church fathers, it should at least cause us to examine what they said. There is definitely mystery involved in the nature of his presence and how it differs from his daily presence with us. But there seems to be an added measure of grace given in the Lord’s supper as we commune with the Savior through partaking of the bread and the cup.
1 Cor 11:29. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
This verse seems to imply some level of participation in the body and the blood that goes beyond a mere remembering.
I’m a member of a non-denom evangelical contemporary church but my imagination was fired up by Gavin’s video on Thomas Watson’s little book on the Lord’s supper. Highly recommend it.
@@HiHoSilvey
We are all free to appreciate the Lord’s Supper as we see fit, as that is what has happened down the ages hasn’t it? When I say ‘remembrance’ I am not just saying it is something superficial, but on the contrary, because Jesus gave his life for me, it ‘spiritually’ means everything to me as I ‘remember’ him and what he has done, and I appreciate that, and of course that is a means of grace. My point was that so much theologising can go too far. Jesus categorically says ‘ do this in remembrance of me’, why do we need to go any further?
Christianity is alive and well, and there are more Christians in the world today than at any one time. Jesus said that he will build his Church, and he is doing just that!
I might be inclined to agree. Groeing up in an Anglican Church full of cultural Christians and taking communion there was not as powerful as with my evangelical Church family where we aim to do Christianity all week
I agree. I think people take something simple and make much out of it. Communion points to Christ’s sacrifice-full stop. It’s all about His sacrifice on the cross, that, and His resurrection which saves us.
I think that many of the other views are in some way not coming back completely from the RCC. They want it to be something in and of itself forgetting that it ultimately points to the great work of Christ.
@tomplantagenet i think it's a remembrance. Like the passover is a remembrance. Do we don't forget, from generation to generation, and so people see what is important.
Saved for later 👍
Just don't forget to watch it. 😊
@@morghe321 watched it this morning! It was good, but I got the impression that the guest wasn’t so interested in answering some of the Qs Gavin put forth to him, ha.
Once saved, always saved 😌
😄
@@wenmoonson nice! 👍
@NomosCharis oh, I think he seemed willing to answer all questions. But perhaps I missed something. 😅
Best simply to participate in what ultimately remains (as Eastern Christians understand) for us humans a divine mystery, the heavenly banquet which brings us forgiveness, healing and sustenance.
Wow, so the Jesus reincarnates every time someone celebrates the Lord's Supper? How have we fallen this far from the apostles' teachings?
No, that’s not it. I thought that at first, but he’s not advocating reincarnation. He’s saying the same metaphysical principles he uses to explain the incarnation he can use to explain real presence.
That's not remotely what he's saying.
@@donatist59 yes, that is exactly what he is saying, "same principles". Real presence is very bad theology with absolutely no Biblical support. The people that stopped following Jesus did that exactly because they did not understand that he was talking symbolically. Only a few chapters over Jesus mentioned He is the bread of life, how come you don't believe Jesus is actual bread? Or maybe you do.
You excited for the james white and trent horn debate?
As a catholic, I'm very glad to see this. Hopefully more protestants accept more incarnational views of the Eucharist.
As a Roman Catholic you’re required by your church to believe that no Protestant has a valid Eucharist no matter how incarnational their view is.
Jesus said: "Lo, I am with you always even to the end of the age". In this text Jesu assures us that He is with us personally in a very real way; Therefore the "REAL PRESENCE" of Christ abides with us, as believers, every moment of every day. Communion/Eucharist is, I believe, a reminder of this wonderful truth. Outside of the synoptic Gospels (John does not even detail the "Last Supper"), the celebration of Communion/Eicharist isy detailed on only one other occassion (1 Cor 11). The Holy Spirit is also referred to as "The Spirit of Christ"; thus, as believers in Christ, in dwelt with the Holy Spirit, the "Spirit of Christ" (the REAL PRESENCE of Christ) accompanies us day and night.
I’m a member of a nondenominational evangelical church and yet I take the historic protestant view that we are participating in the body and blood of Christ and that He is present in a way that is mysteriously different than his usual every day presence with us. That’s as close as I can come to explaining it. Gavin has an excellent video on the book by Thomas Watson that he mentioned in this video. I highly recommend it. It changed and challenged my previous view of the Eucharist.
@@HiHoSilvey "Participating in the body and blood of Christ" is, I believe, far more than participating in Communion/Eucharist. The Apostle Paul says "I want to know Christ........and the fellowship of sharing in His suffering, becoming like Him in His death......" (Phil.3v10). This, suffering for the sake of Christ and the Gospel, is what "participating in the body and blood of Christ" is REALLY about. The exact nature of "sharing in His suffering" will differ from person to person: for some it may mean death, for others it may mean being rejected by family and friends, for yet others it may mean rejoicing through terminal illness. While, communion is important, I believe this aspect of "sharing in His suffering" is what Jesus was really referring to when He spoke of "eating His body" and "drinking His blood" (John 6).
In the Eucharist, space and time collapse, heaven and earth meet, and the cosmic power of Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection are made real to us in the elements of bread and wine.
He rends the heavens and comes down (Is. 64:1) - not just once, at Bethlehem, but, somehow, every time and every place the Eucharist is celebrated. Somehow, mystically, He is incarnated and present unto us in the bread and wine.
Early Church Father Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of Apostle John) says this: They [the Docetists, early Christological heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
This was really helpful! I have always liked what John of Damascus says on this matter, and it seems very much in keeping with what you both are saying.
John says three things and in this order (On the Orthodox Faith 4.13). First, the blood and wine are changed into God's body and blood through the Holy Spirit. Second, the bread and wine are not merely figures of body and blood of Christ.
However, he feels comfortable expressing this as follows: just as coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire, so the bread of communion is not plain bread but bread (sounds like it's still bread) united with divinity.
Finally, he goes on to explain, in rather Chalcedonian fashion, that this is similar to the union of body with divinity as a true union, but of two things that each retain their natures.
It is not accurate to say that in the Roman Catholic view (transubstantiation) the bread is removed; it is rather elevated to a new plane. The signs indicate a higher ontological reality. Dr. Brett Salkeld talks about this in his book Transubstantiation. The misunderstanding has a lot to do with the different philosophical underpinnings.
but it's clear you are eating the true flesh and blood of Christ, if the bread is elevated to a new plane how is the bread still bread once the bread is consecrated? in which plane does the bread exist?
@@junkim5853 The accidents, or the signs, of bread remain unchanged, I.e. it remains on the physical plane. But those signs, instead of pointing to the substance of bread, now serve as signs of body of Christ. It is not as though the the bread is pulled out with something else inserted in its place, but rather at its deepest level of being, the bread is not destroyed but is truly transubstantiated to act as pure “sacramental sign” of Christ - without an autonomous subject
@asgrey22 I really don't think that's a mainstream Catholic view. The bread once it's consecrated becomes the flesh of Christ. The flesh looks like bread, tastes like bread, and when people touch it, it feels like bread, but it's the flesh of christ or both flesh and blood in western rites. Signs and symbols are used more by the likes of reformed. Most Catholics never use such terms. Can you answer my questions like which plane did the bread ascended?
@@junkim5853 This is how St. Aquinas defines it. It is how Pope Benedict XVI describes it (“Jesus is not there like a piece of meat”). Catholics have always used the language of sign to describe the bread (you will see “under the signs of bread and wine” everywhere in Catholic literature and catechesis) - the difference is that we believe the sign and signified (Christ) are truly linked in reality, whereas Protestants tend to see sign as “mere” symbol. Transubstantiation does not occur in the physical plane. I would say many Catholics do take it in a “physical” sense but that is not what the doctrinal concepts underlying “transubstantiation” mean (if you google “Trans-accidentation by Dr. Brett salkeld” you can see more details about this)
@@junkim5853 for your question, the bread itself remains unchanged on the physical plane, but it is elevated in a metaphysical sense in that it now indicates the essence of Christ (are you familiar with matter, form, substance, etc. as described in philosophy of nature? This is what I am referring to)
Will electric guitars still be involved? I'd been looking into Presbyterians and looked into one of their nearby churches, thinking it would be different from the usual Calvary chapel style of worship, but practically speaking it seemed the same deal as that of any evangelical church: contemporary Christian music with a stage and stratocasters and the faithful swaying with holy antenna hands outstretched. Later I discovered the Reformed Zoomer channel and was intrigued by what he had to say about his more conversative Presbyterian sect. Ah, this must be it, a down-to-earth Protestant church. I found they had a church near to me and looked at their website. But there too, Stratocasters and the typical evangelical thang. Saint Les Paul pray for us.
"Will electric guitars still be involved?"
Too funny. Didn't know or imagine that the Presbyterians would embrace the electric guitar.
Please, please can we get the "Via Media" thing right! Early Anglicanism was not a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, but a middle way between the magisterial protestantism of Luther and the dissenting protestantism of the Puritans. Nobody reading the 39 Articles would come away thinking they were anywhere near Roman Catholic doctrine... Thank you!!!
The Tractarians read the 39 Articles. Anglo Catholic Bishop Alexander Penrose Forbes wrote a whole book on all of the Articles.
@@anselman3156 What's your point?
@@Crucian1 That the Tractarians argued that in many respects Anglicanism was close to Roman Catholic teaching.
@@anselman3156 Right, but that was the problem, and the reason many converted to Rome - they simply couldn't square the clearly reformed Articles with their own desire to get closer to Roman Catholicism. The content of many of the Articles is a complete repudiation of Roman teaching, not a 'half way house' between Rome and Protestantism; whereas there is within them no repudiation of anything within magisterial Lutheranism or Calvinism.
@@Crucian1 You might find Alexander Penrose Forbes's book an interesting read. He did point to the disagreements with Rome's teachings, but also to disagreement with Lutherans and Calvinists.
Dr. Aarcadi, could you consider writing smaller, less expensive books on this subject.
Yes
@Truth Unites This Friday and Saturday, Dr.. James White will be debating Trent "Deception" Horn.... It will be streamed live on TH-cam and the channel is the same channel that uploaded Dr James White vs Tim Stratton
Love your videos, Gavin I was wondering if you had done any research into the Assyrian church of the east I love learning about different denominations and I’ve heard that the Assyrian church of the east is Nestorian. It’d be awesome if you could make a video or two about them.. God bless
Are there any scriptures that support the idea the actual presence of Jesus is in the bread? I don't think so.
Communion is no more, no less, than we are declaring His death until He comes again. 1Cor 11:26.
What about “This is my body”?
1 Cor 11:29. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
If you are simply remembering or making a declaration, in what way would you be discerning the body of Christ?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 He was speaking of His body. To think He was referring to the bread is absurd.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
The bread wasn't nailed to the cross. His body was. He gives a command to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Him. This is why Paul writes what he does in 1Cor 11.
@@scottb4579 wait, is your argument that “this” was not referring to the bread he had just broken?
@@HiHoSilveyIn context, Paul is speaking of the division in the Corinthian church while partaking of the Lord's Supper. Some ate, while others went hungry. Some became drunk. They didn't recognize the body of believers present is the body of Christ and disrespected their fellow Christians.
They should have partaken of the bread and wine together and sharing with those who were poor and had nothing.
When He told His disciples to "do this in remembrance of Me" He was talking about the unleavened bread and cup of wine of Passover. All man made creeds and sacraments are misguided.
1 Corinthians 11:24
If we are to pattern our practice of the Lords Supper on the Last Supper, should we also follow through on all the implications, no one wore special clerical clothes ?
There are all kinds of things they didn’t do which we do now-some ok, some not. The Jews were used to seeing priestly garments and smelling the aroma of incense. These things don’t bother me anymore. In fact, they make me feel as if I am in no ordinary meeting when I enter the sanctuary and see or smell these things.
The interesting thing about Christ institution of the Lord's Supper, is how little there is about order or ceremony. I've often said when it comes to how a church should look, the Bible has so much freedom. God in his wisdom knew the church would cross generations and cultures and needed that flexibility
A couple of questions.
1. I'm no Lutheran, but what he's articulating sounds identical to the Lutheran view of sacramental presence to me. Closer to that than to the 39 Articles, actually. Is there any way in which this view differs from Lutheranism?
2) In the Incarnation, the two natures are united in the one person of Christ. In Inpanation, what unites the two bodies (that is, the bread and the body of Christ)? Is it just that they are in the same location?
That is an interesting take! I’ve yet to come across information that warrants a “higher” view than the ordinary one, but maybe his work or Gavin’s is more compelling!
Gavin has two earlier videos on this that completely changed my view of the Eucharist. One video is a response to Francis Chan but the one I really recommend is the one where he is talking about the Thomas Watson book on the Lord’s supper.
Something that helps me think through John 6 is to ask if the disciples remembered those statements when He instituted The Lord’s Supper later. Thoughts?
Some confusion results from the fact that Matthew and Mark didn't record Jesus' entire statement. They just recorded, "This is my body," but Jesus said more.
Luke recorded, "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body _which is given for you:_ this do in remembrance of me."
Paul wrote, "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, _which is broken for you:_ this do in remembrance of me."
Here's my point: _Jesus had not yet given His body; Jesus' body had not yet been broken for them._ That would occur the next day when He suffered on the cross and died to propitiate for our sins.
The Passover bread and wine were a remembrance of the salvation of God in which the death angel passed over the Israelites' homes when he saw the blood of the lamb on their doorposts. Because this was a "type" of the coming Messiah, in the Last Supper Jesus was showing them that the bread and wine signified Him, the Messiah. He re-purposed the Passover bread and wine by telling them that, from now on, instead of remembering the earlier Passover, from now on they were to remember Him whenever they took the bread and the cup; for when God sees the shed blood of Christ on the "doorposts" of our hearts, His wrath passes over us. Through faith in Christ's propitiation on the cross (and apart from works, Rom. 4), God extends His mercy and grace to us; He grants us the gifts of a regenerated spirit and His righteousness, and He comes to indwell us by His Spirit.
Just as the Israelites who were yet sinners demonstrated their faith by applying the blood to the doorposts and lintels of their homes, and were spared, likewise we who trust with all our hearts in Christ Jesus have had that blood (which He shed) applied by God to ourselves. God no longer looks at our past iniquities; they are removed from us through faith in the One who fully paid the penalty for them.
Taking Communion is our physical touchstone and reminder of the great, wonderful thing Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross 2,000 years ago. But when He took the bread and the cup, He had not yet accomplished it. That is why He said that the bread and wine were His mortal body which He would surrender on the following day for them. You see, _even if the elements were transformed that very night_ into the actual, physical body of Jesus, they were only eating _His mortal flesh (which was about to die)_ and drinking His mortal blood... how could the eating of a body which would soon stop functioning be salvific? Many people _conflate_ the body Jesus gave up on the cross for us, with the resurrected body Jesus now wears.
Do our views change the truth?
to my understanding a lot of scholasticism is going on here,
the last supper is 'simply' a Pesach meal,
come together
”For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself.
…Yet when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned along with the world.“
1 Corinthians 11:29, 32
Wouldn’t this verse mean that if we misunderstand communion on any side, that God will discipline us and not condemn us anyway?
no, I think this is a deeply rooted misunderstanding,
it refers to the practise disrespecting the poor in the community at Corinth, who had no bread to take with them.
please read the text carefully
@@peterk.6930 Hi there! Appreciate the response. I re-read the scripture and I think I see where you’re coming from in light of verse 20-22 and verse 30, but I am not grasping how 29 relates to the church because 28 talks about self-examination.
Can you expand on your interpretation for me?
@@Knewms Indeed, I was referring to the context of verses 20-22 mentioning the 'poor.' Apparently a situation had arisen in Corinth where some people ate and drank (too) much. Others had too little. Paul reproaches this practice when he uses the words 'not discerning the body.' The 'self-examination' of verse 28 is related to this.
And note also the fact that the Lord's Supper was actually a Passover meal. It was a moment of memory. Jesus is the 'personification' of the Passover lamb eaten in Egypt. I think the whole discussion about whether or not there is a physical presence has more to do with Greek philosophy than with the Bible text. Catholic theologians who defend transubstantiation also literally refer to Aristotle's substantia, essentia, accidentia, etcetera.
On the other hand, the term 'self-examination' is also very loaded in Protestant circles. It then turns into a psychological examination of conscience. I don't think that is what the text means.
But I wonder if this answers your question?
A few questions and comments. During the Lord’s supper when Jesus broke the bread, said it was his body, took the wine and said it was his blood, were the elements transubstantiated then before he was crucified? Do those who hold to transubstantiation address this? I personally struggle to read John 6 and not see it as spiritual: ex. John 6:35 Jesus said, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” Are we to take this as literal or spiritual? Thank you for this video. I appreciate the conversation.
I recently visited an Anglican church and noticed that all were welcomed to the Lord’s table who had been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
When I was 30 years old, I was baptized by a Oneness Pentecostal preacher in a UPC church. I did it in rebellion against my Baptist pastor who was pressuring me to get baptized publicly. I didn’t know until years later that the Pentecostal pastor did not believe in the Trinity. I’ve often wondered if my baptism was invalid even though I didn’t share the pastor’s heretical beliefs. I wonder what a Baptist preacher and an Anglican priest would counsel in these circumstances. 🤔
I'm no minister, but as a Christian I would not think of your baptism as invalid. I don't even think a valid baptism is an absolute requirement to get to heaven. That's just me as a fellow Christian, though. I suspect that either a Baptist minister or Anglican priest would say it's improper and would offer to baptize you validly. (And there's no harm in doing so.) My advice would be: go talk to one or the other, depending on whether you prefer an immersion or a sprinkling.
Not sure about Anglican, but Catholic would definitely say invalid and to baptize in the name of Father, Som, and Holy Spirit
If I question if I can commune eucharistically, I take a pass until I can talk with the pastor -whether closed or open communion.
Um. If your baptism was non Trinitarian then you didn’t really have at the very least a licit baptism at worse it was totally invalid. I would suggest talking to your pastor and priest and considering whether or not you should be rebaptized. If we are to follow your “oneness Pentecostal baptism” to its logical conclusion then you are not properly baptized into the Trinity.
Don't Lutherans believe that in the Eucharist the Body of Christ is "consubstantial" with the bread and wine, just like Christ's divine nature is consubstantial with his human nature? It makes perfect sense that the Eucharist would bring the divine Presence to be with us, in the same way that God came down to us as Christ. In that case, the priest does not perform a miracle to change the elements, but rather invites God to become present with us and share his body and blood to give us life. We thus receive Christ according to our faith.
Dr. Ortlund, for a really interesting insight into John 6, I recommend the recent book, Least Among the Apostles by William Glass and Brendan Case. The book is generally about Paul's relationships with the other Apostles, but Case has a chapter on John's use of Paul. That use is scant, except that John seemed particularly interested in 1 Corinthians 15, including Paul's puzzling statements about Christ becoming a life-giving Spirit and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom. Rather than race to the conclusion that the "Spiritual body" only means a regular body animated by the Holy Spirit, John seems to entertain the thought that a resurrected body that draws its life directly from the Holy Spirit will somehow be affected in its very constitution. That is not to deny the continuity (and so to give fodder for so much heresy, as those verses in Paul often were). But it is to stress that there is yet something new and surprising about Jesus's resurrected body. ("What we will be has not yet been revealed," and this written by a man who saw the risen Lord!)
The main passages where Case detects John drawing on 1 Cor. 15 are in John 3 (what is born of Spirit is spirit, what is born of flesh is flesh) and I also think in John 12 (the discussion of the seed in the ground, etc.). But also John 6. Jesus is the Heavenly One who gives life, whose words are Spirit and life, while the flesh profits nothing (again, compare with Paul's "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom"). Further, central to this discourse is the resurrection, and how Jesus will raise us up. In this context, Jesus tells us we have to eat his flesh.
The end of Case's chapter was especially suggestive. He reflects on John's experience of Jesus's resurrected body. To say that Jesus became a life-giving Spirit, who has a Spiritual body, has made many readers nervous. We want to be clear that Jesus is not less than embodied. The incarnation holds up, the tomb is empty, Jesus is bodily resurrected. He's not a mere ghost. Case's closing suggestion (which I'm sure I'll butcher, since I'm writing all this from memory) is rich. To say that Jesus's body is spiritual after his resurrection, while admitting that this means at least something for its ontological status, is not to say that he is less substantial than earthly things, like a shade. Perhaps his bodily life is weightier (more glorious?) and more substantial than the things of this world, so that he walks through walls "as if through a fogbank."
The reason I find this so interesting is that it seems to open conceptual possibilities for how we think about Jesus's presence in the Eucharist. We could take a strong view of Jesus's corporeal presence in the Eucharist, while perhaps resisting crude understandings of corporeality. It seems to me this would also work against Transubstantiation, since we might consider that the Lord's resurrected body is not competing with the bread and wine for space. But I would also contend that Protestant concerns about "containment" also lose much of their force in the light of these considerations. Or maybe I would say that this suggests the possibility of integrating talk of "spiritual presence" with talk of "corporeal presence," both being true about the Eucharist exactly because of the meaning of the resurrection.
Thanks for orchestrating this interview and sharing it with us.
Godspeed.
I think that’s well articulated and interesting. I think Luther made a similar argument against Zwingli that Christ’s body isn’t limited in the same way now that he has a spiritual body.
However, having a high view of Scripture, I can’t follow the liberal views of Case. I believe John is recording the teachings of Jesus, so Paul would be following the content of John (Jesus’s teachings), not the other way around (though Paul wrote first).
@@levifox2818 I appreciate your concerns. First, I'm not sure about Luther's views, but I think I've heard things about him along those lines. I certainly would want to be clear that this is not mean to support any suggestion that Jesus's resurrected body becomes coterminous with his divine nature (that is, omnipresent), which I know is one way that things went off track at times, and that the Reformers had to respond to this.
There are a few issues at play. One, there is the question of historical reliability. That does not necessarily involve questions of faith. Many historical documents are reliable, and many are not. However, with Scripture there is also clearly the question of trusting the Scriptures as they present themselves. This pertains to faith, but by that I don't mean that such questions are sealed off from normal judgments about historicity.
With that, I believe that the Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness. First, because it tells us so. But second, drawn into this trust is the sense that this is credible even on its own terms. (Think "faith seeking understanding," as recommended in this dialogue.) Further, as a historical judgment, I believe the fourth Gospel is written by John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. That's not required by faith. But there seem to be enough clues that suggest this is most likely. So the Fourth Gospel is historically reliable. I think this on simple historical grounds, since it was written by an eyewitness. But beyond that, I trust the Gospel because it tells us of the One who has "the words of life."
So a couple points about these issues: one, a high view of the divine authorship of Scripture should be held together with a shameless regard for the humanity of the Scriptures. The Bible, like the Eucharist, is Incarnational. It is fully divine, but also fully human. And it bears the traces of its human authorship. We can attend to this, not only as a concession, but because in Jesus Christ God has elected to reveal himself by way of our lowly humanity.
Two, regarding history itself, New Testament authors don't simply tell us "what happened," but they tell us what happened in such a way that we can enter into the meaning and significance of what happened. The story comes already interpreted. The Christian writer is involved in that way as a witness. And our knowledge of Jesus is inseparable from their testimony. So that's a basic point about history, but it's also theologically important. Historiography is not separate from the interpretive judgments of the author (which in this case might be formed in conversation with a wider community--and I'll point out that First Corinthians and John's Gospel were both written in Ephesus, which makes the historic connection between them all the more plausible). But this observation about history is only a matter of spelling out what is involved in the humanity of the Scriptures; and again, we should not see this as being in conflict with the truth that the Holy Spirit's purposes are perfectly realized. Even the tempestuous wind does his will.
@@stephencrawford5452
I agree with what you’re saying that the biblical authors intended to communicate theology in the Gospels, especially the Gospel of John. I don’t believe the fabricated any quotes from Jesus to do so, however, which is what it would seem to take if John is reflecting Paul rather than quoting what Jesus said.
Didn’t know Bradley Cooper was an ordained priest
😅😅
I appreciate his desire to use christology as a basis but those ideas are not from scripture, they are derived from scripture. It’s like basing your belief off a derivative rather than the original. I see the logic and it’s powerful on its face but I don’t think you have the same sort of scriptural basis for a hypostatic union of the bread and wine.
Additionally, the union of Christ to natures is of a non physical, spirit which is divine since God is spirit, and a physical, His body and blood. On this model you are trying to mesh two physical item’s together because your not saying it’s Christ spirit or the holy spirit as others view say, your saying it’s the actual body of Christ that is present. That just doesn’t work logically and that is on top of the lack of scriptural support of such a view.
Just thinking out loud, but in the Incarnation, God becomes man (“man” doesn’t become God). In the Eucharist, the bread becomes Jesus. Incarnation is God “sending” his Son as gift, in Eucharist is God the Son “offering” the gift back to the Father. I don’t know that they would be philosophically Interchangeable.
I thought Anscombe was Catholic? (Chart @ 4:50)
She was and a very orthodox one - so would like to know more
@@toddvoss52 I don’t trust that he categorized RCC teaching correctly or actually understands the concepts underlying transubstantiation - “Transubstantiation” by Dr. Brett Salkeld goes into detail on this
@@asgrey22 agree. Seemed a little crude but I understand what he is intending to say
Why is his book a million dollars? 😔
Theological books are notoriously expensive mainly because there is such a relatively small market for them. Publishers have a hard time breaking even. There are exceptions, of course. An exceptionally popular author's books might be more reasonably priced.
Anyone else feels like the guest has a lot of similarities with Edward Norton?
I found the "Mode:" chart very confusing. It's on scree at 6:00 min in.
on screen
I believe the Early Church Fathers wrote where there is no bishop (apostolic succession) there are no valid sacraments. I don't honestly know, so I'd like to hear some thoughts on this
Who says that the Early Church Fathers were correct in everything they said? I don’t know which Church Father may have said something like that, but he was totally wrong. The early Church was already deviating from a true spiritual state into a form of ‘externalism’ where rites and ceremonies, titles and positions had started to corrupt the Church, and replace the true gospel.
@@petercollins7848 Saint Ignatius of Antioch who was in martyred in the 100s
The Bible says a bishop has to be married to one woman.
Baptism can be valid even if administered by a layman in an emergency. Matrimony is the only sacrament that can be administered by a layman.
The bride and groom marry each other, they are the ministers of Christ’s grace. The priest serves as the Church’s official witness and makes the sacrament a richer experience..
@@joekey8464 I was more referring to the sacrament of the Eucharist.
"And the Word became bread and wine" is not in the bible.
But the words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” are.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 - let me see if I can help you:
“But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.””
Matthew 12:48-50 ESV
Did Jesus’s disciples become his mother here? If not, then we have complete warrant to see that just as he wasn’t being literal on many things he says, Jesus wasn’t being literal there either. This is a “duh” kind of thing.
@@gregmahler9506 of course you need to use common sense when discerning if someone is speaking literally or metaphorically. The fact that Jesus used metaphors doesn’t mean that everything he said was a metaphor.
While it’s plain obvious what Jesus meant when he said “those are my brothers and mother”, it makes no sense that he would hold up a piece of bread and declare it metaphorically his body. Why would he do that? What’s the metaphor behind? In the last supper, Jesus was not talking in obscure metaphors. He was instituting a new cult, a New Covenant based on the partaking of his very own body and blood.
Obviously you need to connect that language to John 6 to make sense of it. And what happens in John 6 makes absolutely clear Jesus was not simply talking metaphorically.
I would urge you to read what the earliest Christians, the very disciples of the Apostle John, write about the Eucharist (see Ignatius of Antioch, above all).
@@thejerichoconnection3473 - well. Since Jesus’s literal body was present in the chair he was speaking from, it makes sense he wasn’t talking literally with the bread. It’s the same exact parallel to the passage I gave because he has a literal mothers and literal brothers too.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 - I don’t trust/count any extra-biblical source as authoritative. In fact it is very apparent based on what Jesus says to the seven churches in revelation, that the Roman paganism was already creeping in. It is my opinion that this view about the Bread arises from the idea of idle worship, and sacrificing things like meat to idols. And if you are a part of the Roman Catholic Church, I would highly suggest you to get out before it’s too late.
14:03 - Doesn’t this quote mean that one should say “the bread is God?”
We call the incarnation of Christ “God,” and not calling Him “God” is condemned at the 3rd ecumenical council. So not calling the bread in Holy Communion “God” would be Nestorian
If the bread is FULLY Christ, and Christ is FULLY God, then by translation, the bread is FULLY God. This doesn’t seem right to me
Yes! It is God! Christ is giving Himself to us in His Supper. We are completely dependent on Him giving Himself to us.
So my question is, how can something be both flesh and spirit, or something spiritually become flesh, as the very substance of flesh is carnal, spirit is not flesh. Jesus did say that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Also, Paul(presumably )Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. It seems they are distinct parts or components. Sincerely, it seems a bit confusing.
You nailed it. The idea that we receive the flesh of Christ only “spiritually” is a contradiction in terms. This is exactly why the Reformed view of the Eucharist (spiritual presence) is so wrong.
Joh 3:3 _Jesus answered Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”_
Nicodemus is confused. He thinks Jesus means that one must go through two *natural* births.
Joh 3:4 _Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”_
Jesus explains that He is talking about two different *types* of birth: the natural birth and a subsequent supernatural birth.
Joh 3:5 _Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God._
In verse 5, Jesus corrects Nicodemus by explaining that He's talking about only 1 natural birth, but an additional 1 spiritual birth (the 2nd birth). The natural birth is this: being born when the woman's "water" (the placental fluid) breaks. The supernatural birth is being "born of the (Holy) Spirit," which is also called, being "born again."
Joh 3:6 _That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit._
In verse 6, Jesus clearly *continues to talk about 1 natural birth and 1 spiritual birth,* these being the two separate and distinct births that one needs to be "born again." Interpreting v. 5 to mean that being "born of water" is baptism, rather than natural birth, is not only inconsistent with the context of the surrounding verses (3-6), but it also does violence to Jesus' subsequent promise that "that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life" (v. 15, reiterated for emphasis by Jesus in verses 16 and 18). If Jesus meant (in v. 5) that one must be baptized as the means of being born again, then He would have said 3 times in the following verses, 'whoever is baptized may have eternal life.' The fact that He instead indicated _belief (faith) in Him_ as the determinative factor clearly shows the proper context for v. 5 to be: a natural birth (via the birth canal) followed at some point by a spiritual birth (via belief in Him).
Therefore, Jesus was not commanding baptism in John 3:3-7. Baptism is not the instrumental means through which God bestows saving grace and justification unto eternal life. Faith (belief in Him as Savior) is the means which Jesus repeatedly indicates. Read Romans 4, Romans 10, Galatians 3, and Ephesians 2.
@@rexlion4510 “Whoever believes *and is baptized* will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)
So yes, Jesus meant water baptism.
John 3 context is all about water baptism. In fact, the first thing Jesus does after talking to Nicodemus is to go down to the Jordan river and baptize with water. What a coincidence!
The “placenta” theory is so bizarre that it’s not even funny. Nowhere in the Bible, to refer to natural birth, people talk about being “born of water.” Not to mention the ridiculously obvious “condition” for salvation being the fact that one needs to have first come into existence.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Did Jesus say, Whoever is not baptized will be condemned? No, He didn't. So don't put words in Jesus' mouth, or you might get struck by lightning.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 it's not wrong if you hold that the presence of Lord is there, but it if you say the elements become the body and blood spiritually that seems problematic. I am leaning toward real presence, but not transubstantiation, as I find that repugnant, not consubstantiation, as that makes no sense to me. But, the fact that the presence of the Lord joins us in this remembrance makes perfect sense.
People should research the Eucharistic Miracles in The Catholic Church. These are miracles attesting to the REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST ( Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) in consecrated hosts. The Buenos Aires Argentina miracle occurred in 1996 and was independently forensically studied. The results are astounding. See for yourself.
By whom was it studied?
@@jncon8013 It was studied by a team most notably was
Dr. Frederick Zugibe a Forensic Pathologist and Cardiologist. There is a documentary by the title “ The Miracle of Buenos Aires… “ by the TH-cam channel “ Reason to Believe”
@@jncon8013It was studied by a team of scientist most notably
Dr. Frederick Zugibe a Forensic Pathologist and cardiologist. There is a documentary on the channel “Reason to Believe “ with the title ‘Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires..’
@@TheNarrowGate101 Why does Frederick Zugibe have no papers published on it?
Catholic Eucharistic miracles are not determinative, because they can be either faked or counterfeited. If I suggested that you read accounts of the many miracles performed through Protestants, would you take that as proof that Protestantism is correct?
No it’s not it’s plain ancient idolatry no matter how they spin it gods spirit doesn’t dwell in things made with man’s hands.
I enjoyed this video. However, I am amazed as to how we can have such an extensive conversation about the Eucharist without any mention of the Passover, which is critical context for this institution! I see this trend in many authors as well. For example, John Calvin brings up Jewish roots of circumcision when talking about infant baptism, but does not say anything about the Passover in relation to the Lord’s supper, which was a Passover meal! There is so much depth that this conversation is missing, because Jesus is clearly announcing to His disciples and followers that He is the Passover Lamb, which is what the Israelites had been eating for hundreds of years, commemorating how God passed over them in Egypt, even though they were a sinful people and deserved death as much as the Egyptians. And yet God spared the Hebrews through the future sacrifice of His Son! Jesus is the unleavened (sinless) bread. Jesus’s blood is the lamb’s blood they placed at the base of their door then struck on the top and sides of their door as in the shape of a cross. The Lamb died so we did not have to!
Yes, I think its likely that in addition to being the sacrificial passover lamb, Jesus was probably buried the following day (after sunset of passover) which is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. He rose from the dead 3 days later which was the Feast of Firstfruits and ALSO the first day of the counting of the omer towards Shavuot/Pentecost. It was during these days of counting that Jesus appeared to and ate with his disciples more than once. On the 50th day, the the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out
this comment is very spot on
By the way, there is an extensive literature (New perspective on Paul) that states that the original Jewish context has never been understood.
This certainly also applies to the Reformers.
@@peterk.6930 Largely thanks to the lies of replacement theology. Another doctrine of demons that makes God a liar and places stumbling blocks before the jewish people.
@@heather602 I wonder if the word "demons" is helpful. We can conclude that any understanding of the Jewish context was completely out of the picture in the 16th century. Maybe we should judge mildly?
It is a different matter if replacement theology is still used today.
@@peterk.6930 It's very much alive in the church today. It's also referred to as Supersessionism.
Jiddu Krishnamurti tells a joke; You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket.
The friend said to the devil, “What did that man pick up?”
“He picked up a piece of Truth,” said the devil.
“That is a very bad business for you, then,” said his friend.
“Oh, not at all,” the devil replied, “I am going to let him organize it.”
The only time the devil appears in Jewish folklore is when he turned up in the synagogue of Mill Hill on a Saturday, and he scared everybody out except the elderly rabbi; and when he asked him, why aren’t you scared, the rabbi said, because I ‘ve been married to your sister for 45 years.’
The critical issue with the Roman Catholic view (that the bread ceases to exist and only the accidents remain) is that they adore and worship the host. When one realizes that the early church didn't think the substance of bread ceases, one is forced to conclude that worship of the bread host is idolatrous.
Pope Gelasius: “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. *Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine do not cease.* And assuredly *the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ* are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries” (Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium, 14)
Theodoret: “The mystical tokens or sacraments after the Consecration, depart not from their own nature: for *they remain still in their former substance,* and form, and figure.”
Chrysostom: “The very body of Christ itself is not in the holy vessels, but the mystery or Sacrament thereof is there contained.”
And, “The nature of bread remaineth in the Sacrament.”
Augustine wrote much on this subject:
“Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave a token of his body.”
“Christ took Judas unto his table, whereat he gave unto his Disciples the figure of his body.”
“Unless Sacraments had a certain likeness of the things of which they be sacraments, then indeed they were no Sacraments. And of this likeness oftentimes they bear the names of the things themselves that are *represented by* the sacraments.”
“In sacraments we must consider, not what they be,” (in substance and nature,) “but what they signify.”
“It is a dangerous matter, and a servitude of the soul, to take the sign instead of the thing that is signified.”
“If it be a speech that commandeth, either by forbidding an horrible wickedness, or requiring that which is profitable, it is not figurative: but if it seem to require horrible wickedness, and to forbid what is good and profitable, it is spoken figuratively. Except ye eat (saith Christ) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He seemeth to require the doing of that which is horrible, or most wicked: *it is a figure, therefore,* commanding us to communicate with the passion of Christ, and comfortably and profitably to lay up in our remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”
“It is a more horrible thing to eat man’s flesh, than to kill it: and to drink man’s blood, than it is to shed it.”
“Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten Christ. For, believing in Christ is the eating of the bread of life.”
Moreover, Augustine made the point that Jesus has ascended into heaven and, according to Scripture, will not be seen again on earth until the Second Advent; at that time, "every eye shall see Him" coming in the clouds. Augustine wrote:
“According to the flesh that the word received : according to that he was born of the Virgin : according to that he was taken of the Jews : according to that he was nailed to the Cross : according to that he was taken down, and lapt in a shroud, and laid in the grave, and rose again, and showed himself. In this respect it is true that he said : Ye shall not evermore have me with you.”
“Until the world be ended, the Lord is above: yet notwithstanding even here is the truth of the Lord. For the body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place.”
Vigilius said likewise: “The flesh of Christ when it was in earth, was not in heaven : and now, because it is in heaven, doubtless it is not on earth.” (Against Eutychus)
Athanasius agreed with this: “Unto how many men could Christ’s body have sufficed, that he should be the food of all the world ? Therefore he made mention of his ascension into heaven, that he might *withdraw them from corporal and fleshly understanding.”*
Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."
Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God."
The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it. As punishment, Moses had the calf ground up and made the people ingest the gold.
The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, rear them up in monstrances and worship them. Then they ingest the bread.
The two are remarkably similar.
So, Jesus was sitting at the last supper table with his apostles, just about to eat the meal when he says "this is my body".
Was the bread they were about to eat, chew, swallow and later poop Jesus real physical body or was Jesus body sitting at the table with them?
Understanding his words in a "real physical and material presence" makes Jesus body to exist apart from his whole person "for him abides all the fulness of divinity". The reakl physical material presence view must hold that Jesus exist outside of Jesus.
A metaphorical or spiritual understanding of his words are more consistent with the natural use of words and the intention of literary form of speech.
Jesus used a similar but backwards word construct when he stood before the temple in Jerusalem and said "destroyed this temple and in three days I will raise it up". He was obviously referring to his own body as the evangelist makes clear, but the leaders believed he was referring to the actual building.
However, the building itself was a type of Christ's body as we can see later in the book of Hebrews where the writer states that the flesh of Jesus that was torn at the cross was the 'curtain' of the temple.
Hence, we can see that the entire temple building and accessories was a metaphor for Christ's physical real body, but it wasn't the real body of Jesus.
In like manner, the bread is a metaohor for Jesus spiritual or symbolic presence, not a real physical or material presence. The latter is also mire consistent with the spiritual nature of the New Covenant and the Gospel in the church age.
Another point to consider is this:
Jesús said this:
John 6:35 (ESV)
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
ONE MEAL AND ONE DRINK IS ENOUGH!
If the bread (and wine) SATISFY HUNGER and THIRST for EVER, and the bread and wine are the REAL PRESENCE physically and material body and blood of Jesus, THEN if that's the case, eating 'that' bread JUST ONCE is enough. There is no reason to continue consuming the elements.
But, on the other hand, if the reference JESUS is making to 'eating' his BREAD, and 'drinking' his BLOOD is in relation to FAITH or BELIEF, then ALL one needs to do is become a believer ONCE. A true believer is always a believer. And his hunger and THIRST have been FOREVER SATISFIED.
The Church answers those questions. They do not deficate Jesus. Once the accidents have been consumed they break down and are no longer Christ's body from my understanding.
@@dman7668
I know. So that means that the bread gets "detransubstantiated". But Jesus said:
Matthew 15:17 (NLT)
“Anything you eat passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.
@jltc5478 Yes this isn't contradicting Christ's words here. We consume Christ's body but it does not pass through the stomach. Jesus was not talking about digestion in some absolute sense that EVERYTHING that ends up in the stomach goes into the sewer.
@@dman7668
So, Does the bread that you eat goes down your esophagus but dissappears before it gets to the stomach?
You guys just don't get it. You as Protestants are always directed inward. Everything is about you. By your own admission here, you even think the Lord's Supper is about you. THAT is the real distinction between Catholics and yourselves: Catholics view the Mass (i.e. its centerpiece and focus, the Eucharist) as an offering to God--a gift; an act of giving--of what is most dear to him, his own Son, in the manner he himself prescribed. You view your Supper as something done for yourselves, which you are, moreover, desperate to have God understand doesn't amount to anything substantial. It evokes warm feelings or something, but that's about it. It's hard for a Catholic to fathom why you even bother.
I understand that you want to believe you receive grace from your Supper, but why are you tempted to think that? You are not worshiping God. You are not offering him anything. You are simply begging grace from him, like a kid asking Santa for a present. In a way, what you're asking is for God to worship you. (I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds; I offer it simply as food for thought.)
When the speaker on the left before he presents his charts says “I’m going to overwhelm you”, pay attention. He is speaking the truth there. When the speaker on the right dressed as a priest says “I chose the Anglican religion…” (because of this, this, and this..) pay attention. What the Apostles and the Early Church would have done is remained with Tradition and went into deep prayer and contemplation accompanied by fasting to discern what Gods Will was for them whether they “liked” it or not. Ask what Divine Will is for you daily. Remain open minded. And pray for our Brothers and Sisters who are oppressed into misunderstanding that keeps them in heresy and out of Apostolic Succession that protects us with Gods Grace with the Blessed Sacraments. Study the Early Church Fathers. Former Protestant, Joshua T. Charles, is a trusted source. Come back to the Body of Christ. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Evil will attack Her within and without. Get on the boat. Get right with your Sacraments and your Sacramentals. And feel the Grace of God as you worship in the way He intended.
What the Apostles and the Early Church would have done is study the scriptures to discern God's will.
@@Crucian1Scripture was not written yet. Tradition was being handed down.
@@Mother_of_God_Sanctum Oh dear. So what do Jesus and the Apostles mean when they frequently talk about Scripture?
@@Crucian1Back to my point being that when the speaker on the right talks about why he chose the Anglican Church, he does not mention praying for Divine Will in his discernment on where his vocation would be.
How can Protestants have real presence if they’ve split from the Church/apostolic succession?
How does God live in every believer through the Holy Spirit? How does God sustain all creation here and now? How does God produce 'miracles' in the material world?
Mysteries.
What we don't know is much more than that which has been revealed.
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us.
Mark 9:38-41
I respect your responses but it doesn’t answer my question.
Christ commanded us to not leave His Church. All are welcome to return. To come out of schism and heresy. And truly receive him in an unbroken lineage of Sanctified Presence. See incorrupt Saint Carlos Acutis’s Eucharistic Miracles. Christ did not authorize breaking from the Church and starting new religions. Of Course God is in all of us and Jesus loves all of us. There is a form to proper Transubstantiation that mustn’t be broken to remain valid. That’s a Truth. And that is my point.
@@Mother_of_God_Sanctum In heaven, you'll know. No answers now that don't involve speculation on the part of men.
Just trust the Lord.