Luther's One True Church
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- Martin Luther called fellow Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli a "heretic," who was "seven times worse than a Papist" and "no Christian at all." Zwingli's offense was saying that in the Lord's Supper, "the true body of Christ is present by the contemplation of faith." For Luther, Christ wasn't truly present unless he was physically present in the elements. Conservative Lutherans still refuse to share communion with non-Lutherans, and some "boldly assert" that "Zwingli is in Hell." In spite of such invective, the Reformed position on Christ's presence is the historic and Biblical one. This video was produced by Christ Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in Magna, Utah. (www.gospelutah.org)
As a point of clarification, I believe Lutherans stray towards Monophysitism, but, in spite of being called a "Nestorian" many times, I am not trying to hang the label of Monophysite on them.
Wow, both this and Gavin’s video on Lutheran Christology in one day! Great stuff Ancientpathstv, this is a high quality video.
Luderans ain't gonna recover from this
Please post more! This is the only good Presbyterian apologetics channel
Specifically, young men in the OPC need more resources on EO, specifically countering arguments against it from the likes of Fr. Josiah Trenham
I'm currently working on The Patristic Roots of the Reformed Faith. 🙂
Josiah Trenham may well be a good man, and I don't doubt he is my brother in Christ even if he doesn't think I am because of all the anathemas he has to ascribe to, but his youtube soundbite apologia for EO has driven a wedge into my marriage by casting doubts into my wife's mind, and I have to pray all the time to forgive him. I know he didn't personally do it so it isn't his fault, so I know I am just bitter about it.
@@Arkeo36 Please watch our free videos at www.orthodox.video.
Amen - more of that kind of content is always excellent.
@@ancientpathstv I appreciate all the resources, and believe me I've watched and listened many times. My wife won't listen to me explain the positions and the best we can do is avoid the topic as much as possible. Prayers are always appreciated on this point.
Spent hours watching your videos just Monday night. Glad to see a new one.
I am glad that, as you illustrate with the final quote from Calvin, the Reformed tradition has never been helmed by anyone who made the sorts of claims that Luther did and that all the confessional and official documents I've seen leave abundant room both for them to be full brothers in the faith, and many others also.
1/2
Thanks for the video. I'll respond to a few of your points with time stamps:
6:00 As a former Reformed Baptist and now confessional Lutheran, I've already been accused of monophysitism. But there isn't evidence that the attendees at the Council of Chalcedon believed in only a "spiritual presence" of Christ in the supper. If you can find a father that says this, I would be interested to hear it. But by the 5th century, there really was no dispute about whether Christ was bodily present. Of course, we Protestants hold to "Sola Scriptura," so Scripture is what is the final arbiter of truth. By the time of Chalcedon, the church had basically unanimously believed in a bodily presence of Christ in the Supper, so to accuse Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics, and some Anglicans of "going too far into Nestorianism," it means one of two things of those who attended Chalcedon:
1) They either condemned all of themselves in anathematizing monophysitism,
or
2) The bodily presence of Christ doesn't require monophysitism.
I leave each individual to come to his or her own conclusions, but Lutherans make it clear that the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper doesn't require monophysitism. This requires understanding our Christology and the three genera of the "communication of attributes," where Christ's human body has received certain essential properties of his divine nature which are communicated as (not essential but) accidental properties to his human nature. In this way, it doesn't change his human nature into something else entirely, but retains its essential attributes, but by virtue of the hypostatic union, has properties belonging to his divine nature. The common analogy used by Martin Chemnitz and others is that of a piece of steel; it does not naturally give off light or heat, but when exposed to a furnace or flame, it gains heat and light. It remains steel, yet it gains properties from the flame. Obviously, this is just an analogy, so it doesn't reflect Christ perfectly, but it is a good illustration.
Here is what was written by Cyril of Alexandria in his third letter to Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus just 20 years before the Council of Chalcedon:
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, and professing his return to life from the dead and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody worship [sacrificii servitutem] in the churches and so proceed to the mystical thanksgivings and are sanctified having partaken of the holy flesh [corpus] and precious blood of Christ, the saviour of us all. This we receive not as ordinary flesh, heaven forbid, nor as that of a man who has been made holy and joined to the Word by union of honour, or who had a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and real flesh of the Word [ut vere vivificatricem et ipsius Verbi propriam factam.]. For being life by nature as God, when he became one with his own flesh, he made it also to be life-giving, as also he said to us: "Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood" . For we must not think that it is the flesh of a man like us (for how can the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature?), but as being made the true flesh [vere proprium eius factam] of the one who for our sake became the son of man and was called so."
Just to make sure he isn't saying that Jesus' body remains in heaven and this "bodily presence" is not some kind of remote communication as the Reformed doctrine teaches, Cyril also wrote:
"Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): 'This is My Body,' and "This is My Blood," in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ's Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ." (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.)
You can find quotes from contemporary fathers such as Leo (~400-461 AD), Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), and Jerome (347-420 AD) that similarly speak of Christ being bodily present and the body and blood of Christ in the Supper as not merely figures but realities on the altar.
6:25 Lutherans also believe that Jesus' local bodily presence ascended to the right hand of the Father. We don't deny that. There's only a problem if one admits that Christ's body has only one mode of bodily presence. If that were the case, then yes, Lutherans would have a contradictory belief. But there's nothing to say (other than our own biases and presuppositions) that Christ cannot have more than one mode of bodily presence.
Jesus both said he would go away, and yet that he would remain. Reformed understand this to mean his divine presence remained but the human nature ascended, and Lutherans take this to mean that all of Christ would somehow remain with believers. Reformed extrapolate this to the Lord's supper to mean he has no bodily presence anywhere on earth, whereas Lutherans believe Jesus's local bodily presence ascended while his illocal presence exists in the Supper.
That's why we admit there are different forms or modes of Christ's bodily presence, where Luther and the Book of Concord teach three types: local (as in his incarnation), the incomprehensible/spiritual mode, aka illocal, (where, as being united to the divine essence, Jesus' body penetrates all things and exists everywhere, and this is the presence of Christ in the Supper according to the Formula of Concord), and the divine/heavenly mode, aka supernatural. The Formula of Concord Article VII discusses this in detail.
8:30 Technically speaking, Christ's presence in the Supper isn't "physical" but a "bodily" presence. This is to distinguish the illocal mode of Christ's presence in the Supper as opposed to his local/physical presence; we don't believe that Jesus's body and bloody take up mass or space in the Supper as he did in his local presence during the Incarnation.
We more frequently use terms like "sacramental presence" or "real presence" of Christ's presence in the Supper and don't try to explain how it gets there; that's why Lutheranism doesn't affirm "consubstantiation" or "impanation" (even though we are told by Reformed and Catholics, respectively, that we do). Jordan Cooper has a video where he talks about this: th-cam.com/video/dgHKo64KzXk/w-d-xo.html
10:50 I think the point is missed from Jordan Cooper's video; he isn't saying that God can **only** curse those who disobey if they're literally touching God or something. We don't deny that God can curse people for offering "strange fire" or touching the Ark when it is not allowed. But in the instance of the unworthy participation in the Lord's supper according to 1 Corinthians 11, it doesn't just say that God will curse them for disobeying or being unworthy: it says they are "guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." We don't have this same kind of language with touching the Ark; the Supper is a unique circumstance where Christ is present, and those who take it but shouldn't are guilty against taking his blood and body. This is why it was so serious to take the Supper unworthily, and this is why Lutherans don't commune with other Christians; we believe that if they take the Supper and deny the bodily presence, they could (possibly) be bringing this curse against them.
As Reformed teach and believe that only those who worthily take the supper have any kind of spiritual benefit or connection to Christ's body, and those who take it unworthily are simply eating plain bread and wine and nothing more, it is a weaker case to claim they are "guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." They are simply being disobedient to God's command; they have no connection to Christ's body and blood whatsoever in the Reformed view.
15:00 The problem with taking these quotes is that "symbol" back then and "symbol" today don't have the same connotation. We have a modern, post-Enlightenment understanding of "symbol" to mean "something which is completely disconnected from what it represents." But that's not really how the ancients saw it: something could both be a symbol of something but be actually connected to that same thing.
Similarly, when you point to them saying they eat "spiritually," this is understood in modern times to be saying "there is no bodily presence whatsoever." However, even Lutherans have used the term "spiritual eating" of Christ. We say this not because Christ isn't bodily present, but because he **is** bodily present. However, we don't use this often because it is misunderstood by the Reformed to be saying something we aren't. When we say we are eating Christ "spiritually," it means we are supernaturally united to Christ's body and blood; we are not physically chewing or gnawing on Jesus' body and blood. It isn't a carnal or Capernaitic eating (reference to John 6 at Caperneum where they thought Jesus was saying we need to physically chew on his body); it is a spiritual communion and a mystical union with Christ's body and blood, but his body and blood are still there on the altar.
2/2
As a demonstration that saying Christ is "spiritually" present doesn't preclude a bodily presence in the elements, you can find quotes from the same fathers given in the video which show pretty plainly that they also believed Jesus was truly, body and blood, present on the altar.
Examples:
Augustine says that the blessed elements on the altar *are* the body and blood of Christ, not merely representing them, and also not connecting us spiritually to his absent body and blood in heaven:
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
He also contrasts what you see with what it is:
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
He also taught to adore the Supper containing Christ's body and blood; if his body and blood were not truly there, he would be committing idolatry:
“Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it” (Explanation of the Psalms 99).
"He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. . . . We do sin by not adoring” (ibid).
Athanasius is also quoted as saying that the Word comes down into the bread and wine once consecrated:
"'The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:' You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. 'And again:' Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected." ("Sermon to the Newly Baptized" ante 373 A.D.)
As for saying his "corporeal" presence left the church, I don't know exactly what he meant by this, but this could be speaking as to his local presence. This would line up with his saying we need to have faith, because we don't see Jesus (and only the local presence can be seen), but we still accept and embrace him and his illocal presence in the Supper completely by faith (not by sight). But, even if that's not what he's saying, the focus might have been on Christ being the Savior of the whole world and making himself known to all. But I really don't know.
Those are my thoughts. I still have a lot to learn, and I appreciate videos like this that get people thinking. Hopefully it leads to more Reformed and Lutheran dialogue.
@@daric_ I appreciate your tone, even if I disagree with your arguments.
I don't have time to engage everything, but you're arguing against a straw man in terms of the Reformed. We do not deny that someone sins against the body and blood of Christ in profaning the Lord's Supper. Your assumed logic is wrong. I'm tired of Lutherans caricaturing what we believe to dismiss it.
Athanasius and Augustine explicitly deny we are eating the physical body and blood of Christ, but they insist that we are truly feeding upon His body and blood. Simply offering statements from fathers that we "truly" or "really" feed upon his flesh and blood do not negate that. Where is an explicit denial of what Athanasius and Augustine taught?
I brought up Monophysitism only because I have been called a Nestorian heretic by Lutherans more times than I can count. To insist that Jesus was physically present in the elements in the Upper Room (before His death and resurrection) is a serious issue. It is completely speculative, finds no real support in Scripture, and raises serious questions on what Walther called the "true doctrine of the incarnation."
Christ's body being omnipresent before His death and resurrection is not the "plain reading" of Scripture, nor the historic faith of the church. The Reformed are not the ones upon whom the burden of proof lies, but those who stand against Athanasius and Augustine and call the rest of us "no Christians at all."
@@ancientpathstv
Thanks for your reply. I'll respond to some points.
//We do not deny that someone sins against the body and blood of Christ in profaning the Lord's Supper. Your assumed logic is wrong. I'm tired of Lutherans caricaturing what we believe to dismiss it.//
In my original comment, I'm not saying you deny this entirely. What I was saying is that, when we say they are "sinning against the body and blood," this is a strong indication from the text that it isn't speaking of pure symbolism and that the body and blood of Christ are truly present.
By contrast, Reformed teach that the body and blood are not present for those who take it unworthily, but they are mere bread and wine. This is because they teach the only communion with his body and blood are spiritually through the worthy taking of the Supper. This is what I was taught and read, so if I am misrepresenting, please correct me.
With this interpretation, Reformed certainly can interpret that phrase in 1 Corinthians 11 ("sinning against the body and blood") in a way that it is speaking of the body and blood of Christ that remains in heaven, or that they are sinning against the symbols of his body and blood in the elements, or in some other way, sure. But I think that isn't the easiest or most plain reading of the text. We believe that this warning from Paul is a strong indication of bodily presence in the bread which explains why it's so dangerous to take it unworthily (as Christ's holy body and blood is dangerous to those who shouldn't take it).
//Athanasius and Augustine explicitly deny we are eating the physical body and blood of Christ, but they insist that we are truly feeding upon His body and blood. Simply offering statements from fathers that we "truly" or "really" feed upon his flesh and blood do not negate that. Where is an explicit denial of what Athanasius and Augustine taught?//
Again, I point to the quotes in my previous comments from Augustine where he seems to indicate that the elements themselves are changed, and that those who take it adore the elements and do not sin in adoring them. My quote from Cyril, one of the attendants of the Council of Ephesus which condemned monophysitism, also strongly indicated that the bread and wine are truly Christ's body and blood.
When Lutherans talk about communing with the body and blood of Jesus "spiritually," it's to counter the claim that we are using the natural, physical processes of eating and chewing to literally chew up Jesus' body and blood (I mentioned this also in my first comments). It's a spiritual eating, but his bodily presence is still there. And I think it is in this similar sense that these fathers are speaking based on other quotes where they say the elements are truly Christ's body and blood.
If we take all of these quotes together, and not just one on its own, it seems clear Augustine isn't saying there is only a "spiritual" presence in the bread and wine. I understand that Reformed believe they commune with the body and blood of Jesus, but it's not in the same way that I think these fathers are indicating.
//I brought up Monophysitism only because I have been called a Nestorian heretic by Lutherans more times than I can count. To insist that Jesus was physically present in the elements in the Upper Room (before His death and resurrection) is a serious issue. It is completely speculative, finds no real support in Scripture, and raises serious questions on what Walther called the "true doctrine of the incarnation." //
I don't think Reformed are "Nestorian heretic[s]," but as I mentioned, I've been called a monophysite. And I don't think either label is helpful to further the conversation. This would also mean that one side sees the other as outside the Christian faith, which I don't hold to.
I mentioned the three genera of the "communication of attributes." As I understand it, Reformed and Lutherans agree on two of the three genera, the "genus idiomaticum" (where each nature has essential properties inherent to itself) and the "genus apotelesmaticum" (where the properties of the human and divine natures of Jesus work together in his works, and, in particular, his redeeming work, such that we can say we are saved by the blood of God).
The omnipresence of Christ prior to his ascension is related to the third one that Reformed deny, the "genus majestaticum," whereby certain divine attributes are communicated to his human nature as accidental (not essential) properties, but there are no human properties communicated the other direction to the divine. We see these divine properties operating in the human nature of Jesus in his incarnation when he knows things he doesn't normally know (omniscience), has power over the elements, heals the sick, raises the dead, etc. (omnipotence), and is able to miraculously escape the crowds who attempted to stone him, appeared instantaneously to the disciples in a closed room, and yes, is present in the Lord's supper (omniscience).
So I disagree that it finds no support in Scripture, as we see Jesus' human nature doing many things it normally can't do, including moving through solid objects and people instantaneously, and Jesus stating in the Lord's supper institution that "this is my body" and "this is my blood" that this alone indicates he is bodily present there in a mysterious manner.
@@daric_ I'm busy with other duties and projects, so I don't have time to debate you, but you keep making assertions, but not offering specific evidence. Lutherans don't get to denounce the Reformed as "no Christians at all" and argue for the "possibility" of an interpretation; they'd better prove it beyond all reasonable doubts. You personally may not being making such accusations, but unless you're prepared to denounce Luther, Walther, and Rosebrough, I don't care what your individual perspective is. Your church has spoken and refuses to allow Reformed to its communion.
I am currently presbyterian but find Lutheran Christology to be (seemingly) more developed than reformed Christology, particularly in the articulation of the three genera for the communicatio idiomatum. I appreciate the doctrines of the Genus idiomaticum and the genus apotelesmaticum but have a hard time accepting the genus majestaticum or the communication of divine attributes to the human nature. I hope you could help deal with the distinctives between reformed and lutheran christology since it seems both sides make good points. For example can the human nature of Christ be adored sincd it is created? Lutherans do well at answering these questions even if im not fully convinced at their position.
Speculation is not necessarily development and, as shown in the video, can easily lead us unwittingly into heresy.
I recommend Gavin Ortlund's video on this too. The Lutheran view here seems to be simply aninovation.
I will check it out! Thanks!
I understand. This can certainly be the case with any denomination so thank you for the reminder. So far what i have seen is a reformed critique of the lutheran position but have had trouble finding an extensive reformed view of what reformed do believe on the subject of Christology. So far the arguments ive seen are apophatic rather than cataphatic. Are there any sources you recommend?
@ Hmm, I'm not sure, but I can look into it and see if I can find any good ones.
I live in St. Louis and did a historical research project on Trinity Lutheran Church in St. Louis which C.F.W. Walther was the pastor of for over 40 years in the 1800s. Pretty cool to see him mentioned in the video (although for unfortunate circumstances)
Jason, i love your channel and continue to recomend it even though i am a former Presbyterian turned Lutheran. I have no ill will towards the Reformed faith as I really believe we are much closer than both sides historically and presently like to admit. It seems that many times we simply talk past one another trying to be right in explaining the deep things and mysteries of God. Thank you for this video and your continued work in Christ! 🙏
You have a very Christian outlook on the relationship between our denoms and I'm glad we are brothers in Christ!
@@tategarrett3042Thanks brother! It's been an interesting journey. I lost many friends leaving my Presbyterian church. Most of them do not want to even talk to me anymore. It's like they took it personally that I left the Reformed faith even though I never said a cross word about it. Then, making friends at my Lutheran Church is sometimes a challenge as if I defend Calvin in anything or say anything positive about the Reformed, I get get scoffed at. Oh well. I am ok with it. It is what it is as they say...
Keep these videos up. Everyone video you make is high quality and very educational.
In the last video you mentioned to me you were serious about making this video, and lo and behold you did so. I respect your position and enjoyed the video which was good. There are a few comments that me as a Lutheran have to address:
1. How Christ is physically present at the Lord's Supper is in a mysterious way, and this is supported by Scripture by Christ showing that He can present himself physically in ways that manifest beyond human physical form (ie, walking through doors, teleportation). The issue with the claim of monophysitism is the reformed denouncement of us claiming a physical presence in a way which is not revealed to us, but we see in Scripture that Christ's physical presence is ultimately not subject to human reasoning and limitations. While Cooper's video was good, it didn't touch on this.
2. Patristic writers calling the sacrament a "figure, symbol" is not mutually exclusive with real presence
3. Lutherans don't argue from John 6 for the real presence. Luther didn't believe this spoke of the Eucharist. Augustine's commentary aligns on how we see it, and we call this "capernaitic eating" because they saw it literally as eating His flesh like a slab of meat. We don't profess transubstantiation so we don't say that.
If you are going to argue for spiritual presence in the Eucharist, then you should present Scripture that supports your position on this. The issue with the reformed position in my opinion is that it leans too heavily on reasoning. Christ cannot be in the sacrament because He is human and at the right hand of The Father, ergo, He cannot be present on earth. But then Paul says he saw Christ on the road to Damascus. The reason Lutherans don't accept a spiritual presence over a physical one is because there is no evidence in Scripture to support a spiritual presence but ample to just trust in His Word and call it what it is.
Good video nonetheless, despite my disagreements. It's a pretty respectable and good summary of the whole issue from the reformed perspective. I agree with you and think Lutherans should try to be more ecumenical on other matters instead of just the insular culture we've built, but it's a matter of doctrine that we don't commune with others.
Thank you for the kind words, even in disagreement. Remember, Luther is not claiming that Jesus' body was omnipresent after His death and resurrection, but before. He said Jesus was physically present in the elements in the Upper Room. There's no Biblical support for that, and it creates huge theological issues on the nature of the incarnation.
I hesitated to bring up the issue of Monophysitism, but I have been accused of being a Nestorian too many times. Though I think belief in physical presence is an error, I don't see it as a soul-damning heresy, but Luther saw the opposite to be true. My purpose in this video wasn't to thoroughly exegete all the Scriptures in question, but to demonstrate that Lutheran assertions to "plain reading" and to the "consent of the Fathers" simply aren't true. The burden is not on those who stand with the historic church, but those who reject its testimony in favor of medieval speculation.
"Great video! I love that you highlight the differences between 'transubstantiation' and 'consubstantiation.' In other words, the Roman Catholic position and the Lutheran position. All while simultaneously clarifying Ulrich Zwingli's (fairly). Thank you, brother. Soli Deo Gloria!
(Edit) 'The Lord's supper' and 'communicatio idiomatum,' is where the differences really show between the Reformed and Lutheran I've been maintaining this for years. I also believe this is why C.F.W. Walther said "it is a denial of a true intercommunion between the natures."
I love this channel! This is one of my new favorite resources!
I agree with that sentiment! Jason's channel is awesome.
Great video as always. A shame that Lutherans do not want to commune with us, may the Lord have mercy on us all!
Great video as always bro ❤
Could you make a video about Unity between classical protestants against the claims of disunity of RC and EO?or maybe one about defending the accusations of RC and EO about reform being the fall of the Western Christianity
I'm currently working on The Patristic Roots of the Reformed Faith. 🙂
@ancientpathstv I can't wait to watch, it's always good to see reformed channels as yours
Im not done watching yet but you only showed part of coopers first point without showing the rest. I would recommend that people watch the whole cooper video. He does a great job explaining his 5 points.
The video is 20 minutes long. It's not intended to cover every possible argument, but simply to demonstrate that Lutheran claims that the Reformed reject the "clear reading of Scripture" and the "clear consensus of the fathers" are simply wrong. We are excluded from Lutheran communion and called "no Christians at all" because of something based in medieval speculation, not the Word of God or the testimony of the early church.
The Lutherans I know today would say that reformed folks are christians. Thanks for the video.
@@Earthdog777 Do they admit Reformed people to their communion? Not all use the rhetoric of Joshua Rosebrough, but many of the Lutheran pastors I've known do not recognize Reformed as Christian brothers.
@@ancientpathstv It depends on the Synod. My sister goes to a non liturgical Lutheran Church where all are welcome. The LCMS doesn't. The reason they don't is because they believe that you must believe what they do to receive the sacrament.
@@ancientpathstv Jordan Cooper used to be reformed and does videos with reformed folks and treats them as brothers.
Calvin's position was closer to Luther's than Zwingli's and was/is the Reformed position laid down in the Scots' and Westminster Confessions. I recommend KA Mathison's, 'Given for you' to understand the difference.
Calvin did better articulate the Reformed position, but Zwingli is too often caricatured as holding to a memorial view. He didn't. As demonstrated in the video, Luther dismissed all the Reformed, not just Zwingli.
Agreed. Calvin rejected the Sacramentarians very boldly in the Gallican (French) confession of 1559 and in other writings.
“Zwingli’s concept of the presence of Christ in communion was certainly not corporeal (either by transubstantiation or consubstantiation), yet he did maintain a Eucharistic presence in the Holy Spirit (“… but Christ is present in the Supper by his Spirit, grace, and strength, ” Works [1828-42], VI, i, 758.33- 36).”
Source: Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation. Compiled with Introductions by James T. Dennison, Jr.
Pastor, great material again. Could you do a video about Newman's theory and his defense of Roman doctrines, unknown to Scripture, fathers and doctors?
I recorded the introduction yesterday. 🙂
@ancientpathstv if I could help in any way, I think constitution Filius Dei destroys all ideas of "they mean something diffrent, but we don't have to accept the reason of dogma, just dogma alone", since constitution says, that we are not obligated only by dogma alone, but also by original understanding! So in some cases, like icons, Newmanists argumentation gets obliterated.
Brother Jason, another great vid! I look forward to the next one should God permit.
I think this might be the earliest I’ve ever been
Congratulations 🎉
Same
We have the same pfp :D
I think your concerns here are well put and entirely valid. I think the concern that Lutheranism strays into monophysitism is overstated though. The biggest issue I see is that Lutheranism brings up a novel Christology and then insists that it, and its consequences, be dogmatically binding to all Christians for any unity to exist among them, rejecting and excommunicating those who differ with them in often the most vile and uncharitable terms.
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I do not accuse Lutherans of being Monophysites, but when Walther claims Lutherans alone have the correct doctrine of the incarnation and calls the Reformed Nestorians, I don't think the concerns about straying towards Monophysitism are unwarranted.
@@ancientpathstv I can agree that there is a concern of it straying in that direction. I would recommend making a pinned comment though that you did not intend to say that they are actual monophysites, both for clarity's sake and lest we be accused of leveling the same invective against them which some of them have against us.
12:40 - I'm a Baptist here who would love to dismiss the letter to the Smyrneans. 😂But most scholars seems to affirm the "middle recension" (that is 7 of his letters) because it is found in Eusebius and some of our best Greek manuscripts. Do you have any good arguments for why only the "short recension" (Rom, Eph, Tral, Mag) is the only accurate letters?
Campos (his book is shown in the video) argues that the three disputed epistles bear the names of legitimate epistles, but are later pseudepigrapha. Since its published by the Pontifical Institute, it comes in handy in dealing with Roman Catholics.
Your channel is a blessing and the Lord Jesus Christ is giving you great wisdom, thank you so much for all the labor you put forward to edify the saints your labor is not in vain in the Lord
As a Bible-Presbyterian Church member from Singapore. Thank you for your pedagogical content. 🙏 [Carl Mcintyre should not have split from the OPC]
While I love and respect my Lutheran brothers and I think we can learn from them in many ways, I’m also glad to see a critique of their doctrine from a reformed perspective. Have you ever considered doing a video on the Lutheran view of Baptism? Most modern reformed works on Baptism focus on responding to credo-baptists and not baptismal regeneration. Really appreciate this channel!
Lord willing, I'll be dealing with baptismal regeneration in the video I'm currently working on, "The Patristic Roots of the Reformed Faith."
I highly recommend Rev Don Baker's channel - he actually has a video pretty much targeting this exact question.
😂 i was looking into lutheranism and suddenly saw you uploaded this. Must be a sign 😅.
Hey! Keep looking man!
But whatever you do, stay Protestant!
Soli Deo Gloria
Lutheranism is pretty based, grounded in the fathers and most importantly Holy Scripture.
Man love your videos you help me see the lies of EO and RC keep it going brother you are in my prayers!
As a conservative Lutheran, He said "This is my body." Simple. He did not say "This is my spirit."
Jesus was not a “conservative lutheran”.
You didn’t watch the video 😂
Many thanks (again and always).
It was resolved by the end of their life and dragged on by their predecessors, I truly believe so:
"I believe that the real body of Christ is eaten in the Supper sacramentally and spiritually - Zwingli, Fidei Expositio.
“We confess that by virtue of the words ‘This is my body, this is my blood’ the body and blood are truly present and distributed in the Lord’s Supper. Since we have so far held the opinion that our dear sirs and brethren Oecalampadius, Zwinglius, and their adherents totally reject the real presence of this body and blood, but now in a friendly colloquy have found it to be otherwise, we now declare and state that the arguments and reasons found in our books concerning the sacrament are not directed against and do not apply to Oecalampadius, Zwingli, and their adherents, but against those who totally reject the presence of the body in the supper.” - This is My Body, Sasse, p. 266-267 -> Statement written by Luther at the end of Marburg.
The Luther quote given in the video was from after Marburg. The quote given by Sasse sounds a lot more like Melancthon. He ultimately changed the Augsburg Confession to allow a Reformed understanding of Christ's presence, but other than Luther's silence, I'm not aware of him ever agreeing. Clearly Walther and modern conservative Lutherans do not agree with that and insist they hold to the original Augsburg Confession.
One question for clarification from a layman Lutheran, is there a difference between Jesus’ body and blood being spiritually present? If it’s just a spiritual presence, what’s the distinction between body and blood?
This was great Amen!
I did not know about the theory of Josep Rius-Camps that only four letters of Ignatius were genuine. Vigiliae Christianae Vol. 35 has a critical review of his theory and I'm not convinced by it. Otherwise, I enjoyed the video as someone who has read Zwingli and agrees with his position on the Eucharist.
I don't take a hard position on the letters, but when one of the disputed ones is cited as unquestioned, I think it's worth noting. 🙂
The problem is with the question of why we should listen to Luther.
Great video, it showed my greatest reason by not being Lutheran, i cannot bear such strict and close communion
Thank you brother! Greetings from germany
At the night on which Christ was betrayed, the new testament was not effective yet, as the 'testator' was still alive. Jesus was remembering the Passover on the night itself. The 'new testament' took effect after the 'testator' died. Not only the 'testator' had already died, the 'testator' had already resurrected and seated at the right hand side of God in the Heavenly realms.
Justin Martyr equates the changing of the bread and wine with the Incarnation. You didn’t address that argument. The Early Church believed the bread and wine changed to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
All things are Made through Christ. Christ death is the foundation of the world. Atemporal creation through Jesus. Genesis is high Christology . The Adamah rises out of the death waters and produces grass (bread) and fruit (vine ) on the third day.
The reformed believe that in the eucharist we feed on the true body and blood of christ present in heaven . The manner of eating is spiritual and it is in the power of the holy spirit that the distance between his body in heaven and us on earth is bridged .
Holy cow- I was in here in less than a hour. 😅
Thank you for yet another great video!
I always thought Zwingli had a memorialist/mere symbol view. I probably should read his writings and not just read about him.
I was always of the opinion that no view of the Eucharist is bad as long as it isn't a simple symbol.
As long as one can profess the true presence of Christ in some shape or form as the paschal lamb then it's fine. We should stop arguing on "how" and focus on "why" and "what". It is indeed a shame that many Lutherans don't commune with those who don't hold to consubstantiation. But I agree with them that we should avoid the language of "symbol" and "represents" simply because that can lead to not taking it seriously, which I have seen personally.
It is my single biggest issue with Lutheranism actually. The fact that they excommunicate all Christians who don't subscribe to their view, and their church is frankly unbiblical.
He meant it symbolically, do this in remembrance of me.
How do you know it was meant symbolically?
@reformedcatholic457 the same as when Jesus said I am the door to the sheep he wasn't saying he was literally a door, and when he said about plucking out eyes and cutting off hands regarding sin he was speaking metaphorically not literally, we eat his flesh and drink his blood spiritually by continuing to follow him walk with him and believing in him and trusting in the atoning sacrifice he made.
If Lutherans are so wrong on the Supper than why are you so bent on communing with them? Would you not be partaking in their error?
You seem to be portraying this as an attack on Lutherans. They're the ones calling us heretics over something they can't back up from Scripture or the early church. As shown in the video, Calvin considered Luther a brother, even though Luther considered the Reformed heretics.
Bread is a way of referring to Law. "this is my body"