@@ora_et_labora1095 Giving pleasantries to one another is not intellectoreligious union. Pleasantry is important, don't get me wrong, but actual substantial union is the absolute requirement. Also anathema is not an issue to you if you are a Protestant anyway, so it's really not quite right for you see it as such a nonpleasantry.
One if the novelties of Lutheran orthodoxy that gets overlooked is Traducianism. I wish more Lutherans would express and defend it. It hasn't been updated to modern metaphysics in theological dialog in AGES. There's almost nothing on it, yet it can and should inform our anthropology, ecclediology and even our understanding of 1Peter 3 in light of the great commission and the doctrine of the body of christ.
@@TruthUnitescan you answer my question in comment? O have recent conversation with a Muslim, although I had no problem with other issues, I had problem talking about hypostatic union. Since this is very unique.
@@TruthUnites Even according to Aristotle's definition the human nature is the intrinsic ability of the human "being" to do human things. If the human "being" isn't there, the human nature isn't there either. Like wise, the divine nature is one with the divine being. The human nature is not an intrinsic feature of the divine being, it is only united in a hypostatic union, this type of unity is not to be confused with the unity of an intrinsic feature. There is a human "being" that has a seperate essence from the divine "being"...... so how exactly are they one being? this is a question i got from a muslim person, how do you respond on this?
One thing I'm joyful for in light of this video, is the Lutheran response in the comments. Notice how Lutherans are being kind and having fun in this comments section? Nobody accusing Gavin of being a snake, or an instrument of Satan??? Romanists, and Palamites take notes... Gavin can disagree with you, but it doesn't mean he's a snake... Thanks for the video Gavin, from a Lutheran.
While I agree that the constant name calling is un Christian like. Your statement acts as if he is discussing Lutherans the way he does Catholics and orthodox. Correct me if I’m wrong but I’ve never once heard Gavin say he wants to give Catholics or orthodox criticism out of “admiration”
@@Sonicmax8728Dr. Ortlund has said he appreciates Catholicism, and every single video he makes on it he’s always respectful toward. Of course if he has a stronger tone it’s because naturally the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism are stronger than that of fellow Protestants.
@ and that’s fair but his harsher criticism I think makes it fair for harsher criticism back. Not the nasty stuff of course i just don’t think this particular example is comparable to the Catholic/ orthodox criticism videos
Well, since Romanists and Palamites are so much holier than Protestants, they have every reason to act super aggressive and defensive, because that's just what holiness does.
Random comment unrelated to theology: I like the temperature tint of this video. It seems a little warmer as opposed to others which had a distinctly blue tint.
Dr. Ortlund. I don't agree with your analysis, but let me please say that I have been impressed -- and continue to be impressed -- with how respectful and charitable you are. Your audience owes a debt of gratitude for the excellent example. "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." John 13:35.
You seem to have side-stepped this Lutheran principle: the ministerial use of reason. I agree that full communication of divine attributes flows out from Christ's institution of "this is my body". The fact that it seems weird is no less weird than virgin birth or Trinity. We merely refuse to bind the conscience to some external explanation of what we imagine is possible or sensible.
Well, God did say to love Him with all our mind, didn’t He? And what about the argument that the Lutheran position is a novelty from Luther, while the Reformed view has greater continuity with Scholasticism and the Early Church? Even Augustine seemed to believe in the spiritual presence of Christ. In any case, it's good to have these discussions-this is how theology develops. We just can't forget that, at this moment, as historic Protestants, we should stand together against Ecclesiastical Apologetics and the absurdities of modern Evangelicalism.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Are you sure about that? From what I am reading the Lutheran view has greater history to it. Below are some examples. Correct me if I am wrong. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 A.D.): Quote: "They 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again." Justin Martyr (c. 150 A.D.): Quote: "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 A.D.): Quote: "For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." Another Quote: “The bread, which receives the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. From these, the substance of our flesh is increased and supported” Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 A.D.): Quote: "Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt any longer? And when He Himself affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood,' who can ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?"
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Are you sure about that? From what I am reading the Lutheran view has greater history to it. Below are some examples. Correct me if I am wrong. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 A.D.): Quote: "They 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again." Justin Martyr (c. 150 A.D.): Quote: "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 A.D.): Quote: "For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." Another Quote: “The bread, which receives the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. From these, the substance of our flesh is increased and supported” Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 A.D.): Quote: "Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt any longer? And when He Himself affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood,' who can ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?"
Hey Brother Ortlund, Lutheran here, Love your work. A few considerations. Firstly: In the transfiguration it seems to me that Christ's divine nature permeates through his human nature, I believe this is the reading of the fathers. Christ's human body is transfigured before the the 3 disicples which seems to be in some sense communicating the glory of the divine nature but not other attributes like omni-presence. So it does not seem implausible to me that Christ in his person can communicate the attribute of omni-presence to his human nature to make his flesh appear spiritually on altars for only the occasion of the Lord's Supper. Saying that how can a human body be omni-present is like saying how can a human body be transfigured. They can't, it is a communication of a divine attribute for a specific purpose Secondly, I don't think Lutherans would say that Christ's divine nature is completely locally confined in his earthly human body and ceases to rule the world and be omnipresent. You did address this though, with the Luther quote so i think on this point we are both in continuity with the fathers. Thirdly, 2 Peter 1:4 says we become "Partakers of the divine nature", now whatever that means If we can in some sense partake of the divine nature for our sanctification, I do not think it is far fetched to believe that Christ our omnipotent God is unable for a time to communicate an attribute to his human nature and allow his human nature to partake of the divine nature in a more substantial way. Fourth, we see Christ say before his accession " behold i will be with you even to the end of the age" and also: "where 2 or three are gathered in my name i will be there". We know Christ is omni-present so certainly he can't mean it simply referring to his presence in the middle of amazon rain forest but rather there is a more substantial sense that he will be present where 2 or 3 are gathered. Lastly I do believe that the Reformed have a difficulty pointing at the bread in the Lord Supper and saying that, that bread is truly Christ's body they have to ascend to the heavens to eat it. But Christ had no problem holding that same bread and "saying this is my body".
On that first paragraph, since we Lutherans' favorite almost good-enough illustration for the union of Christ's natures is "like a wet sponge," note how a sponge on its own does not make other things it touches wet, but a saturated one does. So a regular human body is capable of some things, but by union with divinity, it does others. Like not sinking in water. Or appearing in a locked room without sneaking through a window. Discussing that last one in Seminary led us to dub certain kinds of Reformed Christology, "Sneaky Jesus theory." Best I can tell, the way that the Bible shows Jesus says these things that we confess. And I'm glad I'm not alone in that.
The transfiguration was a vision. Check out the wording in Greek. I know some lutheran pastors who disagree with this assessment. However, others, who shall be here unnamed but are themselves popular figures, hold to it.
@@EvanBurkinshaw for the sake of argument let's say I concede that point, are you asserting that Jesus' human flesh did not participate in this "vision". It seems to me the Phrase, "and he was transfigured before them". Seems to indicate that what they saw was the transfiguration of Jesus' body. Now if you are saying that this "vision" did not include a transfiguration of Christ's human flesh, then I ask where was Christ's human body? Was it just on the mountain unchanged and ordinary? Why didn't the disciples notice his unchanged body? Where do you get the notion that his body flesh was not changed from the text. Do you disagree with Peter who saw it with his own eyes and thought it was physical, hence he asked to build a tabernacle made of real physical stone? For people who are mere ghosts? Please locate for me where exactly Jesus' human body was and what was it's state from the text.
Offended Lutherans don't stop watching things, they start rage-watching. Which is exactly the same thing, only with a little more scowling and grumbling and beer than normal.
the comment section here is why I like being a protestant. Lutherans coming in and having a good time everybody being friendly. If this was a video on Catholic or Orthodox theology people would be angry and the response videos would be so angry with people in the comments section accusing Gavin of being an idiot.
Facts. I feel like Lutherans occupy a special place and can appreciate the good in every tradition. We have the scholasticism of Rome, the mysticism of the East, and the freedom of the Protestants.
As a Lutheran who often gets my TH-cam stream bombarded with RC apologists, I am often somewhat less than irenic in my responses and reactions to RC claims. It's usually the result of some RC apologist spouting off on some distorted view of sola scriptura and/or sola fide in order to create a suitable strawman and then there's the almost continuous stream of slanders regarding Luther. It's just so pervasive and repetitive that it gets tiresome and irritating.
To be fair, the reason we Orthodox get so bent out of shape is, post-icon video, Ortlund has been arguing some very low hanging fruit (that we’re too exclusive, which isn’t even an argument) and misrepresented scholarship. Seriously, go read the first chapter of “The Original Bishops” by Alistair Stewart, which Ortlund cites when he argues against apostolic succession. Stewart completely disputes Ortlund’s upholding of the synonymy claim, he in fact calls it a myth. Or, in his video on Cyril Lucaris, he largely ignores or misrepresents a key source to make his arguments, that being Stephanie Falkowski’s thesis. Which can be read, free and online, and she comes to a very different conclusion of Lucaris’ Calvinist convictions than Ortlund. Even his citation of “A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm” misrepresents what the author who compiled these articles was saying. That was in his response to Garten and Hamilton on icons, most of their evidence he doesn’t even bother to address. And, based on what other Lutherans are saying here, it’s much the same. I’d personally be a lot less harsh if Ortlund was more honest in these videos or, at least, just admit these errors of his. But he does this repetitively. Then you combine it with the less ecumenical fans who accuse us of idolatry and ignorance, then all bets are off when Orthodox individuals read these things. We’re also being brought up and mocked in a video that isn’t even about us! We understand if you don’t like us but Protestants have no right to complain when they can’t go a single video without bashing us.
@@deadalivemaniacOver exclusivity is a problem if the scripture lays out one set of criteria for salvation and then you add to it. That was the general form of the Galatian heresy and it's a major problem with e.g. Nicea II. I'd argue that the EO's get bent out of shape far too easily because it's a simple outworking of your insufficient catholicity. Your catechumens are notorious for their poor behaviour and you seem to be readying to justify gracelessness on your part.
@@deadalivemaniac I feel the exact opposite. Protestants have been the punching bags of every other from of Christianity. We cannot go five minutes without Orthodox and Catholics railing on us. Orthodox are doing better than anyone right now its Catholics and Protestants that are going through a difficult time. And from the Orthodox people I read and listen to their is a level of exclusion typically when talking about the arc and everyone outside the arc. There is also no shortage of less ecumenical Orthodox people. As for the Icon stuff historians can argue things out endlessly I do not see anyone putting an end to that debate, but I do think Gavin had solid arguments. And Gavin is one person he cannot address every single Catholic and Orthodox response video. Honestly that part of your critique is hard for me. Truth be told after listening to Atheist biblical scholars argue against the bible, different church historians from different denominations, and historians outside of religious circles say historians of American history for example argue these strange positions I have lost a lot of faith in history as a field of study altogether. I am at a point now where I no longer trust most of what I read.
❤ Listening now, but I think it’s important for anyone considering Confessional Lutheranism to read the Book of Concord. Not all of Luther’s works or ideas are in our confessions.
Hey Gavin, I just wanted to say that this might be my favorite video from you this year so far. Thinking about Jesus in these huge, rigorous, glorious Christological ways always drives me to worship! I really feel that my "heart sings unbidden while [I am] working [my] way through a tough bit of theology" as Lewis so perfectly puts it.
The lutheran response is raucous laughter, clinking of beer mugs, and tossing you Articles 7&8 from the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord to read on your own time
As a Lutheran who found Gavin's videos through Jordan Cooper, I'm so grateful for Gavin's approach to this and other issues. Although I think Lutheran christology is actually great at explaining the Real Presence without contradiction and without explaining too much, I appreciate a video like this that educates people who may be completely unfamiliar with the Lutheran position.
"Christ said, ‘This is My body.’ He did not say, 'This is My body in this way.' We are in agreement with you as to the end; the whole controversy is as to the method. As to the 'This,' we hold with firm faith that it is. As to the 'this is in this way (namely, by the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body), as to the method whereby it happens that it is, by means of in or with or under or by transition there is no word expressed. And because there is no word, we rightly make it not of faith; we place it perhaps among the theories of the school, but not among the articles of the faith." -Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, Response to Bellarmine
The entire comment section is lutherans lol. We are taking over lol. Gavin has to do a poll of what percentage of his subscribers are confessional Lutherans. I'm guessing it's at least 20%.
As a former Lutheran, now Anglican. I am still Lutheran in my beliefs and Christology. (if it has to be defined.) Partly in that it appeals more to mystery and keeps the natures of Christ intact. I think a lot of this is mystery and every tradition ultimately must leave it there as these are things beyond us. If we get too hung up in certainty or making “sense” we can possibly diminish important things unnecessarily.
I agree. As it is written, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9 ESV
@@kgebhardt1187 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" Calvin and the Reformed tradition, according to them sometimes!
Gavin, I appreciate your thoughtful video on this topic. As an Orthodox Christian I am aware of the very different yet tangentially related dispute between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox concerning the Council of Chalcedon. This may be un-related to the issue; however, I would be interested in hearing from multiple voices if Luke 24:13-35, John 20: 11-18, and John 21: 4-7 (The apostles did not immediately recognize Christ post-Resurrection) has anything to do with this debate. I'm not going to endorse anything outside of what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches on this issue but sometimes understanding the perspectives of others helps us understand our own perspective better so thank you for making this video.
I’m liking the faint orange and blue color thing going on in the back. It’s both warm and cold, it’s soft and vibrant, it’s sleepy and exciting. Doesn’t lead you any certain way, just keeps you present. I think this video you may have been washed out a bit by your personal light, but that’s an easy fix. Great stuff as always! Your work is a blessing! God bless you and yours!
A couple of thoughts from a Lutheran layman... 1. It is unfair to criticize Lutheran Christology for its novelty while a.) alleging that the catholic doctrine of the real presence of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper is driving this novelty, and b.) failing to acknowledge the novelty of the Reformed error on the real absence of Christ's body from the Lord's Supper. I'm not a trained theologian, but I believe you are right to say that the doctrine of the Lord's Supper is the driving force behind the development and/or refinement of this Lutheran Christology. But it is always the case that what seems novel in Christian theology arises in response to theological error. The sixteenth century is the first time that a widespread belief in the absence of Christ's body from the Supper began to take root. It took root among those theologians who were breaking away from the papacy, which meant that the Lutherans felt more keenly than the papists a responsibility to respond. 2. Why is it that the ubiquity or omnipresence of the divine nature cannot be communicated to the human nature, but the invisibility of the divine nature can be? In other words, where is the local presence of Christ today? The standard response would be heaven, but where is heaven? And what human being has ever entered heaven in human flesh? You seem to be willing to grant a communication of certain divine attributes to Christ's human nature, but any attribute that might make him physically present in the Lord's Supper must be carefully and selectively denied.
Actually, it is a mistake to think that the Reformed perspective on spiritual presence is a novelty. Gavin Ortlund demonstrated in this video that Reformed Christology actually has greater continuity with Scholasticism and even with the Church Fathers. Regarding spiritual presence, I can’t say exactly how strong this continuity is, but it is clearly affirmed by Augustine, making it evident that it was not an invention of Calvin. As for the last response, we Reformed do not believe in any kind of communication between the divine and human natures. I don’t understand this in Lutherans-don’t you believe in absolute divine simplicity? If so, there is no real separation between the attributes of the divine essence. Therefore, if the divine nature were to communicate even a single attribute (onipresence) to the human nature, all the other attributes would necessarily be communicated as well, since they are inseparable.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 You missed the point. I didn't say that you'll never find any theologians saying anything even remotely similar to what Calvin said about the Supper prior to the 16th century (though you have no valid claim on St. Augustine). I said that the 16th century is the first time this error took root among Christians. It became widespread and acceptable in parts of Europe for the first time during that century. Similarly, Arianism wasn't a problem in the third century because the idea had never ever been floated before. It was a problem because Arius' hymnody spread the error, making it popular and acceptable. That's the thing that was new in the 16th century with the Calvin's doctrine of the Supper. My larger point is that you cannot condemn the Lutherans for developing a "novel" Christology without acknowledging that the widespread acceptance of the absence of Christ's body from the Supper was also novel. You say that Calvinists deny any communication of attributes between the two natures of Christ. Really? Do you deny that Jesus healed people and raised the dead with human vocal chords? Do you deny that Jesus vanished from sight of the two disciples who had walked with him on the Emmaus road? Do you deny that he appeared to the eleven (several miles away, but on the same night) as they were cowering behind a locked door? Do you deny that the stone was rolled away from Jesus' tomb AFTER he had risen from the dead and walked out of that same tomb? If this ability to vanish and appear out of nowhere and walk through sealed and locked doors is NOT the communication of divine attributes to Christ's human nature, then what is it? If no divine attributes have ever been communicated to Jesus' human nature, then you would be able to find him, physically, travel to his location, and have a face-to-face conversation with him. Why aren't you out there looking for him? You might say, "Because he's in heaven." Oh really? What human being has ever been (or will ever go) to heaven in the flesh? Is there oxygen there? You accept the communication of certain divine attributes to take Jesus' body out of sight. But you are unwilling to accept the communication of divine attributes that would make his body and blood present in the Supper! That's just an insane, inconsistent, duplicity. You accept the communication of attributes to take Christ away from us, but deny the communication of attributes whereby He promises to be with us always, even to the end of the age. That's why I will never again be a Calvinist.
@@pete3397 I know, but this position is unsustainable. To be Nestorian is to separate the two natures, and Reformed theology affirms that both are united in Christ. However, Chalcedon also states that they do not mix, and this is where the divergence lies: from our perspective, Lutherans mix both natures by allowing the communication of attributes, while Reformed theology keeps them united without mixing them.
@@pete3397I’m not Lutheran but, yeah, it’s pretty cut and dried Nestorianism. Especially if you read Vermigli, then read Calvin’s Christology in light of that.
I just wanted to thank you for honouring and mentioning brother Richard Wurmbrand in some of your latest videos. I am part of the Romanian Protestant community and almost everyone who is, like me, a second third, or fourth generation Romanian Protestant has some sort of connection to a person who suffered a lot and was imprisoned or persecuted on account of their faith in Jesus Christ during the Communist era. So, it is a big part of our spiritual culture and heritage, the persecutions of our forefathers are to this day very often (if not every Sunday) mentioned in Church and in sermons. A lot of us grew up with these stories of great heroes of the faith like Wurmbrand, Moldoveanu, Dorz, and others who gave up everything for the love of Christ. My grandfather, who is still with us, is a Pentecostal pastor and author and was an underground church planter during the communist era. He would run from town to town with the "securitate" on his tail preaching the Word to whoever he met and starting churches in many small villages and towns. He has many amazing stories about the work of God in his life and the lives of others. The Christian community as a whole was very tight-knit at that point in time, despite having small theological disagreements. So, he knew a lot of pastors, priests, and laymen of all sorts who suffered for the faith. It really means a lot hearing the name of Rev. Wurmbrand on such a large platform, especially considering most of the other material that has been written about that period of Christian persecution in Romania will never be translated out of Romanian. Thanks, and God bless you!
I never thought about this that deeply and this really was helpful. Thank you very much. I got a lot of value out of this brief episode. God bless and keep up your work.
To borrow from your analogy… What if Tolkien decided to write himself in as a character, not only as any ordinary shire-dweller, but also as something more. Surely Tolkien-in-shire could participate in what the author is or possesses. Perhaps he tells Bilbo what is to come in the story, perhaps he receives worship from Gandalf as the author of these events, or perhaps he possesses and generously bestows miraculous plot-armor to his friends. Would this be a contradiction to write himself in after this manner? No, and in fact it would make it all the more apparent that Tolkien is one person and not two. It would be disappointing if the author communicated absolutely nothing to the character in the story, especially if the character had a great mission to accomplish. Without any communication, one might start to wonder whether there are two Tolkiens.
Oooh interesting. Eager to watch! Inb4 Roman Catholics point to this as an example of division: think about Thomists vs. Jesuits. We view each other as Christians, not schismatics. Okay, listening!
Thomists and Jesuits (who follow the Molinist line of thought though this varies) belong to the same visible Church. Confessional Lutherans and Reformed don't. Besides, Confessional Lutherans condemned Calvinist views of the Eucharist at the Formula of Concord. Perhaps they no longer hold to this confession which would be interesting.
@@computationaltheist7267I'm not aware they condemned Calvinists to hell. We view ourselves as part of the one visible church that subsists in different sub-communions, so the point is moot.
@@computationaltheist7267Thats not true. Your claim assumes a Roman understanding of the visible church. So it begs the question. Worshiping in separate buildings doesn’t mean a divided visible church. No more than liberal Roman Catholic parishes and Latin Mass practicing ones don’t make a divided visible church in the Roman understanding despite them having theological differences.
@@anglicanaesthetics I didn't say they condemned Calvinists to hell. I simply said that the Reformed view of the Eucharist has been condemned and language like "being outside the Catholic Church" seems to indicate a really strong view of condemnation so I am not sure how the point can be moot if the Reformed have at least a questionable view. That's not unity and you can't dismiss it like it's nothing when it's essential to C. Lutheran theology. Your view of the Church essentially eliminates the sin of schism. The Early Church viewed the Church as a visible institution that has the duty to spread the Gospel and bind doctrine so if that doesn't exist, the sin of schism doesn't exist.
@@computationaltheist7267 The sin of schism is committed when Christians excommunicate other Christians, or separate from fellowship, for bad reasons--e.g. for reasons that have nothing to do with the apostolic teaching. So the Roman theologians at the time of the Reformation who excommunicated Protestants would be guilty of schism. I didn't deny it's an important discussion and never said it was "nothing". I said it wasn't an issue we view each other as damned over. Which means we see each other as still part of the church catholic.
I was driving while listening to this, so I can happily report that I did not notice the new video effects. It was really interesting, though. As an author, I always enjoy thinking about the Tolkien metaphor and I found your larger response to the Lutheran tradition very thought-provoking. While I tend to gravitate more high church, I agree that oftentimes those mid-way high church traditions don't get nearly enough critical consideration while the evangelicals are often unfairly bashed. Thank you, dear friend! Also, a video between you at Alex O'Connor sounds like a dream come true, so I look forward to seeing where that goes. God bless!
The opinion of Luther is actually not far off the Orthodox position, although it is not the same. This seems to be a problem with understanding the distinction between two concepts. One is that human nature does not become divine nature. Thus, in Christ, the two natures do not merge nor become confused. The second is that man is to partake of the divine nature. These need to be reconciled. The solution is to distinguish between the essence of a nature and the operations of the nature. Given this distinction, we can affirm that according to essence, the two natures of Christ are absolutely distinct. However, according to the operations of the nature, human nature is able to participate in the divine operations. Thus, Christ according to His human nature is able to walk on water as it participates in the divine operation. Also, prophets are able to truly speak the word of God. Man as made in the image and likeness of God is able to be like God in his operations without ceasing to be human. The definition of a human is not one that requires a limit of activity to those not of God. The main issues in this video seem to be participation in attributes such as omniscience and omnipresence. Firstly, regarding omniscience. There is nothing about being man qua man that denies man to know all things. This rather is an issue of the limits of created nature at its point of creation. However, this limit at the point of creation does not mean that the creature is permanently restricted to its limits if God so wishes to prefect the creature with His knowledge. One may have still have a type of statement that the creature has no limit to what knowledge that he may have, but likewise there is no limit on the creature learning more from His initial state of limit because the knowledge is infinite. Given that one can argue this for omniscience, then one can argue this for omnipresence. That is even though man is created as limited spatially, there is no reason why man as man must remain spatially limited to be man. One needs to take care that one does not confuse the initial state of man as a creature with the God's goal for the creature as perfected in God. While a creature starts as limited, this does not mean that God does not want the creature to become unlimited, that is for the creature to become like the Creator. Rather as being created in the image and likeness of God, one can argue that man is not created to be limited, but that he is able to become perfect like God, that is participate in operations and even attributes of God without ceasing to be man because the identity of man as man is one created in the image and likeness of God and not according to the limit of man's present state per se. God does not say that He created man as a specifically sized piece of matter 6' by 2' by 1'. Orthodox call this participation in divine nature, theosis (union with God) and they do affirm that man participates in the eternal and infinite existence of God and moreover that such is even necessary for man to be created without God contradicting Himself as the fullness of reality, which is infinite and eternal. However, one needs to distinguish between natures lest man collapse into God and cease to be man or change God. Man is always creature in respect to God as Creator. Man according to essence has a beginning, God does not.
Yes, Lutherans definitely speak of theosis, but not in the same regard as Orthodox does. But that’s some missing context of what Ortlund is speaking about. That said, would you mind getting into the differences between Luther and the Orthodox position? I’m assuming you’re Orthodox?
@@kengineexpress I am Orthodox. I would like to go into the differences between Luther and the Orthodox position, but I will need to do quite a bit of extra research to present the Lutheran position accurately and it may require me to write a rather long article to do this. Sadly I don't have the time at present for this. Can you perhaps pull out some of the statements that Ortlund makes or that may have been stated by Luther, so that I can address them more specifically?
Good points. Lutheran Christology, while not Orthodox per se, is derived largely from the Christology laid out by the Cappadocians. So, it seems that the Orthodox and the Lutherans start from that basis and then diverge somewhat but do retain many affinities and categorical perspectives. There is a current Lutheran focus on theosis and what that actually means. Hopefully, Dr. Cooper in his response will touch on this. He does have a book called "Union with Christ" that addresses the Lutheran views of theosis. I'm trying to remember exactly, but I think one of the sticking points in the Lutheran-Orthodox discussion of theosis has to do with practices related to hesychasm as a means of "union."
Great video - really clarified some things for me regarding Lutheran theology. I was wondering, have you ever thought about doing any videos engaging with Methodism? Methodism/Wesleyanism seems to me to be an underrepresented Protestant tradition on TH-cam. There is still a really rich, conservative Methodist tradition that is alive and well today, in spite of the error and compromise in the UMC. I’d love to see you do a video interacting with a Wesleyan concept like “entire sanctification”.
Watching this after a 12 hour shift as a Baptist who knows nothing about Lutheran christology 😂 it’s a bit over my head but still enjoying it and learning!
As a lutheran, how was Christ able to make a finite amount of bread and fish be multiplied for many? Also, with Him going away, He has also promised to be with us always despite not being here in the fullness of the sense. With all respect and appreciation for your ministry.
@amirsmith9269 how was Christ able to make a finite amount of bread and fish be multiplied for many? Because He is God. Jesus has two natures. Also, with Him going away, He has also promised to be with us always despite not being here in the fullness of the sense? With the Holy Spirit, Jesus is with us. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9)
@@thomasglass9491But that contradicts the nature of bread /s In all seriousness, the better question is post resurrection when Jesus walked through the door to visit the disciples in the ending of John. Being able to pass through solid matter is contrary to the nature of his humanity. If his body can pass through matter without displacing it, surely it can be local in many places at once.
@@RevancedBurner an explanation offered by many commentators is that the resurrected body does not seem to have the same limitations as a natural one. It is capable of interacting with the natural world but also capable of transcending it. The Lord is not portrayed as appearing suddenly like that prior to the resurrection, although He did perform signs that showed His Creatorial authority over the natural world as God (walking on waves, calming a storm, healing disease, raising the dead, multiplying the loaves and fish...).
Question-Why at the 6 min mark does the text on the screen say "common person" while Dr. Ortlund appearing to read it speaks of "the human person?" Who is the human person in Christ?
Okay, listened in full. Good video! And of course, Anglicans generally lean Reformed on this question, although Richard Hooker's via media between the Reformed and Lutheran position bests captures it: "“Again, as the manhood of Christ may, in a sense, be said to be everywhere present-because that Person is everywhere present, from whose divine substance manhood is nowhere severed-so the same universality of presence may likewise be attributed to all things which the Deity of Christ works. Even the body of Christ itself, although its definite limitation is most evident, nonetheless admits, in some sense, a kind of infinite and unlimited presence as well. For his body, being a part of that nature which is wholly joined to Deity wherever Deity is, follows that his bodily substance has, everywhere, a presence of true conjunction with Deity. This may also seem, in another respect, applicable by its cooperation with Deity in all things.”"
That basically identical to the Lutheran explanation in Article 8 of the solid declaration of the formula. The problem is people read article 7, on the Lord's Supper, without realizing article 8, On the Nature of Christ, is the theological explanation behind the statements in article 7
Hello Gavin, I’ve heard that when Lutherans speak of the “ubiquity” of Christ’s body, they do not literally mean it occupies all space at once in an omnipresent sense. Instead, they mean that Christ can be bodily present wherever He wills, without being confined to one single location. And Lutherans say the Eucharistic presence transcends normal spatial categories. They don’t see it as Christ’s body being cloned or physically dissected. Is that accurate, and how does that differ from the way you characterized it?
I haven't listened yet, but knowing the subject (Lutheran 'ubiquity'), I would have called this Eucharistic theology rather than Christology, because Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed are all Chalcedonian. Calvin thought the believer was translated to Heaven in the sacrament (thereby Real Presence), whereas E.B. Pusey, for example, thought Christ was really, sacramentally (though not physically) present when believers took the Elements. And both of these are different than transubstantiation. Same Christology, very different Eucharistic theologies.
Lutheran christology leans heavily on Cyril. If you recall so did Monophysites although Cyril himself was orthodox . Some Catholic theologians have thought they detect a whiff of Monophysitism in some Lutheran articulations of aspects of their Christology. Just a whiff.
What do you do with union with Christ or the strangeness of Christ's bodily apparitions post resurrection? I think the Lutheran view is just taking what we're presented with in scripture at face value and not attempting to rationalize it.
No no no, Reformed became Calvnism as an insult to the Reformed. Evangelicalism became Lutheranism as an insult to the Lutherans. Both names just happened to stick.
@@phantompenguintgl1652 actually, there is. Christ promises to be with us, always until the end of the age. This was said right before his ascension. If Christ’s two natures are perfectly united, there should be no place where one nature is, but the other isn’t. Wherever Christ is spiritually, there he is physically. We don’t know how, but we confess these truths.
@bruhmingo he is with us through the Holy Spirit, aka the Spirit of Christ. Not physically and bodily with us any more on earth, but spiritually present.
@@phantompenguintgl1652as I said, we would say that is dividing the natures. Jesus doesn’t qualify the statement. He simply says He (himself) will be with us. That’s why we can say Christ is truly there when we gather in worship reading his word and eating his body. All Christians also believe in the indwelling of each person of the trinity in eachother. Where the Holy Spirit is, there is also Christ and the Father. Therefore, if Christ is with us, and his body is inseparable from his spirt, his body is with us.
I think the best christian literature on this topic is Philip Carry's "The meaning of protestant theology". Carry is blessed with such a convenient logical tracing on how Luther was going on the same track as Augustine. He also addresses Calvin's view and how Luther & Calvin (despite their differences and despite later scholastic debates) are so close in their approaches, which is similar towhat dr. Ortlund says on Luther's novelty in his approach.
Ha! I’m pretty sure that most Lutherans don’t think about Christ’s nature on this level. Most I’ve talked to aren’t really that sure. This is an academic discussion. Great discussion. I grew up in a Lutheran church ( in the 70’s on the west coast… yeah it makes a little difference) and I was never taught any of this directly or indirectly. Great exposition!!!❤
I'm not as sure. There are a decent number of Lutherans I have interacted with on the internet who have seem at least as enthused about niche and particular theological subjects ae I think intellectual reformed are. These were all LCMS Lutherans and seemed to all be quite catechized and knowledgeable, though also all tended to defer to their pastor on subjects they were lest confident in. I am pretty similar doctrinally to Gavin, reformed leaning Baptist and what not, on a lot of different areas but I think it is just a common problem for all churches, and not just Lutherans, that the majority of lay people are not that deep into things theologically. I mean, I was in a community group at my church and I noticed that most did not have properly orthodox idea of the Trinity. None of them had ever heard of the concept of annilationism, thought that immaculate conception was referring to Jesus being sinless and not the RC dogma of Mary being immaculately conceived, had no understanding of what they believed about the end times other than a vague idea of a rapture and Jesus returning, and had no doctrine about baptism or communion other than them being symbols. But I think that is the beauty of the truth of Christianity: that the essentials are so simple that children and even those with intellectual disability can become part of the family of Christ and that the well of Christianity is so deep (owing to our worshipping an infinite, eternal God) that there is an infinite depth of intellectual stimulation in our faith. I think internet videos about intellectually heady theological concepts self select for people with a greater than average knowledge of Christian theological concepts compared to the average Christian living a quiet, simple, lowly life worshipping our God.
But also, the author of Hebrews did worry about the group he was writing stagnating in their faith (Hebrews 5:11-6:3). So take all my talk in my last paragraph in balance to that.
@@jhutchns1 Catalog Of Testimonies 171 Although it is known and undeniable that the Godhead, together with its divine majesty, is not to be locally circumscribed by the flesh, as though it were enclosed in a vessel, as Athanasius, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and others correctly wrote, and as also the Book of Concord [p. 1019 expressly rejects as an error the teaching that the humanity of Christ has been locally expanded into all places, or that, by the personal union, the human nature in Christ has been transformed into an infinite essence, - nevertheless, since the divine and human natures are personally and inseparably united in Christ, the Holy Scriptures and the holy fathers testify that wherever Christ is, there is not half His person, or only one half, or only a part of His person, for instance, the divinity alone, separate and bare, minus and without His assumed humanity personally united thereto or separated from it, and outside of the personal union with the humanity; but that His entire person, namely, as God and man, according to the mode of the personal union with the humanity, which is an inscrutable mystery, is everywhere present in a way and measure which is known to God. 172 Eph. 4:10: He ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. This Oecumenius explains thus: “For, indeed, He long ago filled all things with His bare divinity; and having become incarnate, that He might fill all things with His flesh, He descended and ascended.” 173 And THEOPHYLACT, on the same passage (Comment. in Eph., p. 535, ed. Lond., 1636): “In order that He might fill all things with His dominion and working, and that, in the flesh, since even before He filled all things with His divinity. These things, however, are against Paul of Samosata and Nestorius.” 174 LEO, Epist. 10 (Ep. 24, cap. 5, p. 245, and in Serm., f. 121, ed. cit.): “The Church Catholic lives and advances in this faith, that in Christ Jesus there is believed neither the humanity without the true divinity nor the divinity without the true humanity.” 175 The same, in Discourse 3, On the Passion: “This the catholic faith teaches, this it requires, that we know that in our Redeemer two natures have united, and that, while their properties remained, such a union of both substances has occurred that, from the time in which the Word became flesh in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, we are not to think of God without this, that He is man; nor of the man without this, that He is God.” 176 In the same place: “Each nature, by distinct operations, declares its genuineness, but neither separates itself from connection with the other; here nothing belonging to the one is lacking to the other; but God assumed the entire man, and so united Himself to man and man to Himself, that each nature is in the other, and neither passed into the other with the loss of its own attributes.” 177 But since in this article such teaching is especially directed to the end that we may know where we should seek and may apprehend the entire person of the Mediator, God and man, the Book of Concord, as also all other holy fathers, directs us, not to wood or stone or anything else, but to that to which Christ has pointed and directed us in and with His Word. 178 CYRIL, lib. 2, John, cap. 32 (t. 3, p. 1063, ed. cit.): “The garments of Christ were divided into four parts, and His mantle alone remained undivided, which, I may say, was a sign of a mystery. For the four quarters of the world, brought to salvation, have shared the garment of the Word, that is, His flesh, among themselves in such a way that it has not been divided. For the Only-begotten, passing into each so as to be shared by each, and sanctifying their soul and body by His flesh, is in all indivisibly and entirely, since, being one, He is everywhere in no manner divided.” 179 THEOPHYLACT, on John cap. 19 (f. 825, ed. cit.): “Therefore the holy body of Christ is indivisible, being divided and distributed among the four quarters of the earth; for both being distributed among them individually, and sanctifying the soul of each one with the body, the Only-begotten is by His own flesh entirely and indivisibly in all, being everywhere; for He has been in no wise divided, as Paul also exclaims.” 180 CHRYSOSTOM (t. 4, p. 1773, ed. Basil. and t. 6, f. 846, ed. Frankf.), Homil. 17, Ad Ebr., p. 16 (and Ambrose, cap. 10, Ad Hebraicos): “Since He is offered up in many places, are there many Christs? Not at all. But the one Christ is everywhere, being completely here and completely there, one body. For as He who is offered in many places is one body, and not many bodies, so is He also one sacrifice. He is that High Priest of ours who has offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. We also now offer that which, having been then offered, was not consumed. This is done in remembrance of that which was then done. ‘This do,’ says He, ‘in remembrance of Me.’ For we do not make another sacrifice, as the high priest, but always the same. We rather bring about a remembrance of the sacrifice.” (Note: Against the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass of the Papists.)
I think there is good support for the idea that Jesus can be locally present in one place and yet still omnipresent at the same time in 1 Kings 8 where similar language is used of God's presence in the Temple. We are told that God comes to dwell in the temple in verse 10-11: "When the priests withdrew from the Holy Place, the cloud filled the temple of the Lord. And the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled his temple." Yet numerous times in Solomon's prayer of dedication he asks God to "hear from heaven, your dwelling place". He reflects on this mystery in Verse 27: "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!" How God can be locally present in one place and still omniscient at the same time is a mystery even King Solomon struggled to understand, but it appears he did not see any problem with it.
Why does everyone make simplicity so difficult. Jesus is fully God. Jesus is fully man. Jesus is the God man. Being God ,"in human flesh" doesn't strip Him of His omnipotence, which includes His omnipresence. To strip His humanity of omnipresence is to strip his divinity of humanity. Dr. Ortland is arguing from the typical Reformed inconsistency which seems to stem from being unable to accept the mysterious. It is a mystery as to how His humanity can be omnipresent, yes - nevertheless its true. Afterall He said "lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age."
I think one thing that's missing from this conversation is the assumption that human attributes now are the same as resurrection-body human attributes. I think St. Paul's comparison of the resurrection body to a plant growing from a seed at least opens the door for the possibility that there might be more resurrectional attributes that human nature has. Along with this, Calvin's interpretation of how Christ was able to bilocate and appear to five hundred people or walk through walls is lawyerly sophistry of the highest degree because he's grounding his ideas in some serious a prioris that aren't necessarily true.
You did a good job explaining 👍🏼. It's funny-sometimes I sit in front of those videos and skip back again and again and again because I don't get it 😅. And then I give up and just listen, hoping that at some point I will understand the problem. But no... I am lost-marveling at the intelligence of the question and the debate itself 👏🏼😳👏🏼🥸. To me, it is so interesting how the Church Fathers thought about things in great detail and debated so intelligently about each point. I learn so much from this!
Did he just say Calvin/reformed (extra Calvinisticum) view is found in Theodore of Mopsuetia? Relying on him for Christology makes it hard to try to deny Nestorian charges.
“When anyone considers the natures, he necessarily discovers [that they are different from] one another. Nor do I think that there is any controversy here, since God the Word is one by nature and the other is admitted to have been assumed (whatever this may mean). Yet this latter is said to be simultaneously the same person (persona) whose [two] natures are in no way confused, but [are one] because of the assumed one’s union with the assuming One. For, if one willingly grants that the latter is other than the former by nature, it is evident that the one assumed is not equal to the One assuming. However each will be clearly found to be the same one in a prosopic union. Therefore, one has to make distinctions in regard to Christ without there being any contradiction here. For these [distinctions] closely conform to what the divine Scriptures [state]. So the natures are not to be confused, nor the person to be perversely divided.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, On the Incarnation, Book V “To say that the body of the Divine Logos also had a soul does not indicate the divinity of the soul. For … Christ, being one and not two, composed of divinity and humanity, says that he, being human, lays down his soul for it is his and part of him, although he was also God in nature, assuming flesh - which had a soul - and united it to him.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, Fragment 87, X. 18 I’ll just leave this here
Loved this! This was so helpful. Not because you dunked on the Lutherans or anything but I had my own questions about how to understand the two natures and you cleared that up. Also when you try to explain the spatial problem with understanding the extra-Calvinisticum, I think it’s important to recall that God is Simple so it’s not like the claim is that the incarnation was part of God coming in flesh since God does not have parts. Jesus takes on a nature and the full person of the Son is the Christ who dies for us.
There’s great chapter in a recent book called Least of the Apostles by William Glass and Brendan Case that I think is potentially helpful for this question. Case examines a possible relationship between Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15 about Christ being “raised a Spiritual body” and various passages in John’s Gospel. It draws out some helpful suggestions for how a human body fully and immediately animated by the power of the Holy Spirit might differ from human bodies in the way we know them now-like walking through walls. I’m not endorsing ubiquity outright, but it seems worth considering how extensively divine attributes might be manifested in the glorified humanity of our Lord and yet in no way betray the Church’s discernment at Chalcedon.
This all begs the question of what the presence of Christ will actually constitute in the new heaven and the new earth. Are we going to have to wait in line to be in his physical presence? I am sure someone has addressed this, but I am not aware of the study.
nah. that was different case. h e refused to call Virgin Mary as Theotokos and phrases like God died on the cross. Confessional Reformed did not do that.
My problem is that if the divine nature is inseparably united with the human nature in the one person, then how is the one person and the divine nature present somewhere while the human nature is not? Even if the human nature in and of itself is not omnipresent, it seems to me that the hypostatic union must in some sense communicate this property from the divinity to the humanity. Not as a change in the humanity, but simply as a consequence of this humanity now existing in one person who, by the attributes of his divinity, is omnipresent. So that anywhere where this person is, there is also his humanity, because the person is both divine and human. Not partly human somewhere in a particular place, and divine everywhere else, but everywhere the person is truly divine and truly human.
As a Lutheran, I obviously don’t see the issues the Reformed have raised. I think the problem stems from Calvin trying to provide a concrete answer to things not concretely answered in the Bible. Rome does the same thing. For example, Rome developed its doctrine of Transubstantiation to concretely make sense of Christ telling us, “this is My body” and “this is My blood”. Calvin, searching for a concrete answer arrives at a different answer. Regardless of how concretely one tries to make sense of Christ proclaiming the real presence of His body and His blood in the Holy Eucharist, we are not provided an explanation of how this is. But knowing Christ is always true, we can only accept this as the fact it is, and state it is a holy mystery left unexplained by God’s infallible Word. Lutherans would also point to Revelations that shows there is a tie between the Alter in Heaven and those in the Churches. As some have said, we find Heaven on Earth present.
Agreed. It is a mystery how the bread can be body and the cup can be blood-- all we have to work with is "is." Better to leave that to God to understand in its fullness; and for our part simply respond in obedience to the parts that we have been commanded about. I think Deuteronomy 29:29 is a helpful frame of mind-- "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."
Consider that in John 6:35-59, the Jews stumbled over these very same concepts because they thought some kind of natural explanation was meant. In that passage the Lord continued onward to speak of the indwelling and abiding of God, which is spiritual. The Jews generally, and even the disciples before the indwelling of the Spirit, struggled with the Lord's words more than once because they wanted a natural explanation for something where He was speaking in spiritual terms. That desire to naturalize what is intended as spriritual, IS an example of trying to "make sense" of something against the author's revealed intent.
Honest question, how do we derive our understanding of nature and all that kind of stuff from the Bible? I keep hearing about it but the things always referenced are from some theologians so I am trying to find the tip of the thread which begins from the Bible.
Deep Christological tensions surrounding the Biblical Theopaschite Doctrine (God being capable of having born, suffered and died, along with the virgin Mary being regarded as the blessed Theotokos) versus the equally Biblical Doctrine of Divine Impassibility and Divine Immutability have been very apparent in the disputes of different degrees of emphasis between 1. the Nestorian-leaning Church of the East versus the Non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox (of which the Chalcedonian-affirming churches stand in the middle) And 2. the Lutherans & Anglo-Catholics versus the Reformed Calvinists, Restorationists, Anabaptists, and Evangelicals pertaining to the Communicatio idiomatum in the Lord’s Supper and the Theology of the Cross
Hey Gavin, I think a better analogy for the extra calvinisticum should be Charles Schultz existing both within the Peanuts comic strip as Charlie Brown and outside of the comic as the author. Not sure if you prefer this example but it's what comes to mind for me!
Good discussion. Lutherans, unlike Calvinists, have no problem with the existence of divine mysteries. There are things we just don't understand and will not until all things are revealed.
Ah yes, was waiting for one of these. Contradictions stand no chance when we cover it with that peanut butter word “mystery”. It literally coats over everything and makes argument a waste of time. Priceless
Are you sniffing something? Calvin, and so Calvinists, are happy with mystery where it exists. We don't use it as a cover for holding contradictory opinions.
@@dylanwagoner9768Sometimes mystery actually is appropriate. Look at other fields of knowledge. Is a photon a wave? A particle? Best to say that we know certain things to be true even though we can't neatly reconcile them than to claim we can. It's a sound Christian instinct to be suspicious of how far one can extend the Bible's revelation into new knowledge using reason.
Another argument is that if we believe in absolute divine simplicity (and i bemieve Lutherans do), it would not be possible for the omnipresence of the divine nature to be communicated to Christ's human nature without the communication of all the other attributes of the divine nature.
Hey Gavin, I have some thoughts on the upcoming video on Penance. For a Protestant appraisal on Penance I’d look at what Philip Schaff says in his History of the Christian Church about its development by the medieval scholastics (he calls them schoolmen) if you haven’t already. You know, I’m a RC struggling with his faith on the verge of being Protestant, but I found his criticisms of it to be very profound and don’t disagree with them. This stuff is difficult but it needs to be said and is conspicuously absent from the ecumenical dialogue. I get SO MUCH out of confession when I go, but have serious issues with the logic behind it historically. I go to more liberal parishes that are less serious with some of that. It’s very helpful psychologically and spiritually but it worries me to see people who think they actually lost their salvation by sinning going to confession and thinking they are saved again from it. A lot of priests use the term mortal sin for any grave sin too which doesn’t help. I don’t think people really appreciate the gravity of that, of actually thinking you’re in a state of actual mortal sin and being told you HAVE to go to a Priest for confession before you can receive Communion unless you’re dying or something. This seems to be totally absent from the ecumenical dialogue which often says we agree on justification but just use different terms. In my opinion that’s bullshit and I feel very hurt and betrayed because I believed it coming into the RCC and now I see it’s not that simple. My church seems to officially say if I don’t go to a Catholic Mass on Sunday’s or Holy Days of Obligation, or don’t fast on certain days, or use contraception, or use the Lord’s name in vain, etc. intentionally and knowingly then that’s a mortal sin. I’ve lost my salvation and have to get it back again. And then I’m told we agree with the Protestants on justification? Really? I see a lot of this as actually harmful, especially for people who habitually commit the same sins over and over again. My conscience is really convicting me on this that something’s not right here and I don’t know how much longer I can keep doing this. The doctrine of Justification for me almost has me at the point of being a Protestant again but I’m still discerning if that’s really what God wants me to do especially with some extenuating circumstances, just please pray for me.
I would recommend talking to a wise priest . The subjective requirements for grave matter to be a mortal sin may be a bit more extensive than you think - and that is not simply a post V2 mindset. Habituation to a sin can lessen your freedom in choosing it . But one should always confess grave matter because it is so hard to discern. But one just trusts in the Lord. Yes some may habitually sin and so habitually confess . I see nothing wrong with that as long as they are sincere in their act of contrition . If anyone has a problem with scrupulosity they should seek out a wise priest as well.
@ thanks for the comment, at this point I’ve spoken with many Priests. Some were very unhelpful, some were wiser. The more liberal Priests were great, the problem is that what they said doesn’t seem to be what Rome says. I agree with the ones who say the rules are more guideposts/ guardrails but that doesn’t seem to be what Rome actually says. I don’t think you get it, or many of them get it. Being told you’ve (even possibly) lost your salvation is the most serious thing there is. I agree we must trust the Lord but I feel like I’m being told it’s kind of all on me, at least in the sense that if I die in a state of mortal sin, I go to hell and that’s MY fault. And I can never really KNOW if I’m in a state of grace or not. I can ask for Graces and helps but if I don’t get them again, it’s my fault. And I know I’m a great sinner and if my salvation is ultimately put on my shoulders I cannot possibly be saved. But I don’t believe it is all on me. I take Christ at his word that whoever hears his word and believes in the one who sent him HAS eternal life. But this seems to put me in conflict with Rome’s soteriology. Paul says because we’ve been (past tense) justified by faith we have (present tense) peace with God, I just don’t see how that fits here at all.
@ I have had such concerns though not to the degree you have. So I understand more than you may think I do. Let me suggest one more thing . Not sure if you are aware of “perfect contrition “. Unfortunately it is a misleading label. All it means is that one is sorry for a sin not simply because one is afraid of going to hell, but because one is sorry he has disappointed God who he loves and who loves him. Sorry out of love of God. Like children who are often sorry because they know they have disappointed mommy and daddy who they love (and who loves them). Not just because they will get punished. If one is sorry for one’s sins in this way, one is absolved of mortal sin. One still goes to confession as soon as possible but this can remove that sense of potentially being in mortal danger until one goes to confession. Also I sense that you may have made a relatively hasty conversion which is why I suggest folks also take a lot of time in their conversion journey . And I do sense you may have a tendency towards scrupulosity which I know is difficult to deal with (from family experience). In your original comment you asked for prayers so I will pray for you. Hope you find peace .
@ thanks for your response and prayers, I can need all I can get. Ironically I took a very long time to formally convert and am taking a very long time in the other direction too in questioning.
I always point Muslims towards the extra Calvinisticum. When they ask “did Jesus stop being God?” And as it being a widely held doctrine it always seems to help
many seminaries around the world often confused Nestorius's actual teachings in the Bazaar of the Heracleides (and the historic confessions of the Church of the East) with the condemned straw-man "Nestorianism" that no church ever taught. The Council of Ephesus led by Cyril of Alexandria was conducted in a very condescending manner with much haste to simply condemn Nestorius over a linguistic misunderstanding. I would encourage the creator of this video to mention about the historic confessions of the Church of the East in honouring Nestorius while also denouncing the false straw-man of Christ existing in 2 co-existing infused "prosopoi" that was mistakenly and unfairly attributed to them throughout history. The condemned straw-man of "nestorianism" (which was frequently wrongfully attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and the Church of the East) that taught Christ as existing in 2 co-existing infused "prosopoi" was very similar to the heresy of "adoptionism". Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and the Church of the East would never ever teach such a false heresy of "adoptionism" in which the straw-man "nestorianism" is a subset. The issue was of the philosophical and linguistic difficulties on precisely understanding Christ's 2 distinct, unconfused yet inseparably connected natures. The complex issue can be understood as follows: For the Non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox, they believe that the Incarnate Christ as the perfect singular God-man was born of the Virgin Mary (as the Theotokos/bearer of God) and died on the Cross. Thus they would strongly articulate that the Son of God was born, "God suffered" (Theopaschite), died, and rose again as the Same Person being fully God and fully man inseparably. Thus Non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox feel the need to strongly articulate that it is ultimately an ontological Person that thinks, moves and acts as in reality, whereas a "nature/essence" is an abstract characteristic that cannot think, move and act on its own. But for Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and the Church of the East, they believe that the Incarnate Christ was born of the Virgin Mary (as the Christotokos/bearer of Christ) according to his human nature distinctly as a Man, and died on the Cross as according to his human nature distinctly as a Man, yet this Same Person Jesus Christ is also fully divine in its own right as a distinct reality. Thus they would strongly articulate that the Jesus being the perfect Son of Man was born, died, and rose again, while this same Jesus in his being as a Divine Person cannot be born and die. Thus Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and the Church of the East feel the need to keep distinct this 2 natures of the Same Person Jesus Christ each as a personification in its own "categorical ontology". They are against the concept of Theopaschism (where God is capable of suffering). The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, tries to resolve this big conundrum and infighting by condemning the 2 opposite sides and strive to seek a Biblically faithful and conservative middle-ground. It provided the Chalcedonian Definition that describes of a Hypostatic Union of Christ's 2 distinct, unconfused and inseparable natures in 1 Person. This is the view that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and all Protestant denominations strongly affirm to. Unfortunately in this process, the Non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox were mistakenly denounced and often falsely attributed as teaching "monophysitism", while the Nestorian-leaning Church of the East were mistakenly denounced and often falsely attributed as teaching "nestorianism". Sadly, disputes over Christology replays itself again during the Protestant Reformation, this time pertaining to the Communicatio idiomatum during the administration of the Lord's Supper (even though all Protestant denominations strongly affirm to the Chalcedonian Definition). All Lutherans, Moravians, and Anglo-Catholics (high-church Anglican), strongly believe in the True Bodily Presence of Christ wherever and whenever the Lord's Supper is consecrated and consumed. They also regularly teach that Christ as the perfect singular God-man was born of the virgin Mary (as the Theotokos/bearer of God) and died on the Cross, (though they do not pray to nor seek intercession from Mary). Thus Lutherans, Moravians, and Anglo-Catholics are comfortable in saying the Son of God was born, "God suffered" (Theopaschite), died, and rose again. In contrast, the Reformed Calvinists, Reformed Anglican, Presbyterian, Anabaptists, Baptists, Restorationists (Churches of Christ), Pentecostals, and contemporary Evangelicals strongly believe in a concept of Extra Calvinisticum in order to preserve and separate the distinct characteristics of Christ's 2 natures. Thus they strongly believe of a Spiritual Presence of Christ wherever and whenever the Lord's Supper is consecrated and consumed. Most Baptist, Restorationist, and contemporary Evangelicals would also prefer regarding the virgin Mary as the "mother of Christ" than "mother of God".
Hi Gavin, As an Apostolic Pentecostal, let me say that your example of Tolkien, Oxford, and the Shire is analogous to how we view John 1:1. [Jesus (God incarnate) is the eternal plan of God. -Rev. 13:8] Colloquially speaking: God was His own best plan because "if you want something done right, you may have to do it yourself.
4:02 As an ex-Lutheran, a convert as yet to Novus Ordo (I became Trad somewhat later), and apart from the question of the Sacrifice of the Mass, where I obviously agree and already agreed with the priest that it was wrong to deny that, I asked "why transsubstantiation, why not for instance ubiquity" (which by the way was one of the Lutheran tries, another being impanation, I think, another consubstantiation). The reply was very prompt. Ubiquity = Monophytism.
Excellent discussion. I had a Muslim friend in college who told me that in Islam they say that Jesus was in 70 places at once. If he could be in 70 why not everywhere? Now if you remove your brain and just go by what is said in Scripture (read christology in Pieper) you you could come up with their christology. However if you go by tradition and Calvin and Aquinas and reason and the council then Jesus is locally present is a safer place to be. That being said God can multiply the fishes and the Bread. So I don't believe you need Lutheran christology to believe in real presence. Case in point, Roman catholicism.
When Paul says Christ “upholds everything by the word of His power,” do his words NECESSARILY establish that Christ couldn’t have literally abandoned all divine activities (while remaining God ontologically) during the incarnation? I think neither Calvin nor we should presume to know the answer to this question.
300+ missed calls from Jordan Cooper
Sup rev
😆
😆
I just lost it hahaha
🤣
Ok, well, since I got about 500 messages today about this, I guess I'll have to respond...
haha, I am glad to know my video is being discussed and look forward to watching whatever you do!
RC and EO: ANATHEMA ON YOU! YOU HERETIC!
JBC & Ortlund: Hey bro I don't agree but I love you bro let's talk see you in heaven
"pRoTs aRe sO diVidEd"
@@ora_et_labora1095 Giving pleasantries to one another is not intellectoreligious union. Pleasantry is important, don't get me wrong, but actual substantial union is the absolute requirement.
Also anathema is not an issue to you if you are a Protestant anyway, so it's really not quite right for you see it as such a nonpleasantry.
@@DrJordanBCooper hahaha the community demands it!
Already preparing for the usual midnight upload, Dr. Cooper! I’m sure you will defend our side well. God bless you both.
Joined a Confessional Lutheran church some months ago. Is such a blessing to be home. Glory to God!
Same here ✝️❤️
@ Let's go!
We are tentatively planning to reply
@@ScholasticLutherans Yessir!
Can’t wait!
Looking forward to it
We are tentatively planning to watch hehe!
@@ScholasticLutherans we are so back
As a Lutheran, I’m just glad we’re getting exposure. Let the world know what we believe and examine our confessions with scripture. God bless!
One if the novelties of Lutheran orthodoxy that gets overlooked is Traducianism.
I wish more Lutherans would express and defend it. It hasn't been updated to modern metaphysics in theological dialog in AGES. There's almost nothing on it, yet it can and should inform our anthropology, ecclediology and even our understanding of 1Peter 3 in light of the great commission and the doctrine of the body of christ.
as a Lutheran who’s currently reading Chemnitz on the Two Natures in Christ, it feels like all my reading is now coming in handy lol.
Same!
This is on my reading list!
I expect a Dr. Cooper response. I think a dialogue between the two of you on this would be fruitful.
Dr. Cooper is excellent.
Dr. Cooper has a few videos on the topic already if you can't wait for a dedicated response
@@TruthUnitescan you answer my question in comment? O have recent conversation with a Muslim, although I had no problem with other issues, I had problem talking about hypostatic union. Since this is very unique.
@@TruthUnites Even according to Aristotle's definition the human nature is the intrinsic ability of the human "being" to do human things. If the human "being" isn't there, the human nature isn't there either. Like wise, the divine nature is one with the divine being. The human nature is not an intrinsic feature of the divine being, it is only united in a hypostatic union, this type of unity is not to be confused with the unity of an intrinsic feature. There is a human "being" that has a seperate essence from the divine "being"...... so how exactly are they one being? this is a question i got from a muslim person, how do you respond on this?
@@rithinsiby2653Try Godslogic yt channel or David Wood. They argue against Islam.
One thing I'm joyful for in light of this video, is the Lutheran response in the comments. Notice how Lutherans are being kind and having fun in this comments section? Nobody accusing Gavin of being a snake, or an instrument of Satan???
Romanists, and Palamites take notes... Gavin can disagree with you, but it doesn't mean he's a snake...
Thanks for the video Gavin, from a Lutheran.
While I agree that the constant name calling is un Christian like. Your statement acts as if he is discussing Lutherans the way he does Catholics and orthodox. Correct me if I’m wrong but I’ve never once heard Gavin say he wants to give Catholics or orthodox criticism out of “admiration”
@@Sonicmax8728Dr. Ortlund has said he appreciates Catholicism, and every single video he makes on it he’s always respectful toward. Of course if he has a stronger tone it’s because naturally the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism are stronger than that of fellow Protestants.
@ and that’s fair but his harsher criticism I think makes it fair for harsher criticism back. Not the nasty stuff of course i just don’t think this particular example is comparable to the Catholic/ orthodox criticism videos
Well, since Romanists and Palamites are so much holier than Protestants, they have every reason to act super aggressive and defensive, because that's just what holiness does.
@ it’s ironic you use derogatory terms to describe them while talking about how rude they are? Not sure what holiness has to do with this
Random comment unrelated to theology: I like the temperature tint of this video. It seems a little warmer as opposed to others which had a distinctly blue tint.
thanks! Yep, I am working on improving the color -- should look more like this from now on. :)
Probably either warmer lighting or color temperature correction in post.
Agreed.
To me, Lutheran Christology makes the most sense.
Dr. Ortlund. I don't agree with your analysis, but let me please say that I have been impressed -- and continue to be impressed -- with how respectful and charitable you are. Your audience owes a debt of gratitude for the excellent example. "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." John 13:35.
You seem to have side-stepped this Lutheran principle: the ministerial use of reason.
I agree that full communication of divine attributes flows out from Christ's institution of "this is my body".
The fact that it seems weird is no less weird than virgin birth or Trinity. We merely refuse to bind the conscience to some external explanation of what we imagine is possible or sensible.
Yup. As Lutherans we hold fast to the truths revealed in scripture, even if we are unable to understand how to reconcile them.
Well, God did say to love Him with all our mind, didn’t He? And what about the argument that the Lutheran position is a novelty from Luther, while the Reformed view has greater continuity with Scholasticism and the Early Church? Even Augustine seemed to believe in the spiritual presence of Christ.
In any case, it's good to have these discussions-this is how theology develops. We just can't forget that, at this moment, as historic Protestants, we should stand together against Ecclesiastical Apologetics and the absurdities of modern Evangelicalism.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Are you sure about that? From what I am reading the Lutheran view has greater history to it. Below are some examples. Correct me if I am wrong.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 A.D.):
Quote: "They 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again."
Justin Martyr (c. 150 A.D.):
Quote: "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 A.D.):
Quote: "For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity."
Another Quote:
“The bread, which receives the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. From these, the substance of our flesh is increased and supported”
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 A.D.):
Quote: "Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt any longer? And when He Himself affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood,' who can ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?"
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Are you sure about that? From what I am reading the Lutheran view has greater history to it. Below are some examples. Correct me if I am wrong.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 A.D.):
Quote: "They 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again."
Justin Martyr (c. 150 A.D.):
Quote: "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 A.D.):
Quote: "For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity."
Another Quote:
“The bread, which receives the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. From these, the substance of our flesh is increased and supported”
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 A.D.):
Quote: "Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt any longer? And when He Himself affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood,' who can ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?"
Thanks, Gavin, for the video. This topic would be a great conversation between you and our (Lutheran) 1517 podcast "The Thinking Fellows."
Blessings, brother!
This is so cool! I love both Chad and Gavin. Please make it happen!!
Thank you for thinking of us! Seriously, Gavins' work helped me settle in a Lutheran church, so I'm thankful.
Thanks!
Hey Brother Ortlund, Lutheran here, Love your work. A few considerations.
Firstly: In the transfiguration it seems to me that Christ's divine nature permeates through his human nature, I believe this is the reading of the fathers. Christ's human body is transfigured before the the 3 disicples which seems to be in some sense communicating the glory of the divine nature but not other attributes like omni-presence. So it does not seem implausible to me that Christ in his person can communicate the attribute of omni-presence to his human nature to make his flesh appear spiritually on altars for only the occasion of the Lord's Supper. Saying that how can a human body be omni-present is like saying how can a human body be transfigured. They can't, it is a communication of a divine attribute for a specific purpose
Secondly, I don't think Lutherans would say that Christ's divine nature is completely locally confined in his earthly human body and ceases to rule the world and be omnipresent. You did address this though, with the Luther quote so i think on this point we are both in continuity with the fathers.
Thirdly, 2 Peter 1:4 says we become "Partakers of the divine nature", now whatever that means If we can in some sense partake of the divine nature for our sanctification, I do not think it is far fetched to believe that Christ our omnipotent God is unable for a time to communicate an attribute to his human nature and allow his human nature to partake of the divine nature in a more substantial way.
Fourth, we see Christ say before his accession " behold i will be with you even to the end of the age" and also: "where 2 or three are gathered in my name i will be there". We know Christ is omni-present so certainly he can't mean it simply referring to his presence in the middle of amazon rain forest but rather there is a more substantial sense that he will be present where 2 or 3 are gathered.
Lastly I do believe that the Reformed have a difficulty pointing at the bread in the Lord Supper and saying that, that bread is truly Christ's body they have to ascend to the heavens to eat it. But Christ had no problem holding that same bread and "saying this is my body".
On that first paragraph, since we Lutherans' favorite almost good-enough illustration for the union of Christ's natures is "like a wet sponge," note how a sponge on its own does not make other things it touches wet, but a saturated one does. So a regular human body is capable of some things, but by union with divinity, it does others. Like not sinking in water. Or appearing in a locked room without sneaking through a window. Discussing that last one in Seminary led us to dub certain kinds of Reformed Christology, "Sneaky Jesus theory."
Best I can tell, the way that the Bible shows Jesus says these things that we confess. And I'm glad I'm not alone in that.
Exactly. All of the language about union with Christ would have to be interpreted symbolically if the reformed position is logically consistent.
Well said!
The transfiguration was a vision. Check out the wording in Greek. I know some lutheran pastors who disagree with this assessment. However, others, who shall be here unnamed but are themselves popular figures, hold to it.
@@EvanBurkinshaw for the sake of argument let's say I concede that point, are you asserting that Jesus' human flesh did not participate in this "vision". It seems to me the Phrase, "and he was transfigured before them". Seems to indicate that what they saw was the transfiguration of Jesus' body. Now if you are saying that this "vision" did not include a transfiguration of Christ's human flesh, then I ask where was Christ's human body? Was it just on the mountain unchanged and ordinary? Why didn't the disciples notice his unchanged body? Where do you get the notion that his body flesh was not changed from the text. Do you disagree with Peter who saw it with his own eyes and thought it was physical, hence he asked to build a tabernacle made of real physical stone? For people who are mere ghosts? Please locate for me where exactly Jesus' human body was and what was it's state from the text.
Offended Lutherans don't stop watching things, they start rage-watching.
Which is exactly the same thing, only with a little more scowling and grumbling and beer than normal.
😂😂😂
Stop reading my diary
As a militant lutheran, can confirm. Am running out of beer as we speak. Pray for me.
the comment section here is why I like being a protestant. Lutherans coming in and having a good time everybody being friendly. If this was a video on Catholic or Orthodox theology people would be angry and the response videos would be so angry with people in the comments section accusing Gavin of being an idiot.
Facts. I feel like Lutherans occupy a special place and can appreciate the good in every tradition. We have the scholasticism of Rome, the mysticism of the East, and the freedom of the Protestants.
As a Lutheran who often gets my TH-cam stream bombarded with RC apologists, I am often somewhat less than irenic in my responses and reactions to RC claims. It's usually the result of some RC apologist spouting off on some distorted view of sola scriptura and/or sola fide in order to create a suitable strawman and then there's the almost continuous stream of slanders regarding Luther. It's just so pervasive and repetitive that it gets tiresome and irritating.
To be fair, the reason we Orthodox get so bent out of shape is, post-icon video, Ortlund has been arguing some very low hanging fruit (that we’re too exclusive, which isn’t even an argument) and misrepresented scholarship. Seriously, go read the first chapter of “The Original Bishops” by Alistair Stewart, which Ortlund cites when he argues against apostolic succession. Stewart completely disputes Ortlund’s upholding of the synonymy claim, he in fact calls it a myth. Or, in his video on Cyril Lucaris, he largely ignores or misrepresents a key source to make his arguments, that being Stephanie Falkowski’s thesis. Which can be read, free and online, and she comes to a very different conclusion of Lucaris’ Calvinist convictions than Ortlund. Even his citation of “A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm” misrepresents what the author who compiled these articles was saying. That was in his response to Garten and Hamilton on icons, most of their evidence he doesn’t even bother to address. And, based on what other Lutherans are saying here, it’s much the same.
I’d personally be a lot less harsh if Ortlund was more honest in these videos or, at least, just admit these errors of his. But he does this repetitively. Then you combine it with the less ecumenical fans who accuse us of idolatry and ignorance, then all bets are off when Orthodox individuals read these things. We’re also being brought up and mocked in a video that isn’t even about us! We understand if you don’t like us but Protestants have no right to complain when they can’t go a single video without bashing us.
@@deadalivemaniacOver exclusivity is a problem if the scripture lays out one set of criteria for salvation and then you add to it.
That was the general form of the Galatian heresy and it's a major problem with e.g. Nicea II.
I'd argue that the EO's get bent out of shape far too easily because it's a simple outworking of your insufficient catholicity. Your catechumens are notorious for their poor behaviour and you seem to be readying to justify gracelessness on your part.
@@deadalivemaniac I feel the exact opposite. Protestants have been the punching bags of every other from of Christianity. We cannot go five minutes without Orthodox and Catholics railing on us. Orthodox are doing better than anyone right now its Catholics and Protestants that are going through a difficult time. And from the Orthodox people I read and listen to their is a level of exclusion typically when talking about the arc and everyone outside the arc. There is also no shortage of less ecumenical Orthodox people. As for the Icon stuff historians can argue things out endlessly I do not see anyone putting an end to that debate, but I do think Gavin had solid arguments. And Gavin is one person he cannot address every single Catholic and Orthodox response video. Honestly that part of your critique is hard for me. Truth be told after listening to Atheist biblical scholars argue against the bible, different church historians from different denominations, and historians outside of religious circles say historians of American history for example argue these strange positions I have lost a lot of faith in history as a field of study altogether. I am at a point now where I no longer trust most of what I read.
This will be interesting! Blessings and peace to you, Gavin. --Confessional Lutheran and your sister in Christ Jesus
The Catalogue of Testimonies in the Book of Concord has entered the chat
❤ Listening now, but I think it’s important for anyone considering Confessional Lutheranism to read the Book of Concord. Not all of Luther’s works or ideas are in our confessions.
Hey Gavin, I just wanted to say that this might be my favorite video from you this year so far. Thinking about Jesus in these huge, rigorous, glorious Christological ways always drives me to worship!
I really feel that my "heart sings unbidden while [I am] working [my] way through a tough bit of theology" as Lewis so perfectly puts it.
Redeemed Zoomer realizing he got a shout-out 🤯 1:48
Called out by Dad.
@@Phlebas1099 RZ forgets that the founder of Baptist Church was a congregationalist
@@kevinclass2010 HE'S IN THE THICK OF IT WITH THAT ONE 🤣
The lutheran response is raucous laughter, clinking of beer mugs, and tossing you Articles 7&8 from the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord to read on your own time
As a Lutheran who found Gavin's videos through Jordan Cooper, I'm so grateful for Gavin's approach to this and other issues. Although I think Lutheran christology is actually great at explaining the Real Presence without contradiction and without explaining too much, I appreciate a video like this that educates people who may be completely unfamiliar with the Lutheran position.
Lutheran here. Great video. Seems like a healthy topic to discuss.
Oh this is going to be a fun few weeks of back and forth from Lutherans and Reformed.
"Christ said, ‘This is My body.’ He did not say, 'This is My body in this way.' We are in agreement with you as to the end; the whole controversy is as to the method. As to the 'This,' we hold with firm faith that it is. As to the 'this is in this way (namely, by the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body), as to the method whereby it happens that it is, by means of in or with or under or by transition there is no word expressed. And because there is no word, we rightly make it not of faith; we place it perhaps among the theories of the school, but not among the articles of the faith."
-Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, Response to Bellarmine
The entire comment section is lutherans lol. We are taking over lol. Gavin has to do a poll of what percentage of his subscribers are confessional Lutherans. I'm guessing it's at least 20%.
As a former Lutheran, now Anglican. I am still Lutheran in my beliefs and Christology. (if it has to be defined.) Partly in that it appeals more to mystery and keeps the natures of Christ intact. I think a lot of this is mystery and every tradition ultimately must leave it there as these are things beyond us. If we get too hung up in certainty or making “sense” we can possibly diminish important things unnecessarily.
Do you have discord or twitter
I agree. As it is written, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9 ESV
@@kgebhardt1187
"For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"
Calvin and the Reformed tradition, according to them sometimes!
A debate on christology between you and Dr cooper would be awesome
Gavin, I appreciate your thoughtful video on this topic. As an Orthodox Christian I am aware of the very different yet tangentially related dispute between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox concerning the Council of Chalcedon. This may be un-related to the issue; however, I would be interested in hearing from multiple voices if Luke 24:13-35, John 20: 11-18, and John 21: 4-7 (The apostles did not immediately recognize Christ post-Resurrection) has anything to do with this debate. I'm not going to endorse anything outside of what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches on this issue but sometimes understanding the perspectives of others helps us understand our own perspective better so thank you for making this video.
I’m liking the faint orange and blue color thing going on in the back. It’s both warm and cold, it’s soft and vibrant, it’s sleepy and exciting. Doesn’t lead you any certain way, just keeps you present.
I think this video you may have been washed out a bit by your personal light, but that’s an easy fix.
Great stuff as always! Your work is a blessing!
God bless you and yours!
Speaking of Lutheran.. it would be cool to see a conversation between you and Chad Bird someday
Yes!
@@jonharris722 I would welcome the conversation!
A couple of thoughts from a Lutheran layman...
1. It is unfair to criticize Lutheran Christology for its novelty while a.) alleging that the catholic doctrine of the real presence of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper is driving this novelty, and b.) failing to acknowledge the novelty of the Reformed error on the real absence of Christ's body from the Lord's Supper. I'm not a trained theologian, but I believe you are right to say that the doctrine of the Lord's Supper is the driving force behind the development and/or refinement of this Lutheran Christology. But it is always the case that what seems novel in Christian theology arises in response to theological error. The sixteenth century is the first time that a widespread belief in the absence of Christ's body from the Supper began to take root. It took root among those theologians who were breaking away from the papacy, which meant that the Lutherans felt more keenly than the papists a responsibility to respond.
2. Why is it that the ubiquity or omnipresence of the divine nature cannot be communicated to the human nature, but the invisibility of the divine nature can be? In other words, where is the local presence of Christ today? The standard response would be heaven, but where is heaven? And what human being has ever entered heaven in human flesh? You seem to be willing to grant a communication of certain divine attributes to Christ's human nature, but any attribute that might make him physically present in the Lord's Supper must be carefully and selectively denied.
Actually, it is a mistake to think that the Reformed perspective on spiritual presence is a novelty. Gavin Ortlund demonstrated in this video that Reformed Christology actually has greater continuity with Scholasticism and even with the Church Fathers. Regarding spiritual presence, I can’t say exactly how strong this continuity is, but it is clearly affirmed by Augustine, making it evident that it was not an invention of Calvin.
As for the last response, we Reformed do not believe in any kind of communication between the divine and human natures. I don’t understand this in Lutherans-don’t you believe in absolute divine simplicity? If so, there is no real separation between the attributes of the divine essence. Therefore, if the divine nature were to communicate even a single attribute (onipresence) to the human nature, all the other attributes would necessarily be communicated as well, since they are inseparable.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 You missed the point. I didn't say that you'll never find any theologians saying anything even remotely similar to what Calvin said about the Supper prior to the 16th century (though you have no valid claim on St. Augustine). I said that the 16th century is the first time this error took root among Christians. It became widespread and acceptable in parts of Europe for the first time during that century.
Similarly, Arianism wasn't a problem in the third century because the idea had never ever been floated before. It was a problem because Arius' hymnody spread the error, making it popular and acceptable. That's the thing that was new in the 16th century with the Calvin's doctrine of the Supper.
My larger point is that you cannot condemn the Lutherans for developing a "novel" Christology without acknowledging that the widespread acceptance of the absence of Christ's body from the Supper was also novel.
You say that Calvinists deny any communication of attributes between the two natures of Christ. Really? Do you deny that Jesus healed people and raised the dead with human vocal chords? Do you deny that Jesus vanished from sight of the two disciples who had walked with him on the Emmaus road? Do you deny that he appeared to the eleven (several miles away, but on the same night) as they were cowering behind a locked door? Do you deny that the stone was rolled away from Jesus' tomb AFTER he had risen from the dead and walked out of that same tomb? If this ability to vanish and appear out of nowhere and walk through sealed and locked doors is NOT the communication of divine attributes to Christ's human nature, then what is it?
If no divine attributes have ever been communicated to Jesus' human nature, then you would be able to find him, physically, travel to his location, and have a face-to-face conversation with him. Why aren't you out there looking for him?
You might say, "Because he's in heaven." Oh really? What human being has ever been (or will ever go) to heaven in the flesh? Is there oxygen there?
You accept the communication of certain divine attributes to take Jesus' body out of sight. But you are unwilling to accept the communication of divine attributes that would make his body and blood present in the Supper! That's just an insane, inconsistent, duplicity. You accept the communication of attributes to take Christ away from us, but deny the communication of attributes whereby He promises to be with us always, even to the end of the age. That's why I will never again be a Calvinist.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Lutherans would respond, "That's Nestorianism, Patrick!"
@@pete3397 I know, but this position is unsustainable. To be Nestorian is to separate the two natures, and Reformed theology affirms that both are united in Christ. However, Chalcedon also states that they do not mix, and this is where the divergence lies: from our perspective, Lutherans mix both natures by allowing the communication of attributes, while Reformed theology keeps them united without mixing them.
@@pete3397I’m not Lutheran but, yeah, it’s pretty cut and dried Nestorianism. Especially if you read Vermigli, then read Calvin’s Christology in light of that.
I just wanted to thank you for honouring and mentioning brother Richard Wurmbrand in some of your latest videos. I am part of the Romanian Protestant community and almost everyone who is, like me, a second third, or fourth generation Romanian Protestant has some sort of connection to a person who suffered a lot and was imprisoned or persecuted on account of their faith in Jesus Christ during the Communist era. So, it is a big part of our spiritual culture and heritage, the persecutions of our forefathers are to this day very often (if not every Sunday) mentioned in Church and in sermons. A lot of us grew up with these stories of great heroes of the faith like Wurmbrand, Moldoveanu, Dorz, and others who gave up everything for the love of Christ. My grandfather, who is still with us, is a Pentecostal pastor and author and was an underground church planter during the communist era. He would run from town to town with the "securitate" on his tail preaching the Word to whoever he met and starting churches in many small villages and towns. He has many amazing stories about the work of God in his life and the lives of others. The Christian community as a whole was very tight-knit at that point in time, despite having small theological disagreements. So, he knew a lot of pastors, priests, and laymen of all sorts who suffered for the faith. It really means a lot hearing the name of Rev. Wurmbrand on such a large platform, especially considering most of the other material that has been written about that period of Christian persecution in Romania will never be translated out of Romanian. Thanks, and God bless you!
Your ending analogy about Tolkien was especially good - thank you for this excellent video!
I never thought about this that deeply and this really was helpful. Thank you very much. I got a lot of value out of this brief episode. God bless and keep up your work.
To borrow from your analogy… What if Tolkien decided to write himself in as a character, not only as any ordinary shire-dweller, but also as something more. Surely Tolkien-in-shire could participate in what the author is or possesses. Perhaps he tells Bilbo what is to come in the story, perhaps he receives worship from Gandalf as the author of these events, or perhaps he possesses and generously bestows miraculous plot-armor to his friends. Would this be a contradiction to write himself in after this manner? No, and in fact it would make it all the more apparent that Tolkien is one person and not two. It would be disappointing if the author communicated absolutely nothing to the character in the story, especially if the character had a great mission to accomplish. Without any communication, one might start to wonder whether there are two Tolkiens.
Great response! I too thought the Tolkien-shire argument actually works better for Lutheran Christology.
I really like the author-as-a-character articulation. Well done as always, Dr. Gavin.
This was really helpful, thank you
Oooh interesting. Eager to watch! Inb4 Roman Catholics point to this as an example of division: think about Thomists vs. Jesuits. We view each other as Christians, not schismatics.
Okay, listening!
Thomists and Jesuits (who follow the Molinist line of thought though this varies) belong to the same visible Church. Confessional Lutherans and Reformed don't. Besides, Confessional Lutherans condemned Calvinist views of the Eucharist at the Formula of Concord. Perhaps they no longer hold to this confession which would be interesting.
@@computationaltheist7267I'm not aware they condemned Calvinists to hell. We view ourselves as part of the one visible church that subsists in different sub-communions, so the point is moot.
@@computationaltheist7267Thats not true. Your claim assumes a Roman understanding of the visible church. So it begs the question.
Worshiping in separate buildings doesn’t mean a divided visible church. No more than liberal Roman Catholic parishes and Latin Mass practicing ones don’t make a divided visible church in the Roman understanding despite them having theological differences.
@@anglicanaesthetics I didn't say they condemned Calvinists to hell. I simply said that the Reformed view of the Eucharist has been condemned and language like "being outside the Catholic Church" seems to indicate a really strong view of condemnation so I am not sure how the point can be moot if the Reformed have at least a questionable view.
That's not unity and you can't dismiss it like it's nothing when it's essential to C. Lutheran theology.
Your view of the Church essentially eliminates the sin of schism. The Early Church viewed the Church as a visible institution that has the duty to spread the Gospel and bind doctrine so if that doesn't exist, the sin of schism doesn't exist.
@@computationaltheist7267 The sin of schism is committed when Christians excommunicate other Christians, or separate from fellowship, for bad reasons--e.g. for reasons that have nothing to do with the apostolic teaching. So the Roman theologians at the time of the Reformation who excommunicated Protestants would be guilty of schism.
I didn't deny it's an important discussion and never said it was "nothing". I said it wasn't an issue we view each other as damned over. Which means we see each other as still part of the church catholic.
I was driving while listening to this, so I can happily report that I did not notice the new video effects. It was really interesting, though. As an author, I always enjoy thinking about the Tolkien metaphor and I found your larger response to the Lutheran tradition very thought-provoking. While I tend to gravitate more high church, I agree that oftentimes those mid-way high church traditions don't get nearly enough critical consideration while the evangelicals are often unfairly bashed. Thank you, dear friend! Also, a video between you at Alex O'Connor sounds like a dream come true, so I look forward to seeing where that goes. God bless!
Dr. Jordan B Cooper on Christology
th-cam.com/video/xkBbAXXDZEo/w-d-xo.html
Greetings from the FTH in Gießen! It was great to talk with you😁
CTSFW should invite Gavin to present on this for the next Symposia. Would be fun to watch. 🍿 Have the faculty respond with papers plus Q&A. 😎
That last point on presence vs governance finally fully convinced me! Thanks!
Amazing as always
yes, im glad to be reformed ❤
The opinion of Luther is actually not far off the Orthodox position, although it is not the same. This seems to be a problem with understanding the distinction between two concepts. One is that human nature does not become divine nature. Thus, in Christ, the two natures do not merge nor become confused. The second is that man is to partake of the divine nature. These need to be reconciled.
The solution is to distinguish between the essence of a nature and the operations of the nature. Given this distinction, we can affirm that according to essence, the two natures of Christ are absolutely distinct. However, according to the operations of the nature, human nature is able to participate in the divine operations. Thus, Christ according to His human nature is able to walk on water as it participates in the divine operation. Also, prophets are able to truly speak the word of God. Man as made in the image and likeness of God is able to be like God in his operations without ceasing to be human. The definition of a human is not one that requires a limit of activity to those not of God.
The main issues in this video seem to be participation in attributes such as omniscience and omnipresence. Firstly, regarding omniscience. There is nothing about being man qua man that denies man to know all things. This rather is an issue of the limits of created nature at its point of creation. However, this limit at the point of creation does not mean that the creature is permanently restricted to its limits if God so wishes to prefect the creature with His knowledge. One may have still have a type of statement that the creature has no limit to what knowledge that he may have, but likewise there is no limit on the creature learning more from His initial state of limit because the knowledge is infinite. Given that one can argue this for omniscience, then one can argue this for omnipresence. That is even though man is created as limited spatially, there is no reason why man as man must remain spatially limited to be man. One needs to take care that one does not confuse the initial state of man as a creature with the God's goal for the creature as perfected in God. While a creature starts as limited, this does not mean that God does not want the creature to become unlimited, that is for the creature to become like the Creator. Rather as being created in the image and likeness of God, one can argue that man is not created to be limited, but that he is able to become perfect like God, that is participate in operations and even attributes of God without ceasing to be man because the identity of man as man is one created in the image and likeness of God and not according to the limit of man's present state per se. God does not say that He created man as a specifically sized piece of matter 6' by 2' by 1'.
Orthodox call this participation in divine nature, theosis (union with God) and they do affirm that man participates in the eternal and infinite existence of God and moreover that such is even necessary for man to be created without God contradicting Himself as the fullness of reality, which is infinite and eternal. However, one needs to distinguish between natures lest man collapse into God and cease to be man or change God. Man is always creature in respect to God as Creator. Man according to essence has a beginning, God does not.
Yes, Lutherans definitely speak of theosis, but not in the same regard as Orthodox does. But that’s some missing context of what Ortlund is speaking about. That said, would you mind getting into the differences between Luther and the Orthodox position? I’m assuming you’re Orthodox?
@@kengineexpress I am Orthodox. I would like to go into the differences between Luther and the Orthodox position, but I will need to do quite a bit of extra research to present the Lutheran position accurately and it may require me to write a rather long article to do this. Sadly I don't have the time at present for this. Can you perhaps pull out some of the statements that Ortlund makes or that may have been stated by Luther, so that I can address them more specifically?
Good points. Lutheran Christology, while not Orthodox per se, is derived largely from the Christology laid out by the Cappadocians. So, it seems that the Orthodox and the Lutherans start from that basis and then diverge somewhat but do retain many affinities and categorical perspectives. There is a current Lutheran focus on theosis and what that actually means. Hopefully, Dr. Cooper in his response will touch on this. He does have a book called "Union with Christ" that addresses the Lutheran views of theosis. I'm trying to remember exactly, but I think one of the sticking points in the Lutheran-Orthodox discussion of theosis has to do with practices related to hesychasm as a means of "union."
Great video - really clarified some things for me regarding Lutheran theology. I was wondering, have you ever thought about doing any videos engaging with Methodism? Methodism/Wesleyanism seems to me to be an underrepresented Protestant tradition on TH-cam. There is still a really rich, conservative Methodist tradition that is alive and well today, in spite of the error and compromise in the UMC. I’d love to see you do a video interacting with a Wesleyan concept like “entire sanctification”.
The production quality is looking great these days seeing as you asked Gavin.
Watching this after a 12 hour shift as a Baptist who knows nothing about Lutheran christology 😂 it’s a bit over my head but still enjoying it and learning!
As a lutheran, how was Christ able to make a finite amount of bread and fish be multiplied for many? Also, with Him going away, He has also promised to be with us always despite not being here in the fullness of the sense. With all respect and appreciation for your ministry.
@amirsmith9269 how was Christ able to make a finite amount of bread and fish be multiplied for many? Because He is God. Jesus has two natures.
Also, with Him going away, He has also promised to be with us always despite not being here in the fullness of the sense? With the Holy Spirit, Jesus is with us. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9)
@@thomasglass9491But that contradicts the nature of bread /s
In all seriousness, the better question is post resurrection when Jesus walked through the door to visit the disciples in the ending of John. Being able to pass through solid matter is contrary to the nature of his humanity. If his body can pass through matter without displacing it, surely it can be local in many places at once.
I agree, Im a lutheran whose point was that Christ can be present in miraculous ways. He’s not limited to His humanity.
agreed
@@RevancedBurner an explanation offered by many commentators is that the resurrected body does not seem to have the same limitations as a natural one. It is capable of interacting with the natural world but also capable of transcending it. The Lord is not portrayed as appearing suddenly like that prior to the resurrection, although He did perform signs that showed His Creatorial authority over the natural world as God (walking on waves, calming a storm, healing disease, raising the dead, multiplying the loaves and fish...).
Question-Why at the 6 min mark does the text on the screen say "common person" while Dr. Ortlund appearing to read it speaks of "the human person?" Who is the human person in Christ?
I misspoke. Meant to just read the quote.
Told you I was tired!
@@TruthUnites So then, you don't think Christ is a human person or that there is a human person in Christ? Is that correct?
Okay, listened in full. Good video! And of course, Anglicans generally lean Reformed on this question, although Richard Hooker's via media between the Reformed and Lutheran position bests captures it:
"“Again, as the manhood of Christ may, in a sense, be said to be everywhere present-because that Person is everywhere present, from whose divine substance manhood is nowhere severed-so the same universality of presence may likewise be attributed to all things which the Deity of Christ works. Even the body of Christ itself, although its definite limitation is most evident, nonetheless admits, in some sense, a kind of infinite and unlimited presence as well. For his body, being a part of that nature which is wholly joined to Deity wherever Deity is, follows that his bodily substance has, everywhere, a presence of true conjunction with Deity. This may also seem, in another respect, applicable by its cooperation with Deity in all things.”"
That basically identical to the Lutheran explanation in Article 8 of the solid declaration of the formula. The problem is people read article 7, on the Lord's Supper, without realizing article 8, On the Nature of Christ, is the theological explanation behind the statements in article 7
Hello Gavin, I’ve heard that when Lutherans speak of the “ubiquity” of Christ’s body, they do not literally mean it occupies all space at once in an omnipresent sense. Instead, they mean that Christ can be bodily present wherever He wills, without being confined to one single location. And Lutherans say the Eucharistic presence transcends normal spatial categories. They don’t see it as Christ’s body being cloned or physically dissected. Is that accurate, and how does that differ from the way you characterized it?
Having a Baptist preacher for a father in law I get plenty of grief for my Lutheranism 😂 Love to all my Christian brothers and sisters ❤️
I haven't listened yet, but knowing the subject (Lutheran 'ubiquity'), I would have called this Eucharistic theology rather than Christology, because Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed are all Chalcedonian. Calvin thought the believer was translated to Heaven in the sacrament (thereby Real Presence), whereas E.B. Pusey, for example, thought Christ was really, sacramentally (though not physically) present when believers took the Elements. And both of these are different than transubstantiation. Same Christology, very different Eucharistic theologies.
Lutheran christology leans heavily on Cyril. If you recall so did Monophysites although Cyril himself was orthodox . Some Catholic theologians have thought they detect a whiff of Monophysitism in some Lutheran articulations of aspects of their Christology. Just a whiff.
What do you do with union with Christ or the strangeness of Christ's bodily apparitions post resurrection? I think the Lutheran view is just taking what we're presented with in scripture at face value and not attempting to rationalize it.
Yay!! new video!!❤❤
How did Calvinism become "Reformed," whilst Lutheranism did not?
No no no, Reformed became Calvnism as an insult to the Reformed. Evangelicalism became Lutheranism as an insult to the Lutherans. Both names just happened to stick.
If Jesus's body had the same limitations than we do then how is He able to enter a house with locked doors?
Or, what does it mean to have a physical body seated in Heaven?
It Is a glorified body, however there's nothing to suggest that the glorified body becomes omnipresent in the Scriptures.
@@phantompenguintgl1652 actually, there is. Christ promises to be with us, always until the end of the age. This was said right before his ascension. If Christ’s two natures are perfectly united, there should be no place where one nature is, but the other isn’t. Wherever Christ is spiritually, there he is physically. We don’t know how, but we confess these truths.
@bruhmingo he is with us through the Holy Spirit, aka the Spirit of Christ. Not physically and bodily with us any more on earth, but spiritually present.
@@phantompenguintgl1652as I said, we would say that is dividing the natures. Jesus doesn’t qualify the statement. He simply says He (himself) will be with us. That’s why we can say Christ is truly there when we gather in worship reading his word and eating his body. All Christians also believe in the indwelling of each person of the trinity in eachother. Where the Holy Spirit is, there is also Christ and the Father. Therefore, if Christ is with us, and his body is inseparable from his spirt, his body is with us.
I think the best christian literature on this topic is Philip Carry's "The meaning of protestant theology".
Carry is blessed with such a convenient logical tracing on how Luther was going on the same track as Augustine. He also addresses Calvin's view and how Luther & Calvin (despite their differences and despite later scholastic debates) are so close in their approaches, which is similar towhat dr. Ortlund says on Luther's novelty in his approach.
Ah, sweet, the Reformed and Lutherans are fighting again? I love a good sequel!
Ha! I’m pretty sure that most Lutherans don’t think about Christ’s nature on this level. Most I’ve talked to aren’t really that sure. This is an academic discussion.
Great discussion. I grew up in a Lutheran church ( in the 70’s on the west coast… yeah it makes a little difference) and I was never taught any of this directly or indirectly.
Great exposition!!!❤
I'm not as sure. There are a decent number of Lutherans I have interacted with on the internet who have seem at least as enthused about niche and particular theological subjects ae I think intellectual reformed are. These were all LCMS Lutherans and seemed to all be quite catechized and knowledgeable, though also all tended to defer to their pastor on subjects they were lest confident in.
I am pretty similar doctrinally to Gavin, reformed leaning Baptist and what not, on a lot of different areas but I think it is just a common problem for all churches, and not just Lutherans, that the majority of lay people are not that deep into things theologically. I mean, I was in a community group at my church and I noticed that most did not have properly orthodox idea of the Trinity. None of them had ever heard of the concept of annilationism, thought that immaculate conception was referring to Jesus being sinless and not the RC dogma of Mary being immaculately conceived, had no understanding of what they believed about the end times other than a vague idea of a rapture and Jesus returning, and had no doctrine about baptism or communion other than them being symbols. But I think that is the beauty of the truth of Christianity: that the essentials are so simple that children and even those with intellectual disability can become part of the family of Christ and that the well of Christianity is so deep (owing to our worshipping an infinite, eternal God) that there is an infinite depth of intellectual stimulation in our faith. I think internet videos about intellectually heady theological concepts self select for people with a greater than average knowledge of Christian theological concepts compared to the average Christian living a quiet, simple, lowly life worshipping our God.
But also, the author of Hebrews did worry about the group he was writing stagnating in their faith (Hebrews 5:11-6:3). So take all my talk in my last paragraph in balance to that.
@@skyorrichegg well said! (Both replies)
A video about the Natures of Christ and no mention of the Catalog of Testimonies in the Book of Concord? Color me shocked.😂
Amen!
Yup!
True, but... Does the catalog of testimonies actually talk about ubiquity or omnipresence?
@@jhutchns1haven't read that section recently have you?
@@jhutchns1
Catalog Of Testimonies
171 Although it is known and undeniable that the Godhead, together with its divine majesty, is not to be locally circumscribed by the flesh, as though it were enclosed in a vessel, as Athanasius, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and others correctly wrote, and as also the Book of Concord [p. 1019 expressly rejects as an error the teaching that the humanity of Christ has been locally expanded into all places, or that, by the personal union, the human nature in Christ has been transformed into an infinite essence, - nevertheless, since the divine and human natures are personally and inseparably united in Christ, the Holy Scriptures and the holy fathers testify that wherever Christ is, there is not half His person, or only one half, or only a part of His person, for instance, the divinity alone, separate and bare, minus and without His assumed humanity personally united thereto or separated from it, and outside of the personal union with the humanity; but that His entire person, namely, as God and man, according to the mode of the personal union with the humanity, which is an inscrutable mystery, is everywhere present in a way and measure which is known to God.
172 Eph. 4:10: He ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. This Oecumenius explains thus: “For, indeed, He long ago filled all things with His bare divinity; and having become incarnate, that He might fill all things with His flesh, He descended and ascended.”
173 And THEOPHYLACT, on the same passage (Comment. in Eph., p. 535, ed. Lond., 1636): “In order that He might fill all things with His dominion and working, and that, in the flesh, since even before He filled all things with His divinity. These things, however, are against Paul of Samosata and Nestorius.”
174 LEO, Epist. 10 (Ep. 24, cap. 5, p. 245, and in Serm., f. 121, ed. cit.): “The Church Catholic lives and advances in this faith, that in Christ Jesus there is believed neither the humanity without the true divinity nor the divinity without the true humanity.”
175 The same, in Discourse 3, On the Passion: “This the catholic faith teaches, this it requires, that we know that in our Redeemer two natures have united, and that, while their properties remained, such a union of both substances has occurred that, from the time in which the Word became flesh in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, we are not to think of God without this, that He is man; nor of the man without this, that He is God.”
176 In the same place: “Each nature, by distinct operations, declares its genuineness, but neither separates itself from connection with the other; here nothing belonging to the one is lacking to the other; but God assumed the entire man, and so united Himself to man and man to Himself, that each nature is in the other, and neither passed into the other with the loss of its own attributes.”
177 But since in this article such teaching is especially directed to the end that we may know where we should seek and may apprehend the entire person of the Mediator, God and man, the Book of Concord, as also all other holy fathers, directs us, not to wood or stone or anything else, but to that to which Christ has pointed and directed us in and with His Word.
178 CYRIL, lib. 2, John, cap. 32 (t. 3, p. 1063, ed. cit.): “The garments of Christ were divided into four parts, and His mantle alone remained undivided, which, I may say, was a sign of a mystery. For the four quarters of the world, brought to salvation, have shared the garment of the Word, that is, His flesh, among themselves in such a way that it has not been divided. For the Only-begotten, passing into each so as to be shared by each, and sanctifying their soul and body by His flesh, is in all indivisibly and entirely, since, being one, He is everywhere in no manner divided.”
179 THEOPHYLACT, on John cap. 19 (f. 825, ed. cit.): “Therefore the holy body of Christ is indivisible, being divided and distributed among the four quarters of the earth; for both being distributed among them individually, and sanctifying the soul of each one with the body, the Only-begotten is by His own flesh entirely and indivisibly in all, being everywhere; for He has been in no wise divided, as Paul also exclaims.”
180 CHRYSOSTOM (t. 4, p. 1773, ed. Basil. and t. 6, f. 846, ed. Frankf.), Homil. 17, Ad Ebr., p. 16 (and Ambrose, cap. 10, Ad Hebraicos): “Since He is offered up in many places, are there many Christs? Not at all. But the one Christ is everywhere, being completely here and completely there, one body. For as He who is offered in many places is one body, and not many bodies, so is He also one sacrifice. He is that High Priest of ours who has offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. We also now offer that which, having been then offered, was not consumed. This is done in remembrance of that which was then done. ‘This do,’ says He, ‘in remembrance of Me.’ For we do not make another sacrifice, as the high priest, but always the same. We rather bring about a remembrance of the sacrifice.” (Note: Against the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass of the Papists.)
Either way, I still agree with Lutheran view of the Sacrament.
I think there is good support for the idea that Jesus can be locally present in one place and yet still omnipresent at the same time in 1 Kings 8 where similar language is used of God's presence in the Temple.
We are told that God comes to dwell in the temple in verse 10-11: "When the priests withdrew from the Holy Place, the cloud filled the temple of the Lord. And the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled his temple."
Yet numerous times in Solomon's prayer of dedication he asks God to "hear from heaven, your dwelling place". He reflects on this mystery in Verse 27: "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!"
How God can be locally present in one place and still omniscient at the same time is a mystery even King Solomon struggled to understand, but it appears he did not see any problem with it.
Why does everyone make simplicity so difficult. Jesus is fully God. Jesus is fully man. Jesus is the God man. Being God ,"in human flesh" doesn't strip Him of His omnipotence, which includes His omnipresence. To strip His humanity of omnipresence is to strip his divinity of humanity. Dr. Ortland is arguing from the typical Reformed inconsistency which seems to stem from being unable to accept the mysterious. It is a mystery as to how His humanity can be omnipresent, yes - nevertheless its true. Afterall He said "lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age."
I think one thing that's missing from this conversation is the assumption that human attributes now are the same as resurrection-body human attributes. I think St. Paul's comparison of the resurrection body to a plant growing from a seed at least opens the door for the possibility that there might be more resurrectional attributes that human nature has. Along with this, Calvin's interpretation of how Christ was able to bilocate and appear to five hundred people or walk through walls is lawyerly sophistry of the highest degree because he's grounding his ideas in some serious a prioris that aren't necessarily true.
You did a good job explaining 👍🏼. It's funny-sometimes I sit in front of those videos and skip back again and again and again because I don't get it 😅. And then I give up and just listen, hoping that at some point I will understand the problem. But no... I am lost-marveling at the intelligence of the question and the debate itself 👏🏼😳👏🏼🥸.
To me, it is so interesting how the Church Fathers thought about things in great detail and debated so intelligently about each point. I learn so much from this!
I will start over now😂
It was very encouraging to hear this video.💖
Did he just say Calvin/reformed (extra Calvinisticum) view is found in Theodore of Mopsuetia? Relying on him for Christology makes it hard to try to deny Nestorian charges.
“When anyone considers the natures, he necessarily discovers [that they are different from] one another. Nor do I think that there is any controversy here, since God the Word is one by nature and the other is admitted to have been assumed (whatever this may mean). Yet this latter is said to be simultaneously the same person (persona) whose [two] natures are in no way confused, but [are one] because of the assumed one’s union with the assuming One. For, if one willingly grants that the latter is other than the former by nature, it is evident that the one assumed is not equal to the One assuming. However each will be clearly found to be the same one in a prosopic union. Therefore, one has to make distinctions in regard to Christ without there being any contradiction here. For these [distinctions] closely conform to what the divine Scriptures [state]. So the natures are not to be confused, nor the person to be perversely divided.”
Theodore of Mopsuestia, On the Incarnation, Book V
“To say that the body of the Divine Logos also had a soul does not indicate the divinity of the soul. For … Christ, being one and not two, composed of divinity and humanity, says that he, being human, lays down his soul for it is his and part of him, although he was also God in nature, assuming flesh - which had a soul - and united it to him.”
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Fragment 87, X. 18
I’ll just leave this here
Loved this! This was so helpful. Not because you dunked on the Lutherans or anything but I had my own questions about how to understand the two natures and you cleared that up. Also when you try to explain the spatial problem with understanding the extra-Calvinisticum, I think it’s important to recall that God is Simple so it’s not like the claim is that the incarnation was part of God coming in flesh since God does not have parts. Jesus takes on a nature and the full person of the Son is the Christ who dies for us.
There’s great chapter in a recent book called Least of the Apostles by William Glass and Brendan Case that I think is potentially helpful for this question. Case examines a possible relationship between Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15 about Christ being “raised a Spiritual body” and various passages in John’s Gospel. It draws out some helpful suggestions for how a human body fully and immediately animated by the power of the Holy Spirit might differ from human bodies in the way we know them now-like walking through walls. I’m not endorsing ubiquity outright, but it seems worth considering how extensively divine attributes might be manifested in the glorified humanity of our Lord and yet in no way betray the Church’s discernment at Chalcedon.
This all begs the question of what the presence of Christ will actually constitute in the new heaven and the new earth.
Are we going to have to wait in line to be in his physical presence? I am sure someone has addressed this, but I am not aware of the study.
This is exactly what John MacArthur was accused of being Nestorian for.
nah. that was different case. h e refused to call Virgin Mary as Theotokos and phrases like God died on the cross. Confessional Reformed did not do that.
@@zchongsoonNGI listened to the exact quote. He was denying the claim that Jesus’s body was somehow different than yours or mine.
My problem is that if the divine nature is inseparably united with the human nature in the one person, then how is the one person and the divine nature present somewhere while the human nature is not?
Even if the human nature in and of itself is not omnipresent, it seems to me that the hypostatic union must in some sense communicate this property from the divinity to the humanity. Not as a change in the humanity, but simply as a consequence of this humanity now existing in one person who, by the attributes of his divinity, is omnipresent. So that anywhere where this person is, there is also his humanity, because the person is both divine and human. Not partly human somewhere in a particular place, and divine everywhere else, but everywhere the person is truly divine and truly human.
As a Lutheran, I obviously don’t see the issues the Reformed have raised. I think the problem stems from Calvin trying to provide a concrete answer to things not concretely answered in the Bible. Rome does the same thing.
For example, Rome developed its doctrine of Transubstantiation to concretely make sense of Christ telling us, “this is My body” and “this is My blood”. Calvin, searching for a concrete answer arrives at a different answer.
Regardless of how concretely one tries to make sense of Christ proclaiming the real presence of His body and His blood in the Holy Eucharist, we are not provided an explanation of how this is. But knowing Christ is always true, we can only accept this as the fact it is, and state it is a holy mystery left unexplained by God’s infallible Word.
Lutherans would also point to Revelations that shows there is a tie between the Alter in Heaven and those in the Churches. As some have said, we find Heaven on Earth present.
Agreed. It is a mystery how the bread can be body and the cup can be blood-- all we have to work with is "is." Better to leave that to God to understand in its fullness; and for our part simply respond in obedience to the parts that we have been commanded about. I think Deuteronomy 29:29 is a helpful frame of mind-- "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."
@@the_hortator Amen.
Consider that in John 6:35-59, the Jews stumbled over these very same concepts because they thought some kind of natural explanation was meant. In that passage the Lord continued onward to speak of the indwelling and abiding of God, which is spiritual. The Jews generally, and even the disciples before the indwelling of the Spirit, struggled with the Lord's words more than once because they wanted a natural explanation for something where He was speaking in spiritual terms. That desire to naturalize what is intended as spriritual, IS an example of trying to "make sense" of something against the author's revealed intent.
@ What is intended to be spiritual?
You are a brilliant defender of the faith!
Honest question, how do we derive our understanding of nature and all that kind of stuff from the Bible? I keep hearing about it but the things always referenced are from some theologians so I am trying to find the tip of the thread which begins from the Bible.
Deep Christological tensions surrounding the Biblical Theopaschite Doctrine (God being capable of having born, suffered and died, along with the virgin Mary being regarded as the blessed Theotokos) versus the equally Biblical Doctrine of Divine Impassibility and Divine Immutability have been very apparent in the disputes of different degrees of emphasis between
1. the Nestorian-leaning Church of the East versus the Non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox (of which the Chalcedonian-affirming churches stand in the middle)
And
2. the Lutherans & Anglo-Catholics versus the Reformed Calvinists, Restorationists, Anabaptists, and Evangelicals pertaining to the Communicatio idiomatum in the Lord’s Supper and the Theology of the Cross
Hey Gavin, I think a better analogy for the extra calvinisticum should be Charles Schultz existing both within the Peanuts comic strip as Charlie Brown and outside of the comic as the author. Not sure if you prefer this example but it's what comes to mind for me!
Good discussion. Lutherans, unlike Calvinists, have no problem with the existence of divine mysteries. There are things we just don't understand and will not until all things are revealed.
Ah yes, was waiting for one of these. Contradictions stand no chance when we cover it with that peanut butter word “mystery”. It literally coats over everything and makes argument a waste of time. Priceless
Are you sniffing something? Calvin, and so Calvinists, are happy with mystery where it exists. We don't use it as a cover for holding contradictory opinions.
@@dylanwagoner9768Sometimes mystery actually is appropriate. Look at other fields of knowledge. Is a photon a wave? A particle? Best to say that we know certain things to be true even though we can't neatly reconcile them than to claim we can.
It's a sound Christian instinct to be suspicious of how far one can extend the Bible's revelation into new knowledge using reason.
Lol Calvin: believers are in two places at once for the Lord's Supper because Christ can't be 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Wow, that was succinct and funny.
Has FLAME entered the chat yet?
Extra Nos!
he made a video on this topic!
Another argument is that if we believe in absolute divine simplicity (and i bemieve Lutherans do), it would not be possible for the omnipresence of the divine nature to be communicated to Christ's human nature without the communication of all the other attributes of the divine nature.
Good use of camera work. Adds a nice emphasis to the video!
Hey Gavin, I have some thoughts on the upcoming video on Penance. For a Protestant appraisal on Penance I’d look at what Philip Schaff says in his History of the Christian Church about its development by the medieval scholastics (he calls them schoolmen) if you haven’t already. You know, I’m a RC struggling with his faith on the verge of being Protestant, but I found his criticisms of it to be very profound and don’t disagree with them.
This stuff is difficult but it needs to be said and is conspicuously absent from the ecumenical dialogue. I get SO MUCH out of confession when I go, but have serious issues with the logic behind it historically. I go to more liberal
parishes that are less serious with some of that. It’s very helpful psychologically and spiritually but it worries me to see people who think they actually lost their salvation by sinning going to confession and thinking they are saved again from it. A lot of priests use the term mortal sin for any grave sin too which doesn’t help.
I don’t think people really appreciate the gravity of that, of actually thinking you’re in a state of actual mortal sin and being told you HAVE to go to a Priest for confession before you can receive Communion unless you’re dying or something. This seems to be totally absent from the ecumenical dialogue which often says we agree on justification but just use different terms. In my opinion that’s bullshit and I feel very hurt and betrayed because I believed it coming into the RCC and now I see it’s not that simple. My church seems to officially say if I don’t go to a Catholic Mass on Sunday’s or Holy Days of Obligation, or don’t fast on certain days, or use contraception, or use the Lord’s name in vain, etc. intentionally and knowingly then that’s a mortal sin. I’ve lost my salvation and have to get it back again. And then I’m told we agree with the Protestants on justification? Really? I see a lot of this as actually harmful, especially for people who habitually commit the same sins over and over again.
My conscience is really convicting me on this that something’s not right here and I don’t know how much longer I can keep doing this. The doctrine of Justification for me almost has me at the point of being a Protestant again but I’m still discerning if that’s really what God wants me to do especially with some extenuating circumstances, just please pray for me.
Thanks for commenting. May the Lord bless you, guide you, and give you peace.
I would recommend talking to a wise priest . The subjective requirements for grave matter to be a mortal sin may be a bit more extensive than you think - and that is not simply a post V2 mindset. Habituation to a sin can lessen your freedom in choosing it . But one should always confess grave matter because it is so hard to discern. But one just trusts in the Lord. Yes some may habitually sin and so habitually confess . I see nothing wrong with that as long as they are sincere in their act of contrition . If anyone has a problem with scrupulosity they should seek out a wise priest as well.
@ thanks for the comment, at this point I’ve spoken with many Priests. Some were very unhelpful, some were wiser. The more liberal Priests were great, the problem is that what they said doesn’t seem to be what Rome says. I agree with the ones who say the rules are more guideposts/ guardrails but that doesn’t seem to be what Rome actually says. I don’t think you get it, or many of them get it. Being told you’ve (even possibly) lost your salvation is the most serious thing there is. I agree we must trust the Lord but I feel like I’m being told it’s kind of all on me, at least in the sense that if I die in a state of mortal sin, I go to hell and that’s MY fault. And I can never really KNOW if I’m in a state of grace or not. I can ask for Graces and helps but if I don’t get them again, it’s my fault. And I know I’m a great sinner and if my salvation is ultimately put on my shoulders I cannot possibly be saved. But I don’t believe it is all on me. I take Christ at his word that whoever hears his word and believes in the one who sent him HAS eternal life. But this seems to put me in conflict with Rome’s soteriology. Paul says because we’ve been (past tense) justified by faith we have (present tense) peace with God, I just don’t see how that fits here at all.
@ I have had such concerns though not to the degree you have. So I understand more than you may think I do. Let me suggest one more thing . Not sure if you are aware of “perfect contrition “. Unfortunately it is a misleading label. All it means is that one is sorry for a sin not simply because one is afraid of going to hell, but because one is sorry he has disappointed God who he loves and who loves him. Sorry out of love of God. Like children who are often sorry because they know they have disappointed mommy and daddy who they love (and who loves them). Not just because they will get punished. If one is sorry for one’s sins in this way, one is absolved of mortal sin. One still goes to confession as soon as possible but this can remove that sense of potentially being in mortal danger until one goes to confession.
Also I sense that you may have made a relatively hasty conversion which is why I suggest folks also take a lot of time in their conversion journey .
And I do sense you may have a tendency towards scrupulosity which I know is difficult to deal with (from family experience).
In your original comment you asked for prayers so I will pray for you. Hope you find peace .
@ thanks for your response and prayers, I can need all I can get. Ironically I took a very long time to formally convert and am taking a very long time in the other direction too in questioning.
Ooof, this feels like it might be a tough one for me. Ah, well - it's only fair.
I always point Muslims towards the extra Calvinisticum. When they ask “did Jesus stop being God?”
And as it being a widely held doctrine it always seems to help
many seminaries around the world often confused Nestorius's actual teachings in the Bazaar of the Heracleides (and the historic confessions of the Church of the East) with the condemned straw-man "Nestorianism" that no church ever taught. The Council of Ephesus led by Cyril of Alexandria was conducted in a very condescending manner with much haste to simply condemn Nestorius over a linguistic misunderstanding.
I would encourage the creator of this video to mention about the historic confessions of the Church of the East in honouring Nestorius while also denouncing the false straw-man of Christ existing in 2 co-existing infused "prosopoi" that was mistakenly and unfairly attributed to them throughout history.
The condemned straw-man of "nestorianism" (which was frequently wrongfully attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and the Church of the East) that taught Christ as existing in 2 co-existing infused "prosopoi" was very similar to the heresy of "adoptionism". Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and the Church of the East would never ever teach such a false heresy of "adoptionism" in which the straw-man "nestorianism" is a subset. The issue was of the philosophical and linguistic difficulties on precisely understanding Christ's 2 distinct, unconfused yet inseparably connected natures.
The complex issue can be understood as follows:
For the Non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox, they believe that the Incarnate Christ as the perfect singular God-man was born of the Virgin Mary (as the Theotokos/bearer of God) and died on the Cross. Thus they would strongly articulate that the Son of God was born, "God suffered" (Theopaschite), died, and rose again as the Same Person being fully God and fully man inseparably. Thus Non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox feel the need to strongly articulate that it is ultimately an ontological Person that thinks, moves and acts as in reality, whereas a "nature/essence" is an abstract characteristic that cannot think, move and act on its own.
But for Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and the Church of the East, they believe that the Incarnate Christ was born of the Virgin Mary (as the Christotokos/bearer of Christ) according to his human nature distinctly as a Man, and died on the Cross as according to his human nature distinctly as a Man, yet this Same Person Jesus Christ is also fully divine in its own right as a distinct reality. Thus they would strongly articulate that the Jesus being the perfect Son of Man was born, died, and rose again, while this same Jesus in his being as a Divine Person cannot be born and die. Thus Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and the Church of the East feel the need to keep distinct this 2 natures of the Same Person Jesus Christ each as a personification in its own "categorical ontology". They are against the concept of Theopaschism (where God is capable of suffering).
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, tries to resolve this big conundrum and infighting by condemning the 2 opposite sides and strive to seek a Biblically faithful and conservative middle-ground. It provided the Chalcedonian Definition that describes of a Hypostatic Union of Christ's 2 distinct, unconfused and inseparable natures in 1 Person. This is the view that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and all Protestant denominations strongly affirm to.
Unfortunately in this process, the Non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox were mistakenly denounced and often falsely attributed as teaching "monophysitism", while the Nestorian-leaning Church of the East were mistakenly denounced and often falsely attributed as teaching "nestorianism".
Sadly, disputes over Christology replays itself again during the Protestant Reformation, this time pertaining to the Communicatio idiomatum during the
administration of the Lord's Supper (even though all Protestant denominations strongly affirm to the Chalcedonian Definition).
All Lutherans, Moravians, and Anglo-Catholics (high-church Anglican), strongly believe in the True Bodily Presence of Christ wherever and whenever the Lord's Supper is consecrated and consumed. They also regularly teach that Christ as the perfect singular God-man was born of the virgin Mary (as the Theotokos/bearer of God) and died on the Cross, (though they do not pray to nor seek intercession from Mary). Thus Lutherans, Moravians, and Anglo-Catholics are comfortable in saying the Son of God was born, "God suffered" (Theopaschite), died, and rose again.
In contrast, the Reformed Calvinists, Reformed Anglican, Presbyterian, Anabaptists, Baptists, Restorationists (Churches of Christ), Pentecostals, and contemporary Evangelicals strongly believe in a concept of Extra Calvinisticum in order to preserve and separate the distinct characteristics of Christ's 2 natures. Thus they strongly believe of a Spiritual Presence of Christ wherever and whenever the Lord's Supper is consecrated and consumed.
Most Baptist, Restorationist, and contemporary Evangelicals would also prefer regarding the virgin Mary as the "mother of Christ" than "mother of God".
Hi Gavin,
As an Apostolic Pentecostal, let me say that your example of Tolkien, Oxford, and the Shire is analogous to how we view John 1:1.
[Jesus (God incarnate) is the eternal plan of God. -Rev. 13:8]
Colloquially speaking: God was His own best plan because "if you want something done right, you may have to do it yourself.
RZ mentioned in the first 2 minutes! 🔥🔥
4:02 As an ex-Lutheran, a convert as yet to Novus Ordo (I became Trad somewhat later), and apart from the question of the Sacrifice of the Mass, where I obviously agree and already agreed with the priest that it was wrong to deny that, I asked "why transsubstantiation, why not for instance ubiquity" (which by the way was one of the Lutheran tries, another being impanation, I think, another consubstantiation).
The reply was very prompt. Ubiquity = Monophytism.
Excellent discussion. I had a Muslim friend in college who told me that in Islam they say that Jesus was in 70 places at once. If he could be in 70 why not everywhere? Now if you remove your brain and just go by what is said in Scripture (read christology in Pieper) you you could come up with their christology. However if you go by tradition and Calvin and Aquinas and reason and the council then Jesus is locally present is a safer place to be. That being said God can multiply the fishes and the Bread. So I don't believe you need Lutheran christology to believe in real presence. Case in point, Roman catholicism.
I thought I understood, but I don’t. I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around the whole thing. Time to watch the video 5 more times lol😂
When Paul says Christ “upholds everything by the word of His power,” do his words NECESSARILY establish that Christ couldn’t have literally abandoned all divine activities (while remaining God ontologically) during the incarnation? I think neither Calvin nor we should presume to know the answer to this question.
This was released as well as an AncientPathTV video, both on Lutheranism… yall planning? lol