As an LCMS member, firstly, I think the Reconquista is a great movement, and I’m encouraged by the successes it has already brought about. Secondly, an argument for closed communion that I don’t often see mentioned, but that I fully agree with, is that partaking of communion is in part a confession of your own beliefs. Catholics commune at Catholic altars because they believe what the Roman church teaches. If I were to commune at a Catholic altar, I would be implicitly lying to everyone there by implying I believe as they do. So Lutheran pastors will fence the table for the sake of those who hold a different confession, so that the pastor is not encouraging them to implicitly lie about their beliefs. TDLR, Communion means you hold beliefs in common. If you don’t have common beliefs, you shouldn’t commune.
I agree with you on everything you’ve said (I’m - recent LCMS Lutheran from ELCA) and like you said it’s more about common belief rather then believing you are the one true church.
But, when I was still member of the Eastern Orthodox church I communed for 3 times in a Lutheran church with the Lutheran belief, so I did believe what Lutherans believe and I wanted to convert but just needed time. I was confirmed Lutheran on 2nd of July this year. What about that? Why would I commune in a Church where I don't what to join?
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist idk if this is a current thing but after talking with my pastor and understanding where I stood on beliefs, he “coached” me until he knew what I truly felt, aka not very long considering I was Lutheran before and was more conservative anyways. It was 1 meeting and he said I feel good in giving you communion. That was my experience it might change depending on pastor
To fix an error that Zoomer stated about both the LCMS and WELS, we don't believe that our particular denominations are the "one true church", we have synodical fellowship with other denoms (Us WELS are communed with ELS; LCMS with AALC and some others). We just simply have a harder, harsher view on heterodoxy and heresy, so we can only commune with those who hold fast to the scriptures and our confessional documents (which are just an exposition of the Scriptures).
WELS AND LCMS are not in fellowship with each other, however they do meet annually and talk with one another. The other problem is not every LCMS congregation agrees on open/closed communion either, but for the most part it’s closed communion. You are also 100% right about the “one true church thing” but then again i would like to think it was him more making a joking then anything but who knows.
i think i've experienced what you said at around 17:16. i'm orthodox jewish, and I was at a local episcopalian church(i can't remember why, it was a while ago) and the priest there offered me communion, even though he knew i wasn't christian. i said to him: "aren't you only supposed to let christians take communion" and he sorta just replied that he doesn't care and that they don't do that sort of thing. i rejected it of course, i didn't feel comfortable with it because of my own faith, but it did strike me as odd. now i sort of understand more, and that they were one of those woke liberal churches that mr. redeemed zoomer warns about. glad i understand more about communion now.
I was raised Episcopalian, and when I was growing up in the '80s and '90s, communion was for baptized Christians only. It was acceptable to be another denomination, such as Methodist or Lutheran, as long as you were baptized. Around the early 2000s, my church had an interim rector who believed in a completely open communion where even non-Christians and atheists could receive. I'm not sure if the Episcopal Church has a unified stance on the communion issue. Things may vary, depending on the church and the rector. In any case, you did the right thing by not receiving communion if you did not feel comfortable doing so. I'm Catholic now and we're not supposed to receive communion at Protestant churches, even if those churches allow it.
@@christinacole7019An attempt to establish Open Communion was raised and instantly shot down at the latest General Convention. Doesn't mean rectors won't do it (or that a rector will suffer Title IV consequences for it), but it remains a minority position in TEC.
@@farlado5459 Thanks for letting me know! By open communion, do you mean communion that's open to non-Christians? There's a difference between allowing baptized Christians (regardless of denomination) to receive and allowing non-Christians to do so.
Yeah, for a goy to offer a very cut-down Passover Seder to an orthodox jew, to be partaken of among goyim, almost certainly not on the actual date of Passover, where the order of service quotes a Rabbi who claimed to be the Messiah and also God, as he says that the Matzoh and the Wine represent his flesh and blood (and, when you look at the setting in which the words quoted were said and what Christian doctrine is about the event, his flesh and blood *offered as the Passover sacrifice to end all Passover sacrifices*), where the goy offering to let the jew participate is ignoring the restrictions of his own claimed religion on who may participate, while almost certainly offering *no context* for the jew on what Christians believe communion means in the Jewish context as something intimately tied to the Passover... The fact that you refused would make most devout evangelicals more comfortable about sharing communion with you than with the officiant at this supposed "church". They still wouldn't be any more comfortable sharing communion with you than you with them, but they'd be *more* comfortable with you than with an episcopalian that showed such laxity. I once read a sermon delivered by the archbishop of the Episcopal "Church" back in the 2000s that was so pagan it curdled my blood to read it. It recast a story from the New Testament in which the Apostle Paul drives a demon out of a girl as a story where he wrongfully drives out a benevolent spirit. Even aside from the various controversies on issues of morality between episcopalians and evangelicals, that sermon is just so at odds with the basics of not only Christianity but all of the Judeo-Christian faiths that I'm inclined to assume that an episcopalian individual or congregation is not merely heretical but in fact completely pagan if I know nothing more about them than that they are episcopalian.
About the reconquista debate, I agree with you. It's like in the Catholic Church, the German Bishops started petitioning to Vatican to bless gay marriage. Some of them already did without, but true Catholics in Germany, especially the young ones, protested against it. Now the Pope sends a representative to clash with those Bishops. PS: My point is, that's how the Catholic Church do a reconquista.
I am in the LCMS and my pastor has a bit of a different view than most of our synod. He says that as far as he can tell our confessions only strictly require that someone taking Communion in our church be a baptized believer and who believes they are receiving the True Body and Blood of Christ. Because of this he allowed me to take Communion before I had completed catechesis and joined the LCMS because I was a baptized Christian who held the same view as the the Lutheran Confessions on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In saying all this he differentiated between the view of “close” Communion, which he said was technically what we require, and “closed” Communion, which is what we most commonly practice.
Most LCMS churches now post on the screen, in the bulletin, on the attendance cards, or have the pastor announce before communion anyone who has been baptized and believes it's the body and blood of Christ can receive it. It's only seen as necessary that the church removes any spiritual liability from knowingly allowing someone to take it in vain. That used to mean membership in almost every denomination a hundred years ago.
@@litigioussociety4249 Even for the hated ELCA?? 😂 My wife and I started going to church again recently and ended up choosing a moderate ELCA one around us because she grew up Catholic and I found the closed communion ridiculous at the LCMS churches. But we would both acknowledge real presence (as both Catholics and ELCA Lutherans do).
@@fighterofthenightman1057 The ELCA a hundred years ago was the same denomination as the LCMS, and closed communion was the standard without membership. I don't know what ELCA does now, but fully open communion with no disclosures is definitely not in line with the Apostle Paul's instructions, because it welcomes vain partaking.
As a Lutheran living in Germany, I find this to be a huge issue. Way back when, the king of Prussia forced the Lutheran and Reformed churches to merge into one united church, during which Communion was dropped completely, now we only have the Lord's Supper symbolically, no Real Presence at all. This leaves me in a situation where, as a believer in the Real Presence, my church does not dispense the real body and blood of Christ, and the Catholic church doesn't allow me to partake in communion. I would really love to receive the real body and blood, but I am being denied communion with no church in my area that would dispense it to me.
Whatever your church thinks, it does not matter. Even zoomer said that he would still commune in a baptist church even though they are sacramentaly Zwinglian, cuz in truth the Body and Blood of Christ are still dispensed by the universal church, no matter what your church organization believes in about the Eucharist.
I guess I can follow their (pro-closed communion) logic, but when their fellow Christians want to promote interdenominational relations, it's a bummer to be sure. At my California Foursquare church, we would never think of closing it to any fellow believers. To paraphrase my pastor, "If you love Jesus, you're family." I went to a LCMS junior high school, and would say that of the high-church traditions it's the one I like most, if not for this issue. But I love my Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ all the same. Another great video, RZ. Looking forward to your upcoming baptism debate with @yourcalvinist.
A lot of LCMS (angry lutheran) congregations will let you take communion if you talk to the pastor first and he confirms you have orthodox theology. By no means do you have to be a registered and confirmed member of the lutheran church to take communion, unlike the catholics.
Yea, it's not really a issue of having the true faith, it's more of a concern of believing in the real presence, since we believe someone can take communion unworthly
FYI: Those churches which believe that it is truly the body and blood of Christ have closed communion to help protect the person. 1 Cor. 11:27-29 "...without discerning the body of Christ..." Believe that those who do not believe in the real presence are failing to discern the real body of Christ and thus, "...eat and drink judgment on themselves." The churches also do not know what training or belief system the person has, so they may think they are a "Christian" but are not in truth; a pastor simply saying only for Christians is not much and peer pressure alone might have nonbelievers partaking. The churches that believe it is the real presence hold that communion is a powerful and holy sacrament with serious consequences. A little too convenient to have a belief that it's only real if you're a Christian but remains just bread/wine if not - the churches which believe it becomes the true body and blood don't think it can just jump back and forth after the blessing from my understanding. Thus, I can respect the Catholic and Orthodox churches for be cautious with something as holy and serious as communion. Different translation: "Therefore, whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." (Not just for those in your historical reference who were abusing the love feast.) Interesting to hear your thoughts on this aspect of the issue. Appreciate your videos.
im playing armored core 6 while listening to your videos and you just confused the hell out of me when you started talking about the PCA while i was fighting the PCA (planetary closure administration) ingame
A bit late commenting this, but would you consider doing a video on what we should use for Communion? Christ instituted bread and wine but many churches use grape juice. Some churches are particular about having leavened or unleavened bread. Also are there any practices you prefer? For instance, thoughts on taking from a common cup, physically breaking bread in the service, is intinction ok, etc.
Strongly disagree here the main argument for closed communion was not even mentioned. Why would you offer or take communion when you don’t agree on what communion is. Why would someone who believe it is symbolic take communion at a church where communion is believe to be the body and blood of Christ? And vice-versa.
I think my answer is that no matter what an individual believes. Our opinions are not going to stop the holy spirit from accomplishing his will. I used to believe communion was symbolic, now I believe its transmutation, and literal. However if im wrong that does not mean i have the power to change how God expresses himself, and trust he will have the grace to overlook my lack of understanding if i am wrong.
Is there any evidence that communion turns into literal human flesh and blood? Like, would we open up someone's stomach (who took communion) and find real human flesh instead of bread?
@@kenanbroersma709 As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it, for this is my body.”
@@kemptonbryan Jesus also said "Eat my flesh and drink my blood" He wasn't referring to communion because it hadn't happened yet. Are we supposed to take a literalist view of everything Jesus said? Which is more likely: Jesus meant that bread and wine is his literal human flesh and blood or Jesus was referring to our spiritual needs through a symbolic meal. Like how we need food and drink to satisfy our physical needs, we also need Jesus and his teachings to satisfy our spiritual needs?
I presently attend an RPCC church and it's a very different "brand" of Presbyterianism than the one with which you are most familiar. I was baptized Roman Catholic when I was seven, but received a second sprinkling when I joined the RPCC (then RPCNA). We also have closed communion, but I'm with you - open communion is my preference. There's also a heavy focus on exclusive psalmody. I love singing psalms, but I find the evidence for EP unconvincing.
I'm a fan of Redeemed Zoomer and I wish him well. I like his cheeky plan to take back the Mainline. Conservative Christians are too defensive. However, as a Wisconsin Synod member, I disagree with him on closed communion. The very roots of the word Communion from the Latin word communio implies unity, including unity in doctrine. People who don't discern the Lord's body, especially from the Ziwinglian Reformed tradition can do damage go their souls by not recognizing Christ in the Eucharist. We are doing outsiders a favor by not communing them. Just for the record, we do not believe that all who hold to error are damned.
I would have to disagree with your point more that I think about it, non-denominational just joins together on less beliefs than other denominations, where denominations separate themselves from each other entirely.
The big problem I have with using the 1 Corinthians passage to bar people from communion (to guard against taking it in an "unworthy manner") is that Paul tells us exactly what he thinks that an "unworthy manner" is, right there in the context of the passage. The issue was literally that people were being excluded from the meal because the firstcomers were being greedy. 1 Corinthians 11:21-22 (LEB): For when you* eat it, each one of you goes ahead to take his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 For do you not have houses for eating and drinking? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who do not have anything? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you! 1 Corinthians 11:33-34 (LEB): So then, my brothers, when you* come together in order to eat the Lord’s supper,* wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And I will give directions about the remaining matters whenever I come.
Apostolic tradition tells us exactly what they mean by "an unworthy manner". We dont have to guess at the meaning using our personal interpretations of scripture.
Have you heard Cannon in D? If I had to pinpoint a herald of the divine for me it was when I heard it played on Tesla coils . It makes me think of when you said beauty is a way to know god
So, generally I agree with you. The only issue is that concerning 1 Corinthians and recognizing the true presence. I would commune with any Christian who recognized the true presence, but I would worship with any Christian who takes Christianity seriously. So, I would take communion at an EO church. I would go to church at a baptist church but wouldn’t take communion there.
A couple points from an LCMS brother in Christ for consideration: 1) One of the biggest reasons for denying communion is that it is a confession of faith. When you receive the host and the cup you are told “The body of Christ given to you” and “The blood of Christ shed for you” and expected to say Amen - this is true. If you cannot affirm true presence you can’t affirm these words and take the sacrament. As for denying non-confessional Lutherans most of their problems are much worse than denying real presence. 2) Have you ever considered that allowing open communion may be the reason the other traditions struggle to maintain their traditions? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the 3 you mentioned (Lutheran, Catholic, and Orthodox) have been able to better guard the faith. Withholding communion has been used for as long as the Church has recorded as a means of trying to correct errors in the Church. We don’t like to do it, we don’t want to, but what other choice do we have to encourage people to learn from their mistakes?
Every single Christian taking communion, even the most hard-line memorialist, affirms that the bread is Christ's body and the cup is his blood. The confession itself was never the point of contention. No one is going to hear "this is my body" and "this is my blood" and object because they don't believe in transubstantiation or sacramental union. It's beyond petty to claim that someone is denying the Word by disagreeing with your theology of communion. It reminds me of the militant young-earth creationists who equate theistic evolution with rejection of Scripture.
Thanks for your response! Always good getting to hear the other side of my thoughts. I would however have to say that to call disagreement on sacramental theology petty kinda misses the point here. Luther himself walked away from the Reformed over this point. This whole video is discussing why Lutherans don’t commune with other denominations so of course I’m going to disagree and say that they’re wrong. Believe it or not a lot of that does have to do with our belief on the supper specifically. I also didn’t say they deny the word of God - I’m pointing out my theological understanding of the issue. Lutherans have high sacrementology, and as he pointed out in the video we are concerned that if we let fellow believers take without understanding they are taking the true body and true blood of Christ that they eat and drink judgement on themselves. It comes from a legitimate concern, so yes your confession before the alter does matter to us. If you choose to worry about it that is your decision - that’s the disagreement here. I understand that there are other traditional reasons why Lutherans practice closed communion but I promise you a right understanding of sacremental theology is a part of it - it’s why we have to be confirmed and agree to uphold the Lutheran confessions before our first communion too and we are reminded to discern the presence before every communion. I do apologize for the spirited commenting, and pray that both of us have a better understanding. I will say the comparison to baptisms being considered legitimate did make me think a lot more about the subject 😁
@@ericboysen1196Thank you for your gracious response, brother. I think you might have misunderstood my point. I was contending your statement that unless you believe in true presence (I assume you mean in the Lutheran sense) you can't affirm the confession "this is my body" and "this is my blood." The fact is, even people who think that is meant in a symbolic sense _do_ affirm it. Saying that they do not affirm it merely because they do understand it in a Lutheran or Roman way is what I was referring to as petty.
Ah I see the misunderstanding. So the way I would see it is since the pastor is the one saying these words, your agreement is with their confession of those words as he understands them. Again I know we get into a weird ground here with valid sacraments from heretics but I do think it's a bit different since communion is a kind of communal confession. I think a good comparison here is actually the term real presence. Zoomer uses that phrase ALL the time when he talks about the supper, now I as a Lutheran can say I agree with real presence, but I could not say I agree with Zoomer. Does that make sense? Fair warning I know this is an over the top example but...I don't think either of us would say that Mormons can affirm the Nicene Creed so I wouldn't say they can affirm Christianity, but they would still call themselves Christians. I think in the same way I can say that baptists can't affirm those words the same way I do - our understanding of what it means to affirm them is different, so their confession at the alter wouldn't be true. I think an important thing to remember when having this discussion on closed communion is that we also close ourselves off from your table. If I went to a Baptist/ reformed church I would also say I cant agree with the confession at their alter and so I would not take their communion. We also would never do this with any other sacrament, a Baptist would never even want their child baptized by a Lutheran. Why should they want to take our communion let alone feel entitlement to it? I really do want to thank you for hearing me out and the good conversation. As a quick aside I do find it funny that Lutherans are always the focus of this conversation despite Catholics and orthodox being far more restrictive about the alter
Both historically and currently, proprietary about sacraments and fellowship are a core tenet of LCMS faith. To anybody outside observer, these things may be less important, but they really do define the church.
I went to a Pan y Vino student retreat in college, and they didn't let me take communion with them. They also could absolve me of my sins at confession (I also think that is kinda God's thing to do). Other than that it was interesting to see their worship and lifestyle. I openly support support open communion with my brother and sisters in Christ.
LCMS convert & seminarian here - I think the issue RZ is overlooking is that Holy Communion should happen in the context of pastoral care. That's a huge part of what closed communion is about. Christ's Body and Blood are not fast food to be handed out through a drive-thru window to anyone who shows up, and unworthy communing is dangerous. Closed communion also makes church discipline more feasible. Almost all professors and pastors I've spoken to about this have said that they will commune a baptized non-Lutheran if he or she is committed to faithful attendance at the parish and being under the pastor's care, coming to confession, etc. Also ever since the Reformation, Lutherans have never practiced absolutely closed communion (only normatively closed, like literally every other Prot denom until the '60s).
I once visited an Episcopal church and before I went I read about their communion policy. An Episcopal website explained they do open communion not because they devalue communion but because they believe in the power of Christian baptism
At the denomination I attend, they practice closed communion, meaning if you're not in fellowship (basically part of the denomination) you can't have communion, but you can attend church. Because they believe having communion with other denominations means you're agreeing with their doctrines which are different from theirs. I'm not 100% on where i stand, but I'd like to believe you can have fellowship with any believer so long as their not following doctrines that are heresies....
Open communion could make sense under a Reformed perspective, but if you believe that the Universal Church (The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) is a single institution, like the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church, open communion makes a lot less sense, because people who don't belong to your denomination are at best in imperfect communion and at worse not in communion at all with the Body of Christ. And so I'm glad you understand why Catholics and Orthodox do closed communion (And, even if you believe in open communion, please do not try to take communion at a Catholic or Orthodox church.), but there are some Protestants who have a similar view of how the Church works. Some Anglicans and some Lutherans agree that the Church is a visible institution, not just the body of all believers. Thus it makes sense why Lutherans don't practice open communion. By the way, I am Catholic, if that helps you understand where I'm coming from better.
Well, not also just that we're the one true church (Catholic here) but another reason is that we don't permit anyone who doesn't believe in what we believe about the Eucharist to receive. In extremely rare circumstances, a protestant who believes everything that we teach about the Eucharist and has permission from the local catholic bishop as well as being baptized and having gone to confession can receive the Eucharist. All Orthodoxes are allowed to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Church because they have the seven valid sacraments and and believe enough of our teachings to receive. In general tho, their church doesn't allows them to receive at ours and won't allow us to receive at theirs.
I’ve always called myself a Baptist but since I’ve been watching your videos I’m starting to rethink some of my opinions. One of biggest ones is baptism of babies. What are some of your beliefs on that? I always thought and was told people baptized children because it would save them regardless of what they did even if they walked away from the faith they would still be saved. or it guaranteed that they will follow God because they were baptized. but I’ve seen a lot I mean A LOT of friends, family, etc who were baptized as a child and they walked away from the faith completely, even some adopting the complete opposite beliefs. (Witch craft and other stuff) So that’s where my understanding comes into play is if baptism as a child didn’t keep them in the faith or keep them protected from sinning then what’s the point of baptism? if not showing everyone around you that have excepted Jesus as Lord and it’s a symbol of an in-word decision. Just one of my questions! I’m actually really enjoying digging deeper into things like this! Edit: as far as I know I hold calvinist views. (I’m still growing in my faith and learning about biblical theology)
Closed communion to me is the main reason why I rejected many of the traditional denominations of Christianity. I despise closed communion because to me that’s like saying that a person who died for his Christian faith in another country was not worthy of salvation because he was not worthy to take communion in your specific denomination that he did not have access to.
The point of closed communion is to protect the persob receiving and the sanctity of the sacrament, so that they do not eat and drink damnatoon upon themselves. That's an act of love. (Though if they have closed communion with a merely symbolic view of communion, that would be pretty odd.) The yt channel Ascension Presents i believe made a good video on closed communion you should watch.
Hey so would you say that baptists who hold to those reformed distinctives can be considered reformed, just not the ones who are only Calvinistic? It seems like most of your critiques of reformed baptists are good critiques against John Macarthur types, but not good against baptists who hold to the reformed theological paradigm more consistently.
“I support the Reconquista” is a funny way of putting it, since the “Reconquista” in question is literally your own personal pet project that you started.
For protestants, I think there's also something about being properly disposed, which I think would be like they need to also affirm the catholic doctrine regarding the eucharist. For the eastern churches, they are allowed as long as they are going on their own accord, but canon law also says that it's important for them to know what they church says about this, because not all of these churches would allow that. The catholic church also let catholics receive communion im these churches if there's no way to receive in a catholic church, but the eastern orthodox usually doesn't allow, except for some places in the middle east, and maybe if a catholic is dying and there's no catholic priest avaible.
The Eastern Orthodox are allowed to receive communion in Catholic Churches. However, the Orthodox Church tells them to only receive communion at Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church generally does not allow Protestants to receive communion. There are limited exceptions, such as when someone is in danger of death.
I haven't watched the video and I'm admittedly too lazy to, I'm guessing you'll say everyone should be able to join, Jesus would want it to be available to all, no one should be denied, etc. And that'd be fair and as a Catholic I first struggled to understand why I couldn't take communion before I was confirmed. I felt pretty hurt actually, like I wasn't "worthy enough" or something like that. But it turned out that, at least in Catholicism where we believe in transubstantiation, it's important to be knowledgeable before taking the body of Christ, I certainly wouldn't have been if I'd been allowed early and I'm glad I was fully knowledgeable before I did. Plus I remember some online post about a guy jokingly "rating" communion wafer, being pretty disrespectful and ignorant, this is why I see why it's a good idea to be confirmed and baptised.
I think for churches that truly believe they are giving people the body and the blood of Christ then in light of 1 Corinthians 11:30 it would be irresponsible to commune someone who doesn’t hold to the same belief.
I was going to strongly disagree with this video, but you clarified that closed communion makes sense for catholics and orthodox. I would agree, especially for denominations that hold symbolic views of communion, that closed communion kinda doesnt make any sense.
Hey Zoomer, I'm seriously considering becoming Roman Catholic, however, I really struggle with the current (and the past few) Popes, they seem so contradictory to traditional Christianity, naturally Catholics will make an argument for how even so I should enter their church, so I'm interested in your view on this. (Anyone else is also welcome to respond)
Hey! Before you become Roman Catholic, let me ask you. Have you experienced classical Protestantism, such as traditional Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Anglican Churches? Those have all the good things Catholicism does, but without the corruptions
Then you are a protestant, that is their main objection "pope is evil so we must purify the christianity", that being said they end up only creating heresies
If I may add a thought as a Catholic who also struggles with current popes and such... there has been corruption in the past, that is true, and there is currently, but don't let that dissuade you. In the OT, whenever the Israelite people turned their backs on God, He always rose up a great prophet or leader to bring them back, and He has done the same with the great Saints in the Church. Just consider how the Church is a divine institution run by humans, and human error, such as some modern popes, will try and creep in as Satan wishes to dissuade people from joining that which is Holy through things like corruption. Don't look to traditional protestantism, all due respect to them, but they are in schism and their Eucharist isn't valid. Seek the truth earnestly my friend! God bless!
When you say you don't believe anyone should be rebaptized if they the where baptized in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, what about if you were baptized in a Pentecostal church in the name of Jesus? Would your baptism still be recognized by the Presbyterian Church?
If you are not baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; from the perspective of any orthodox tradition, that is an invalid baptism. I would suggest discussing it with your presby pastor and getting a proper baptism in order. God Bless brother.
LCMS here who is uncomfortable with closed communion if the believer confesses that Christ is in, under and within the elements. The line about RBs who feel bad about pedobaptism had me laughing.
i would love to join kingdomcraft. with minecraft being my favorite game, and being a recent revert, i would love to hear from all of you and maybe experience a minecraft church? it would be a good change from going to my regular church, lol, as sometimes i cannot make the trip
I am pro open Communion but i understand when denominations want close Communion. The people who support closed Communion dont do this because they hate there Christian brothers but because they take there doctrin very seriously. I respect that.
The Catholic Church does not have true closed communion, Eastern Orthodox Christians can also take Communion at a Catholic Church. The issue with who can take Communion is mostly that it requires an actual set of shared beliefs about the Church, the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist and the Priesthood.
FWIW, I was baptized LCMS Lutheran, and I would NOT consider it Evangelical. You can argue it’s “its own thing” and like another categorization of Protestant (Confessional?), but I definitely do not think it’s Evangelical.
“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” - 1 Corinthians 11:27 Schism is a grave sin, communion shouldn’t be given to those who have been cut off from the Vine of the holy and apostolic Catholic Church.
When the Catholic church restores truth biblically beliefs and abandons their worship of Mary (you can have all the technically definitions you want to try and differentiate it, but I've seen catholic prayers to Mary. Its worship, plain and simple) and icon veneration (not as bad as Orthodox, but they still affirm it) first.
@@DrakonPhDI am unconvinced by your argument. If you would define what worship is and then prove the following two points then I would be convinced. 1. That the definition of worship you give can only rightly be rendered to God. 2. That the Catholic Church officially teaches a prayer to Mary that fits that definition of worship.
4:54 Huh. Did they not read the same gospels that clearly show Jesus deliberately spending time with people that the "ruling" religious class despised or looked down on? He came to save the lost, not the ones who are already saved. Was he partaking of their sin? Nooooo. How do people expect to see the lost saved if they REFUSE AND DISCOURAGE interacting with the lost?
i go to an lcms church, we do not believe we are the one true church and do not have that mindset, we are just strict on communio idk why i dont agree but yeah lol.
Catholic pov: One of the things I realized recently is that as only ordained ministers (i.e. Catholic priests) can consecrate the eucharist, when it comes to protestant denominations communion practices, its more correct to be more wrong, i.e. protestant communion is purely symbolic. Or at least can only be assured of its symbolic character
@@zeroisnineI think that people should be allowed to receive, as a Catholic myself, through stricter circumstances. As it says in the Bible, if you eat or drink badly, then you are eating and drinking your own damnation (I'm paraphrasing). I think for the good of not only the person receiving, but also to prevent scandal and sacrilege with a person receiving in mortal sin. Just my thoughts. God bless!
@@ForGondor-cv4jffor sure! i really don't have formal opinions about as I'm not the sort who would have a good eye on what type of disciplines and rules we should have.
I’m in RCIA now and not being able to receive communion didn’t draw me away from the Church but rather towards it. Restriction of the distribution of the Eucharist shows true reverence and belief in the real presence. I still have a burning desire to receive but I understand & obey why the rules are in place.
Hey guys, I have a question. So I am a "Christian." However, I don't believe in God. Can you help me figure out what I am? So I believe that Jesus christ was a real man who spread the word of love and "god" and hoped to build a perfect world. However, I believe that God and Satan are metaphorical names given to the greater ideas of love, kindness, hate, and anger. A kind of projection of the legendary wolf you feed quote. The greater idea of human love and kindness, hate, and anger are what I believe to be God and the devil and that Jesus christ truly understood humanity and gave his life to show us of the hate and humility we can have.
Hi! Thanks for sharing what you believe, but that simply isn't Christianity. You can't follow Jesus without believing in God, because all His teachings about "love" and "kindness" were directly rooted in His teachings about God. If you think "god" is just a metaphor for love or justice, I suggest you be a Unitarian Universalist, because that's basically what most of them believe
@Kade811 i believe that he was a real man who believed largely the same things. However, I believe the Bible was created out of myth and legend. Curated after playing telephone with the entire world. I think he never claimed to be the son of God or to be God, but in fact , he was a product of "god" (metaphorical name given to greater concept) and that while he said many of the things he did in the Bible, what or who he was, was lost in translation from all of the myth and superstition surrounding him.
@@cookiedestroyer402 It's in the name Christian. We follow Jesus and believe he is God, the Jews don't believe that Jesus is God. Mormons somewhat believe in Jesus but they believe that a guy called Joseph Smith was the one that "restored" the doctrines of the church using a book made of gold plates that is not part of the Bible. >Born in Sharon, Vermont, Smith moved with his family to the western region of New York State, following a series of crop failures in 1816. Living in an area of intense religious revivalism during the Second Great Awakening, Smith reported experiencing a series of visions. The first of these was in 1820, when he saw "two personages" (whom he eventually described as God the Father and Jesus Christ). In 1823, he said he was visited by an angel who directed him to a buried book of golden plates inscribed with a Judeo-Christian history of an ancient American civilization. In 1830, Smith published the Book of Mormon, which he described as an English translation of those plates. The same year he organized the Church of Christ, calling it a restoration of the early Christian Church. Members of the church were later called "Latter Day Saints" or "Mormons".
Unfortunately I do not think that baptism works based on whose name it is made onto, or at least not completely. If baptism is a sign of obedience to God then it should be done to an adult.
Hey, so im a beliver, but this idea of "baptism saved" makes absloutly zero sense to me. And it seems to me that you do believe it to be correct zoomer (corret me if im wrong). Why do you believe it to be correct? Why cant i come partucipate in communion if im not baptized tho i belive the gospel fully? Some people have being baptized and they do not even belive the gospel (forgive me my spelling mistakes). I have nothing against baptism, id love to be baptized one day that day just hasnt come yet. So if you could explain to me your view and answer my questions, id really appriciate it. Or reffer me to some youtube video that discusses it (prefferably one by you lol, if you have one). Ok, God bless yall!
Idon’t know if it’s as much that baptism saves in the same type of way you’re thinking about it, but more so that baptism is a genuine deliverance of gods grace and not just a symbol(so is communion, reading the word, hearing a pastor preach, etc. these are all means of gods grace that strengthen your faith) Faith is what saves, and baptism doesn’t actively work without faith, but regardless of if you’re baptized as a child or an adult it’s still valid once you have faith in Christ, and when you have faith that is when that grace that strengthens your faith is delivered to you. God exists outside of space and time so the grace can be delivered outside of space and time: instead of thinking “chronological order” think “logical order”, yes I got baptized first, yes it was a real means of grace, I didn’t have that grace however until I put my faith in Christ, but the baptism because of Gods promises attached to it, is still valid. Hope this helps the view of baptism being more than symbolic. God Bless!
I am Eastern Orthodox, but I believe in open communion. I think that communion can be done with any individual Church which follows the Nicene Creed. For example, I can take communion in the Presbyterian Church you attend as much as I can take communion in any Eastern Orthodox Church (I am Romanian Orthodox, but most Eastern Orthodox Churches are in communion with one another).
What are you talking about, of course you can’t take “communion” at a Protestant church or anywhere else apart from the Orthodox Church?! Presbyterians don’t even believe that Christ is physically present in the sacrament, so how is that even similar to Holy Communion that we have?
You're welcome to join us Missouri weirdos whenever you want. Or not. Just don't try to have it both ways. There's a strange phenomenon of conservative presbyterians wanting to go to confessional Lutheran altars. Don't you have your own? I've been ordained LCMS and have had close conservative presbyterian friends for decades. I honestly don't get it. Never once did it occur to me to ask to commune at an OPC church. They'd say no and I'd respect them for it.
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #1 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ytc50m91QK8/mqdefault.jpg)
I went to Church for the first time since I was 12 yesterday thanks to this channel. (19)
God bless!
Great to hear this brother!😀
W
You can learn a lot there.
God bless bro, that’s awesome
I still can't get over the fact that you have a literal, actual, not-at-all-a-meme honest-to-goodness Christian Minecraft Server. Amazing. I love it.
It's almost like anyone can start a Minecraft server. Almost like it's not as exciting or interesting as your trying to make it out to be
@@YourMotherIsACatFuntNo need to be passive aggressive man ☹️
@@YourMotherIsACatFuntwhy are you leaving such rude comments
@@SymphonyZach Because I can.😉
As an LCMS member, firstly, I think the Reconquista is a great movement, and I’m encouraged by the successes it has already brought about.
Secondly, an argument for closed communion that I don’t often see mentioned, but that I fully agree with, is that partaking of communion is in part a confession of your own beliefs. Catholics commune at Catholic altars because they believe what the Roman church teaches. If I were to commune at a Catholic altar, I would be implicitly lying to everyone there by implying I believe as they do. So Lutheran pastors will fence the table for the sake of those who hold a different confession, so that the pastor is not encouraging them to implicitly lie about their beliefs.
TDLR, Communion means you hold beliefs in common. If you don’t have common beliefs, you shouldn’t commune.
I agree with you on everything you’ve said (I’m - recent LCMS Lutheran from ELCA) and like you said it’s more about common belief rather then believing you are the one true church.
But, when I was still member of the Eastern Orthodox church I communed for 3 times in a Lutheran church with the Lutheran belief, so I did believe what Lutherans believe and I wanted to convert but just needed time. I was confirmed Lutheran on 2nd of July this year.
What about that? Why would I commune in a Church where I don't what to join?
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist idk if this is a current thing but after talking with my pastor and understanding where I stood on beliefs, he “coached” me until he knew what I truly felt, aka not very long considering I was Lutheran before and was more conservative anyways. It was 1 meeting and he said I feel good in giving you communion. That was my experience it might change depending on pastor
exactly.
Didn't ask
To fix an error that Zoomer stated about both the LCMS and WELS, we don't believe that our particular denominations are the "one true church", we have synodical fellowship with other denoms (Us WELS are communed with ELS; LCMS with AALC and some others). We just simply have a harder, harsher view on heterodoxy and heresy, so we can only commune with those who hold fast to the scriptures and our confessional documents (which are just an exposition of the Scriptures).
WELS AND LCMS are not in fellowship with each other, however they do meet annually and talk with one another. The other problem is not every LCMS congregation agrees on open/closed communion either, but for the most part it’s closed communion. You are also 100% right about the “one true church thing” but then again i would like to think it was him more making a joking then anything but who knows.
A video about re-baptism would be interesting.
Thank you for the video!
No, it wouldn't. I literally couldn't think of anything I'd like to do less than that.
i think i've experienced what you said at around 17:16. i'm orthodox jewish, and I was at a local episcopalian church(i can't remember why, it was a while ago) and the priest there offered me communion, even though he knew i wasn't christian. i said to him: "aren't you only supposed to let christians take communion" and he sorta just replied that he doesn't care and that they don't do that sort of thing. i rejected it of course, i didn't feel comfortable with it because of my own faith, but it did strike me as odd. now i sort of understand more, and that they were one of those woke liberal churches that mr. redeemed zoomer warns about. glad i understand more about communion now.
I was raised Episcopalian, and when I was growing up in the '80s and '90s, communion was for baptized Christians only. It was acceptable to be another denomination, such as Methodist or Lutheran, as long as you were baptized. Around the early 2000s, my church had an interim rector who believed in a completely open communion where even non-Christians and atheists could receive. I'm not sure if the Episcopal Church has a unified stance on the communion issue. Things may vary, depending on the church and the rector. In any case, you did the right thing by not receiving communion if you did not feel comfortable doing so. I'm Catholic now and we're not supposed to receive communion at Protestant churches, even if those churches allow it.
@@christinacole7019An attempt to establish Open Communion was raised and instantly shot down at the latest General Convention. Doesn't mean rectors won't do it (or that a rector will suffer Title IV consequences for it), but it remains a minority position in TEC.
@@farlado5459 Thanks for letting me know! By open communion, do you mean communion that's open to non-Christians? There's a difference between allowing baptized Christians (regardless of denomination) to receive and allowing non-Christians to do so.
@@christinacole7019 Correct
Yeah, for a goy to offer a very cut-down Passover Seder to an orthodox jew, to be partaken of among goyim, almost certainly not on the actual date of Passover, where the order of service quotes a Rabbi who claimed to be the Messiah and also God, as he says that the Matzoh and the Wine represent his flesh and blood (and, when you look at the setting in which the words quoted were said and what Christian doctrine is about the event, his flesh and blood *offered as the Passover sacrifice to end all Passover sacrifices*), where the goy offering to let the jew participate is ignoring the restrictions of his own claimed religion on who may participate, while almost certainly offering *no context* for the jew on what Christians believe communion means in the Jewish context as something intimately tied to the Passover...
The fact that you refused would make most devout evangelicals more comfortable about sharing communion with you than with the officiant at this supposed "church". They still wouldn't be any more comfortable sharing communion with you than you with them, but they'd be *more* comfortable with you than with an episcopalian that showed such laxity. I once read a sermon delivered by the archbishop of the Episcopal "Church" back in the 2000s that was so pagan it curdled my blood to read it. It recast a story from the New Testament in which the Apostle Paul drives a demon out of a girl as a story where he wrongfully drives out a benevolent spirit. Even aside from the various controversies on issues of morality between episcopalians and evangelicals, that sermon is just so at odds with the basics of not only Christianity but all of the Judeo-Christian faiths that I'm inclined to assume that an episcopalian individual or congregation is not merely heretical but in fact completely pagan if I know nothing more about them than that they are episcopalian.
About the reconquista debate, I agree with you. It's like in the Catholic Church, the German Bishops started petitioning to Vatican to bless gay marriage. Some of them already did without, but true Catholics in Germany, especially the young ones, protested against it. Now the Pope sends a representative to clash with those Bishops.
PS: My point is, that's how the Catholic Church do a reconquista.
The Vatican itself is compromised though, so not the best analogy.
i remember this day...great minecraft lore
I am in the LCMS and my pastor has a bit of a different view than most of our synod. He says that as far as he can tell our confessions only strictly require that someone taking Communion in our church be a baptized believer and who believes they are receiving the True Body and Blood of Christ. Because of this he allowed me to take Communion before I had completed catechesis and joined the LCMS because I was a baptized Christian who held the same view as the the Lutheran Confessions on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In saying all this he differentiated between the view of “close” Communion, which he said was technically what we require, and “closed” Communion, which is what we most commonly practice.
This is my lcms church's rule as well
Most LCMS churches now post on the screen, in the bulletin, on the attendance cards, or have the pastor announce before communion anyone who has been baptized and believes it's the body and blood of Christ can receive it. It's only seen as necessary that the church removes any spiritual liability from knowingly allowing someone to take it in vain. That used to mean membership in almost every denomination a hundred years ago.
Lol, and here I thought my LCMS church was the only one that did this. Nice to know we're not alone.
@@litigioussociety4249 Even for the hated ELCA?? 😂 My wife and I started going to church again recently and ended up choosing a moderate ELCA one around us because she grew up Catholic and I found the closed communion ridiculous at the LCMS churches. But we would both acknowledge real presence (as both Catholics and ELCA Lutherans do).
@@fighterofthenightman1057 The ELCA a hundred years ago was the same denomination as the LCMS, and closed communion was the standard without membership. I don't know what ELCA does now, but fully open communion with no disclosures is definitely not in line with the Apostle Paul's instructions, because it welcomes vain partaking.
As a Lutheran living in Germany, I find this to be a huge issue. Way back when, the king of Prussia forced the Lutheran and Reformed churches to merge into one united church, during which Communion was dropped completely, now we only have the Lord's Supper symbolically, no Real Presence at all. This leaves me in a situation where, as a believer in the Real Presence, my church does not dispense the real body and blood of Christ, and the Catholic church doesn't allow me to partake in communion. I would really love to receive the real body and blood, but I am being denied communion with no church in my area that would dispense it to me.
Whatever your church thinks, it does not matter. Even zoomer said that he would still commune in a baptist church even though they are sacramentaly Zwinglian, cuz in truth the Body and Blood of Christ are still dispensed by the universal church, no matter what your church organization believes in about the Eucharist.
"real" presence😂😂
This is false. Without proper, apostolic ordinarion, the priest or "minister" is only participating in a symbol.
Are you near an SELK church? They are a confessional Lutheran denomination in Germany that came after the merge.
I guess I can follow their (pro-closed communion) logic, but when their fellow Christians want to promote interdenominational relations, it's a bummer to be sure. At my California Foursquare church, we would never think of closing it to any fellow believers. To paraphrase my pastor, "If you love Jesus, you're family."
I went to a LCMS junior high school, and would say that of the high-church traditions it's the one I like most, if not for this issue. But I love my Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ all the same.
Another great video, RZ. Looking forward to your upcoming baptism debate with @yourcalvinist.
No one asked. Even less care.
@@YourMotherIsACatFunt I care what he had to say and I found it interesting
A lot of LCMS (angry lutheran) congregations will let you take communion if you talk to the pastor first and he confirms you have orthodox theology. By no means do you have to be a registered and confirmed member of the lutheran church to take communion, unlike the catholics.
Yea, it's not really a issue of having the true faith, it's more of a concern of believing in the real presence, since we believe someone can take communion unworthly
@@dekatus7746 and also we believe the presence of Christ is present, even for unbelievers.
Haha been waiting for this upload. I remember leading everyone as we messed with you while recording. Great video as always Zoomer!
Thank God for closed communion! It’s one of many reasons I became an Orthodox Christian.
That's cool. I've been wanting to become Orthodox for a while.
☦🛐
FYI: Those churches which believe that it is truly the body and blood of Christ have closed communion to help protect the person. 1 Cor. 11:27-29 "...without discerning the body of Christ..." Believe that those who do not believe in the real presence are failing to discern the real body of Christ and thus, "...eat and drink judgment on themselves." The churches also do not know what training or belief system the person has, so they may think they are a "Christian" but are not in truth; a pastor simply saying only for Christians is not much and peer pressure alone might have nonbelievers partaking. The churches that believe it is the real presence hold that communion is a powerful and holy sacrament with serious consequences. A little too convenient to have a belief that it's only real if you're a Christian but remains just bread/wine if not - the churches which believe it becomes the true body and blood don't think it can just jump back and forth after the blessing from my understanding. Thus, I can respect the Catholic and Orthodox churches for be cautious with something as holy and serious as communion. Different translation: "Therefore, whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." (Not just for those in your historical reference who were abusing the love feast.) Interesting to hear your thoughts on this aspect of the issue. Appreciate your videos.
I’m a Protestant and I agree
18:31 I got an ad just before that "What's that sound?", and it felt like you were self-aware for a moment there xD
im playing armored core 6 while listening to your videos and you just confused the hell out of me when you started talking about the PCA while i was fighting the PCA (planetary closure administration) ingame
I am Lutheran and we have open communion.❤
What Lutheran body are you a part of?
@@unit2394 Slovak Evangelical Church of Augsburg Confession in Serbia
I´m a Catholic and I strongly disagree with giving Communion to people who don´t believe it´s the actual Body of Christ.
Great video as always Zoomer.
The chat on your server is amazing 😂
A bit late commenting this, but would you consider doing a video on what we should use for Communion? Christ instituted bread and wine but many churches use grape juice. Some churches are particular about having leavened or unleavened bread. Also are there any practices you prefer? For instance, thoughts on taking from a common cup, physically breaking bread in the service, is intinction ok, etc.
Jesus f**king Christ. Get a gf FFS.
Strongly disagree here the main argument for closed communion was not even mentioned. Why would you offer or take communion when you don’t agree on what communion is.
Why would someone who believe it is symbolic take communion at a church where communion is believe to be the body and blood of Christ? And vice-versa.
Good point
I think my answer is that no matter what an individual believes. Our opinions are not going to stop the holy spirit from accomplishing his will. I used to believe communion was symbolic, now I believe its transmutation, and literal. However if im wrong that does not mean i have the power to change how God expresses himself, and trust he will have the grace to overlook my lack of understanding if i am wrong.
Is there any evidence that communion turns into literal human flesh and blood? Like, would we open up someone's stomach (who took communion) and find real human flesh instead of bread?
@@kenanbroersma709 As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it, for this is my body.”
@@kemptonbryan Jesus also said "Eat my flesh and drink my blood" He wasn't referring to communion because it hadn't happened yet. Are we supposed to take a literalist view of everything Jesus said? Which is more likely: Jesus meant that bread and wine is his literal human flesh and blood or Jesus was referring to our spiritual needs through a symbolic meal. Like how we need food and drink to satisfy our physical needs, we also need Jesus and his teachings to satisfy our spiritual needs?
The UMC has what's called "open table communion" which is communion open to everyone.
I presently attend an RPCC church and it's a very different "brand" of Presbyterianism than the one with which you are most familiar. I was baptized Roman Catholic when I was seven, but received a second sprinkling when I joined the RPCC (then RPCNA). We also have closed communion, but I'm with you - open communion is my preference. There's also a heavy focus on exclusive psalmody. I love singing psalms, but I find the evidence for EP unconvincing.
I'm a fan of Redeemed Zoomer and I wish him well. I like his cheeky plan to take back the Mainline. Conservative Christians are too defensive. However, as a Wisconsin Synod member, I disagree with him on closed communion. The very roots of the word Communion from the Latin word communio implies unity, including unity in doctrine. People who don't discern the Lord's body, especially from the Ziwinglian Reformed tradition can do damage go their souls by not recognizing Christ in the Eucharist. We are doing outsiders a favor by not communing them. Just for the record, we do not believe that all who hold to error are damned.
Facts
The unity means unity with christ.
What about wine vs welches grape juice?
When he gets really into the debate that New York accent comes out😂
I would have to disagree with your point more that I think about it, non-denominational just joins together on less beliefs than other denominations, where denominations separate themselves from each other entirely.
The big problem I have with using the 1 Corinthians passage to bar people from communion (to guard against taking it in an "unworthy manner") is that Paul tells us exactly what he thinks that an "unworthy manner" is, right there in the context of the passage.
The issue was literally that people were being excluded from the meal because the firstcomers were being greedy.
1 Corinthians 11:21-22 (LEB): For when you* eat it, each one of you goes ahead to take his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 For do you not have houses for eating and drinking? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who do not have anything? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you!
1 Corinthians 11:33-34 (LEB): So then, my brothers, when you* come together in order to eat the Lord’s supper,* wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And I will give directions about the remaining matters whenever I come.
Apostolic tradition tells us exactly what they mean by "an unworthy manner". We dont have to guess at the meaning using our personal interpretations of scripture.
Next one
Why i dont support communism/nazism/ and other lefist ideologies
Have you heard Cannon in D? If I had to pinpoint a herald of the divine for me it was when I heard it played on Tesla coils
.
It makes me think of when you said beauty is a way to know god
So, generally I agree with you. The only issue is that concerning 1 Corinthians and recognizing the true presence. I would commune with any Christian who recognized the true presence, but I would worship with any Christian who takes Christianity seriously. So, I would take communion at an EO church. I would go to church at a baptist church but wouldn’t take communion there.
Any plans to make this server crossplay?
Here in Brazil people who are baptized in the Catholic church have to be re-baptized when they go to the Presbyterian church. I don't understand why!
A couple points from an LCMS brother in Christ for consideration:
1) One of the biggest reasons for denying communion is that it is a confession of faith. When you receive the host and the cup you are told “The body of Christ given to you” and “The blood of Christ shed for you” and expected to say Amen - this is true. If you cannot affirm true presence you can’t affirm these words and take the sacrament. As for denying non-confessional Lutherans most of their problems are much worse than denying real presence.
2) Have you ever considered that allowing open communion may be the reason the other traditions struggle to maintain their traditions? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the 3 you mentioned (Lutheran, Catholic, and Orthodox) have been able to better guard the faith. Withholding communion has been used for as long as the Church has recorded as a means of trying to correct errors in the Church. We don’t like to do it, we don’t want to, but what other choice do we have to encourage people to learn from their mistakes?
Every single Christian taking communion, even the most hard-line memorialist, affirms that the bread is Christ's body and the cup is his blood. The confession itself was never the point of contention. No one is going to hear "this is my body" and "this is my blood" and object because they don't believe in transubstantiation or sacramental union. It's beyond petty to claim that someone is denying the Word by disagreeing with your theology of communion. It reminds me of the militant young-earth creationists who equate theistic evolution with rejection of Scripture.
Thanks for your response! Always good getting to hear the other side of my thoughts. I would however have to say that to call disagreement on sacramental theology petty kinda misses the point here. Luther himself walked away from the Reformed over this point. This whole video is discussing why Lutherans don’t commune with other denominations so of course I’m going to disagree and say that they’re wrong. Believe it or not a lot of that does have to do with our belief on the supper specifically. I also didn’t say they deny the word of God - I’m pointing out my theological understanding of the issue. Lutherans have high sacrementology, and as he pointed out in the video we are concerned that if we let fellow believers take without understanding they are taking the true body and true blood of Christ that they eat and drink judgement on themselves. It comes from a legitimate concern, so yes your confession before the alter does matter to us. If you choose to worry about it that is your decision - that’s the disagreement here. I understand that there are other traditional reasons why Lutherans practice closed communion but I promise you a right understanding of sacremental theology is a part of it - it’s why we have to be confirmed and agree to uphold the Lutheran confessions before our first communion too and we are reminded to discern the presence before every communion.
I do apologize for the spirited commenting, and pray that both of us have a better understanding. I will say the comparison to baptisms being considered legitimate did make me think a lot more about the subject 😁
@@ericboysen1196Thank you for your gracious response, brother. I think you might have misunderstood my point. I was contending your statement that unless you believe in true presence (I assume you mean in the Lutheran sense) you can't affirm the confession "this is my body" and "this is my blood." The fact is, even people who think that is meant in a symbolic sense _do_ affirm it. Saying that they do not affirm it merely because they do understand it in a Lutheran or Roman way is what I was referring to as petty.
Ah I see the misunderstanding. So the way I would see it is since the pastor is the one saying these words, your agreement is with their confession of those words as he understands them. Again I know we get into a weird ground here with valid sacraments from heretics but I do think it's a bit different since communion is a kind of communal confession. I think a good comparison here is actually the term real presence. Zoomer uses that phrase ALL the time when he talks about the supper, now I as a Lutheran can say I agree with real presence, but I could not say I agree with Zoomer. Does that make sense? Fair warning I know this is an over the top example but...I don't think either of us would say that Mormons can affirm the Nicene Creed so I wouldn't say they can affirm Christianity, but they would still call themselves Christians. I think in the same way I can say that baptists can't affirm those words the same way I do - our understanding of what it means to affirm them is different, so their confession at the alter wouldn't be true. I think an important thing to remember when having this discussion on closed communion is that we also close ourselves off from your table. If I went to a Baptist/ reformed church I would also say I cant agree with the confession at their alter and so I would not take their communion. We also would never do this with any other sacrament, a Baptist would never even want their child baptized by a Lutheran. Why should they want to take our communion let alone feel entitlement to it? I really do want to thank you for hearing me out and the good conversation. As a quick aside I do find it funny that Lutherans are always the focus of this conversation despite Catholics and orthodox being far more restrictive about the alter
Both historically and currently, proprietary about sacraments and fellowship are a core tenet of LCMS faith. To anybody outside observer, these things may be less important, but they really do define the church.
I went to a Pan y Vino student retreat in college, and they didn't let me take communion with them. They also could absolve me of my sins at confession (I also think that is kinda God's thing to do). Other than that it was interesting to see their worship and lifestyle.
I openly support support open communion with my brother and sisters in Christ.
LCMS convert & seminarian here - I think the issue RZ is overlooking is that Holy Communion should happen in the context of pastoral care. That's a huge part of what closed communion is about.
Christ's Body and Blood are not fast food to be handed out through a drive-thru window to anyone who shows up, and unworthy communing is dangerous. Closed communion also makes church discipline more feasible. Almost all professors and pastors I've spoken to about this have said that they will commune a baptized non-Lutheran if he or she is committed to faithful attendance at the parish and being under the pastor's care, coming to confession, etc.
Also ever since the Reformation, Lutherans have never practiced absolutely closed communion (only normatively closed, like literally every other Prot denom until the '60s).
I feel Closed communion encourages people to actually become part of the church.
I once visited an Episcopal church and before I went I read about their communion policy. An Episcopal website explained they do open communion not because they devalue communion but because they believe in the power of Christian baptism
7:24 Luther didn't want to leave his church. Thank You Zoomer I agree.
When was this video recorded?
Ik its not the best place to ask this but I can't think of anything better, why does the server now need whitelist?
can you make a video about heresy in general
😮AMAZING
At the denomination I attend, they practice closed communion, meaning if you're not in fellowship (basically part of the denomination) you can't have communion, but you can attend church. Because they believe having communion with other denominations means you're agreeing with their doctrines which are different from theirs. I'm not 100% on where i stand, but I'd like to believe you can have fellowship with any believer so long as their not following doctrines that are heresies....
Open communion could make sense under a Reformed perspective, but if you believe that the Universal Church (The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) is a single institution, like the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church, open communion makes a lot less sense, because people who don't belong to your denomination are at best in imperfect communion and at worse not in communion at all with the Body of Christ. And so I'm glad you understand why Catholics and Orthodox do closed communion (And, even if you believe in open communion, please do not try to take communion at a Catholic or Orthodox church.), but there are some Protestants who have a similar view of how the Church works. Some Anglicans and some Lutherans agree that the Church is a visible institution, not just the body of all believers. Thus it makes sense why Lutherans don't practice open communion.
By the way, I am Catholic, if that helps you understand where I'm coming from better.
Well, not also just that we're the one true church (Catholic here) but another reason is that we don't permit anyone who doesn't believe in what we believe about the Eucharist to receive. In extremely rare circumstances, a protestant who believes everything that we teach about the Eucharist and has permission from the local catholic bishop as well as being baptized and having gone to confession can receive the Eucharist. All Orthodoxes are allowed to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Church because they have the seven valid sacraments and and believe enough of our teachings to receive. In general tho, their church doesn't allows them to receive at ours and won't allow us to receive at theirs.
I’ve always called myself a Baptist but since I’ve been watching your videos I’m starting to rethink some of my opinions.
One of biggest ones is baptism of babies.
What are some of your beliefs on that?
I always thought and was told people baptized children because it would save them regardless of what they did even if they walked away from the faith they would still be saved. or it guaranteed that they will follow God because they were baptized.
but I’ve seen a lot I mean A LOT of friends, family, etc who were baptized as a child and they walked away from the faith completely, even some adopting the complete opposite beliefs. (Witch craft and other stuff)
So that’s where my understanding comes into play is if baptism as a child didn’t keep them in the faith or keep them protected from sinning then what’s the point of baptism? if not showing everyone around you that have excepted Jesus as Lord and it’s a symbol of an in-word decision.
Just one of my questions! I’m actually really enjoying digging deeper into things like this!
Edit: as far as I know I hold calvinist views. (I’m still growing in my faith and learning about biblical theology)
Closed communion to me is the main reason why I rejected many of the traditional denominations of Christianity. I despise closed communion because to me that’s like saying that a person who died for his Christian faith in another country was not worthy of salvation because he was not worthy to take communion in your specific denomination that he did not have access to.
The point of closed communion is to protect the persob receiving and the sanctity of the sacrament, so that they do not eat and drink damnatoon upon themselves. That's an act of love. (Though if they have closed communion with a merely symbolic view of communion, that would be pretty odd.)
The yt channel Ascension Presents i believe made a good video on closed communion you should watch.
Hey so would you say that baptists who hold to those reformed distinctives can be considered reformed, just not the ones who are only Calvinistic? It seems like most of your critiques of reformed baptists are good critiques against John Macarthur types, but not good against baptists who hold to the reformed theological paradigm more consistently.
Where's the link to your Minecraft server?
“I support the Reconquista” is a funny way of putting it, since the “Reconquista” in question is literally your own personal pet project that you started.
Absolutely New Members are good.
In Catholicism, we allow the Eastern Orthodox to get the sacraments and sometimes protestants if it's an emergency. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
For protestants, I think there's also something about being properly disposed, which I think would be like they need to also affirm the catholic doctrine regarding the eucharist.
For the eastern churches, they are allowed as long as they are going on their own accord, but canon law also says that it's important for them to know what they church says about this, because not all of these churches would allow that. The catholic church also let catholics receive communion im these churches if there's no way to receive in a catholic church, but the eastern orthodox usually doesn't allow, except for some places in the middle east, and maybe if a catholic is dying and there's no catholic priest avaible.
The Eastern Orthodox are allowed to receive communion in Catholic Churches. However, the Orthodox Church tells them to only receive communion at Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church generally does not allow Protestants to receive communion. There are limited exceptions, such as when someone is in danger of death.
plz do a vid on the Copts zoomer and ask them about their Pope
I haven't watched the video and I'm admittedly too lazy to, I'm guessing you'll say everyone should be able to join, Jesus would want it to be available to all, no one should be denied, etc. And that'd be fair and as a Catholic I first struggled to understand why I couldn't take communion before I was confirmed.
I felt pretty hurt actually, like I wasn't "worthy enough" or something like that. But it turned out that, at least in Catholicism where we believe in transubstantiation, it's important to be knowledgeable before taking the body of Christ, I certainly wouldn't have been if I'd been allowed early and I'm glad I was fully knowledgeable before I did. Plus I remember some online post about a guy jokingly "rating" communion wafer, being pretty disrespectful and ignorant, this is why I see why it's a good idea to be confirmed and baptised.
As a baptist, I legitimately did not even realize there was a noteworthy amount of baptists claiming to be reformed.
That open was funny, especially since Missouri seems like the best state imo.
I think for churches that truly believe they are giving people the body and the blood of Christ then in light of 1 Corinthians 11:30 it would be irresponsible to commune someone who doesn’t hold to the same belief.
Are you aware of a catholic youtube channel called I Miss Christendom? If you are I would like to know what you think about it
Bruh what was that sound at the end
I was going to strongly disagree with this video, but you clarified that closed communion makes sense for catholics and orthodox. I would agree, especially for denominations that hold symbolic views of communion, that closed communion kinda doesnt make any sense.
All glory be to God ❤ God bless 🙏
Hey Zoomer, I'm seriously considering becoming Roman Catholic, however, I really struggle with the current (and the past few) Popes, they seem so contradictory to traditional Christianity, naturally Catholics will make an argument for how even so I should enter their church, so I'm interested in your view on this. (Anyone else is also welcome to respond)
Hello Bro, Could i know why you are considering to become a Catholic please?
Hey! Before you become Roman Catholic, let me ask you. Have you experienced classical Protestantism, such as traditional Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Anglican Churches? Those have all the good things Catholicism does, but without the corruptions
Then you are a protestant, that is their main objection "pope is evil so we must purify the christianity", that being said they end up only creating heresies
Keep in mind thats my, catholic perspective
If I may add a thought as a Catholic who also struggles with current popes and such... there has been corruption in the past, that is true, and there is currently, but don't let that dissuade you. In the OT, whenever the Israelite people turned their backs on God, He always rose up a great prophet or leader to bring them back, and He has done the same with the great Saints in the Church. Just consider how the Church is a divine institution run by humans, and human error, such as some modern popes, will try and creep in as Satan wishes to dissuade people from joining that which is Holy through things like corruption. Don't look to traditional protestantism, all due respect to them, but they are in schism and their Eucharist isn't valid. Seek the truth earnestly my friend! God bless!
Slightly related; why isn't there a video regarding LDS/ Mormons?
When you say you don't believe anyone should be rebaptized if they the where baptized in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, what about if you were baptized in a Pentecostal church in the name of Jesus? Would your baptism still be recognized by the Presbyterian Church?
If you are not baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; from the perspective of any orthodox tradition, that is an invalid baptism. I would suggest discussing it with your presby pastor and getting a proper baptism in order. God Bless brother.
LCMS here who is uncomfortable with closed communion if the believer confesses that Christ is in, under and within the elements. The line about RBs who feel bad about pedobaptism had me laughing.
i would love to join kingdomcraft. with minecraft being my favorite game, and being a recent revert, i would love to hear from all of you and maybe experience a minecraft church? it would be a good change from going to my regular church, lol, as sometimes i cannot make the trip
As a supplement, perhaps, but please do not replace your sunday obligation with video game church (even if that video game is a good one).
Even Paul talks about there being people not worthy of communion. Also read the church fathers on this.
I am pro open Communion but i understand when denominations want close Communion. The people who support closed Communion dont do this because they hate there Christian brothers but because they take there doctrin very seriously. I respect that.
Hey Joseph Smith said the garden of Eden was here.
It’s actually a decent state
Are public viewers able to join KingdomCraft? If so , how
Hmm interesting. Very good video
Oh really…
The last 3 days i been watching all your videos lol
Your friends are dorks for Jesus and I'm so for it!
Anyone who denies the resurrection needs to read 1 Corinthian 15, asap.
I actually like how my ELCA Lutheran church does it - “all baptized Christians” are welcome. Obviously a non-Christian shouldn’t take communion.
The Catholic Church does not have true closed communion, Eastern Orthodox Christians can also take Communion at a Catholic Church. The issue with who can take Communion is mostly that it requires an actual set of shared beliefs about the Church, the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist and the Priesthood.
Eastern Orthodox Christians can not commune at a Catholic church
FWIW, I was baptized LCMS Lutheran, and I would NOT consider it Evangelical. You can argue it’s “its own thing” and like another categorization of Protestant (Confessional?), but I definitely do not think it’s Evangelical.
A church with open communion is a lot like a country with open borders. Both originate from the same mindset.
“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”
- 1 Corinthians 11:27
Schism is a grave sin, communion shouldn’t be given to those who have been cut off from the Vine of the holy and apostolic Catholic Church.
When the Catholic church restores truth biblically beliefs and abandons their worship of Mary (you can have all the technically definitions you want to try and differentiate it, but I've seen catholic prayers to Mary. Its worship, plain and simple) and icon veneration (not as bad as Orthodox, but they still affirm it) first.
@@DrakonPhDI am unconvinced by your argument. If you would define what worship is and then prove the following two points then I would be convinced. 1. That the definition of worship you give can only rightly be rendered to God. 2. That the Catholic Church officially teaches a prayer to Mary that fits that definition of worship.
4:54 Huh. Did they not read the same gospels that clearly show Jesus deliberately spending time with people that the "ruling" religious class despised or looked down on? He came to save the lost, not the ones who are already saved. Was he partaking of their sin? Nooooo. How do people expect to see the lost saved if they REFUSE AND DISCOURAGE interacting with the lost?
i go to an lcms church, we do not believe we are the one true church and do not have that mindset, we are just strict on communio idk why i dont agree but yeah lol.
How did the Ante-Nicene fathers handle this topic?
Catholic pov: One of the things I realized recently is that as only ordained ministers (i.e. Catholic priests) can consecrate the eucharist, when it comes to protestant denominations communion practices, its more correct to be more wrong, i.e. protestant communion is purely symbolic. Or at least can only be assured of its symbolic character
That said even as a Catholic, (and within Catholic boundaries) I would desire communion to be as open as allowable
@@zeroisnineI think that people should be allowed to receive, as a Catholic myself, through stricter circumstances. As it says in the Bible, if you eat or drink badly, then you are eating and drinking your own damnation (I'm paraphrasing). I think for the good of not only the person receiving, but also to prevent scandal and sacrilege with a person receiving in mortal sin. Just my thoughts. God bless!
@@ForGondor-cv4jffor sure! i really don't have formal opinions about as I'm not the sort who would have a good eye on what type of disciplines and rules we should have.
I’m in RCIA now and not being able to receive communion didn’t draw me away from the Church but rather towards it. Restriction of the distribution of the Eucharist shows true reverence and belief in the real presence. I still have a burning desire to receive but I understand & obey why the rules are in place.
I'm not baptized.
How can I join this minecraft server
Zoomer has a video on how to join the server.
@@anonman8661 thanks
I am so non-denominational that I don't even call myself non-denominational! 😂
The Babylon Bee had a good one: "Every individual Lutheran splits into their own individual synod"
Hey guys, I have a question. So I am a "Christian." However, I don't believe in God. Can you help me figure out what I am?
So I believe that Jesus christ was a real man who spread the word of love and "god" and hoped to build a perfect world. However, I believe that God and Satan are metaphorical names given to the greater ideas of love, kindness, hate, and anger. A kind of projection of the legendary wolf you feed quote.
The greater idea of human love and kindness, hate, and anger are what I believe to be God and the devil and that Jesus christ truly understood humanity and gave his life to show us of the hate and humility we can have.
Hi! Thanks for sharing what you believe, but that simply isn't Christianity. You can't follow Jesus without believing in God, because all His teachings about "love" and "kindness" were directly rooted in His teachings about God. If you think "god" is just a metaphor for love or justice, I suggest you be a Unitarian Universalist, because that's basically what most of them believe
@@redeemedzoomer6053 so what you are saying is I believe in blasphemy
@Kade811 i believe that he was a real man who believed largely the same things. However, I believe the Bible was created out of myth and legend. Curated after playing telephone with the entire world. I think he never claimed to be the son of God or to be God, but in fact , he was a product of "god" (metaphorical name given to greater concept) and that while he said many of the things he did in the Bible, what or who he was, was lost in translation from all of the myth and superstition surrounding him.
However well intentioned, I don't like the idea of closed communion. It's almost like telling newcomers, "Go away. You're not welcome here."
would mormons and JWs be included?
@@michalis12110 why not
One needs to believe in Jesus to be Christian, if he is openly rejected as son of God one can hardly call themselves Christian.
@@jonaszswietomierz8017 mormons and JWs believe in Jesus
Should Arians and nestorians also be allowed in open communion?
@@michalis12110 so why exactly is that the standard for being a christian
@@cookiedestroyer402 It's in the name Christian. We follow Jesus and believe he is God, the Jews don't believe that Jesus is God. Mormons somewhat believe in Jesus but they believe that a guy called Joseph Smith was the one that "restored" the doctrines of the church using a book made of gold plates that is not part of the Bible.
>Born in Sharon, Vermont, Smith moved with his family to the western region of New York State, following a series of crop failures in 1816. Living in an area of intense religious revivalism during the Second Great Awakening, Smith reported experiencing a series of visions. The first of these was in 1820, when he saw "two personages" (whom he eventually described as God the Father and Jesus Christ). In 1823, he said he was visited by an angel who directed him to a buried book of golden plates inscribed with a Judeo-Christian history of an ancient American civilization. In 1830, Smith published the Book of Mormon, which he described as an English translation of those plates. The same year he organized the Church of Christ, calling it a restoration of the early Christian Church. Members of the church were later called "Latter Day Saints" or "Mormons".
Unfortunately I do not think that baptism works based on whose name it is made onto, or at least not completely. If baptism is a sign of obedience to God then it should be done to an adult.
Hey, so im a beliver, but this idea of "baptism saved" makes absloutly zero sense to me. And it seems to me that you do believe it to be correct zoomer (corret me if im wrong). Why do you believe it to be correct? Why cant i come partucipate in communion if im not baptized tho i belive the gospel fully? Some people have being baptized and they do not even belive the gospel (forgive me my spelling mistakes). I have nothing against baptism, id love to be baptized one day that day just hasnt come yet. So if you could explain to me your view and answer my questions, id really appriciate it. Or reffer me to some youtube video that discusses it (prefferably one by you lol, if you have one). Ok, God bless yall!
Idon’t know if it’s as much that baptism saves in the same type of way you’re thinking about it, but more so that baptism is a genuine deliverance of gods grace and not just a symbol(so is communion, reading the word, hearing a pastor preach, etc. these are all means of gods grace that strengthen your faith)
Faith is what saves, and baptism doesn’t actively work without faith, but regardless of if you’re baptized as a child or an adult it’s still valid once you have faith in Christ, and when you have faith that is when that grace that strengthens your faith is delivered to you.
God exists outside of space and time so the grace can be delivered outside of space and time: instead of thinking “chronological order” think “logical order”, yes I got baptized first, yes it was a real means of grace, I didn’t have that grace however until I put my faith in Christ, but the baptism because of Gods promises attached to it, is still valid.
Hope this helps the view of baptism being more than symbolic. God Bless!
I am Eastern Orthodox, but I believe in open communion. I think that communion can be done with any individual Church which follows the Nicene Creed. For example, I can take communion in the Presbyterian Church you attend as much as I can take communion in any Eastern Orthodox Church (I am Romanian Orthodox, but most Eastern Orthodox Churches are in communion with one another).
What are you talking about, of course you can’t take “communion” at a Protestant church or anywhere else apart from the Orthodox Church?! Presbyterians don’t even believe that Christ is physically present in the sacrament, so how is that even similar to Holy Communion that we have?
My Minecraft server only accepts confessors of the 1689. #closedcommunion
Sorry Zoomer.
Unaltered Augsberg... But your position is based, and I respect it.
You're welcome to join us Missouri weirdos whenever you want. Or not. Just don't try to have it both ways.
There's a strange phenomenon of conservative presbyterians wanting to go to confessional Lutheran altars.
Don't you have your own? I've been ordained LCMS and have had close conservative presbyterian friends for decades.
I honestly don't get it.
Never once did it occur to me to ask to commune at an OPC church. They'd say no and I'd respect them for it.
I support nicene creed communion...
Read this as ‘open communism’