Jesus Christ is God incarnate who came to earth to be born and live a perfect life, a sinless life. He then gave Himself up to be crucified and died to pay for the sins of the whole world. My sin, your sin, the sins of everybody. 3 days later He was resurrected. He now offers all who will turn from their sin and trust Him to save them from eternity in hell. He paid our debts so that we don't have to, but we have to trust Him to do it. I cannot add anything to what He has done. I cannot do enough good to take even a year off of my death sentence in hell. The sentence is a never ending one, because I have sinned against an eternal God. But Jesus took my punishment, He saved me, and offers that same salvation to you. I am praying for you.
"The point of the Reformation is to be faithful to God's word, not to just be as uncatholic as possible." I really wish that more evangelicals would realize this
And being Roman Catholic is being faithful to God's Word? I seriously missed that memo... And I always thought Luther believed in consubstantiation, not transubstantiation. Personally, I'm most in line with Calvin's view because the problem with transubstantiation is that it contradicts Hebrews 11 in the idea that Christ is continuously being crucified. I'm willing to admit that it is a mystery, but a literal transformation of the substance of the elements in the meal also forgets that Jesus gave the elements to his disciples before he was crucified. That's why Zwingli belived in memoralism. He believed it was more important to focus on communion as a means of remembering and proclaiming the Lord's death, rather than focusing on the particular spiritual significance of the elements in question.
@@mixandmatch44 "For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated." - Wittenberg Concord of 1536 Lutherans aren't transubstaintianists, far as I can tell, but something far closer Consubstantiation than transubstantiation. That is to say, it's self evident that the bread does not become physical flesh and the wine physical blood by mere observation (and remember, we are told the truth of divinity is revealed through nature as well as through revelations), and assuming the bible is True, one can not then interpreted that the transformation is 100% literal. That is to say, that something certainly is happening, but that it is not the transformation of gluten to flesh and of juice to blood.
Transubstantiation and consubstantiation are excessively high views of the Lord's supper (to the point of idolatry) and Zwingli's memorialism is too low a view of the Lord's supper. Calvin's spiritualism is the balance between the extremes. There is a "real presence" in the Lord's supper.
@@matthewandrous Any Christian who isn’t Orthodox who has studied the entire history of the church and then doesn’t convert does so because they are unable to challenge their foundational presuppositions in light of new information and prefer what they are familiar with and what they grew up with. I am a convert from Protestantism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Both Catholic and Orthodox are the true Church of Christ and they only split for meaningless differences, but things like Anglicanism are so obviously man-made that I find it hard to understand how people stay in them after knowing their origins.
@@matthewandrous Probably because Henry really didn’t start Anglicanism. When he separated from Rome, he really didn’t change anything other than which corrupt person was in charge. It wasn’t until Edward came to the throne that the Church of England (with the help of some Lutheran folks) became what it is today.
@@hullie7529 Anglicanism wasn’t really anything other than English Romanism in the time of Henry. He didn’t change much other than which corrupt person was in charge. It wasn’t until Edward and some Lutherans reformed the Church of England that it became what it is today.
I think the most underappreciated and self-aware joke in this whole video is that this historically monumental “NAILING OF THE THESES” in reality was just a casual morning before breakfast 😂 the power of retelling
Not only that, posting one's theses publically like Luther did wasn't uncommon. He wasn't making a statement, he was doing what academics did at the time.
Having grown up protestant, I definitely took notice of many things lacking in our church service that seemed to be missing just because catholics did it.
I think there's an anti-charismatic discomfort with the Holy Spirit in a lot of Protestant churches, too. He's acknowledged, but mostly not talked about. Sometimes we humans like to distance ourselves from what we are not and lose a bit of what we are in the process.
@@tuck-brainwks-eutent-hidva1098 As a catholic, I am glad you have found your way to the orthodox church sister, a church that atleast have valid sacraments and apostolic succession.
I agree. Just because Catholics believe or do something doesn't automatically make it unscriptural, just as it doesn't automatically make it scriptural either.
@@dekuparadox5972 Uh... no. No it is not. We have a pope who is unhelpfully ambiguous on many issues, not the same as the Borgias popes and all of their chicanery.
@@scottleary8468 It's ironic how the "all means all" crowd falsely pretending to be Biblical conveniently avoids what Jesus himself said in Mat 20:28|Mar 10:45 where though he could have said "all" he rather said "many," what God means by "all" i.e. without distinction, not without exception, as his pattern of redemption has always been to save those FROM a group rather than all, but the dark, unbiblical emotions emitting mere heat without light prevail.
@Jake “what if GOD, desiring to show His wrath and make known His power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory.”
In Luther's last year, commenting on some of Calvin's writing, he wrote: “This is certainly a learned and pious man - I could have, at the beginning, entrusted to him the whole affair in this debate. For myself I recognize that if the opposing party had done the same, we could have soon come to an agreement, for if Zwingli had so expressed himself at the beginning, we would never have arrived at such a long dispute.” Just putting it out there...
@@oracleoftroy As far as I can see from the German Wikipedia page, Pezel was first a kryptocalvinist and later reformed. Calling him a "Lutheran" is. therefore questionable. And since your source doesn't relate when he said this, ,we can't say how accurate it is.
Henry VIII remained a theological Catholic until his death. He rejected all Protestant doctrine. It was under his son Edward VI that Reformed thought entered the Church of England. It would have been more relevant to have had Edward or Elizabeth or Archbishop Cranmer representing the English Reformation, but I guess Henry VIII is too iconic.
The characters are meant to be representations of their theological traditions. It's also not historically accurate that Zwingli, Calvin, and Henry were all in Wittenberg in October 31, 1517:-)
Well, I'd argue that simply decreeing that the king was a higher authority than the Pope in Church affairs was enough to warrant a "Protestant" label. Regardless of personal theology, refusing to accept Papal Primacy is a heresy.
You crack me up! My confirmation class will love this! We're studying the reformers this week. I feel sorry for middle school students - we will cram into their brains, in one hour, that which theologians have been arguing about for over 500 years. Sigh.
The dialogue between the Lutheran and the Reformed (specifically Calvin's contemporaries) over the Lord's Supper was never about WHETHER OR NOT we partake of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, but rather HOW we partake of it. Calvin held that it was not in the "corporeal" or bloody sense, yet truly made present to the faith of the believer. Luther held that it was physical. Please don't lump all Calvinists in with the Zwinglians. Zacharias Ursinus, the chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism, studied under both Luther and Calvin. Lutherans and confessional Calvinists have much more in common than some of us may like to think.
But that would require an accurate understanding of their interlocutor. That's too much to ask. It's far easier to simply attack an image of our own imaginings rather than deal with an opponent fairly. Arrogance. Astounding...
Thank you! When I started learning about Lutheran theology, I was surprised that the gap between it and Reformed Theology is as wide as it is given that both Lutherans and Calvinists hold Luther in high regard, but I was even more surprised how much wider Lutherans think the divide really is. Every Lutheran seems to think Calvinists are Zwinglists and refuse to listen when you correct them. Coming from a continental reformed Three Forms of Unity background and now in a Westminster Confession holding Presbyterian denomination, when I read Book of Concord, I find I disagree with the wording far more often than the actual theology being taught.
I've been reading the comments concerning the meaning of Jesus's words at the Last Supper and reading some of the early documents from the "fathers of the church." It is apparent, that for 1,500 years, until the reformation, if you were Christian you believed that the bread and wine were really the Body and Blood of Christ, just not a symbol. That is still the teaching of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches which are the original churches. End of discussion!
True. Minor correction: there are no "Churches", there is only one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there are Eastern churches in schism, which call themselves "Orthodox" but really aren't. God bless.
Thank you for these hilarious and creative videos. I'm a Southern Baptist who values honest theological discussion. Your videos do a great service because they offer clear theological statements and historical background for the face in a way that is entertaining. Keep up the great work.
Catholics worship the saints and Mary! That's so bizarre. I've never met a Catholic that worships the saints and Mary. How do you know this information Garrett Stock? You must be profoundly educated. You wouldn't be gnostic, would you (or is that Calvinist... same thing, really)?
OatmealBlonde - Do you even know what an indulgence is? Do you tithe? Do you give money to missionaries as part of that tithe? That, in its original form, is the indulgence. So given the original intension of the indulgence, you give indulgences too, don't you? So what's the problem? Oh, I know. Since a minority of Catholics during the Protestant reformation abused and took advantage of people using indulgences as a means to gain money means that indulgences and all Catholics are corrupt for all time. Thanks for helping understand your logic. I'll never trust any protestant either since a minority few have used the same tactics to increase personal wealth.
Limited Atonement is in St Justin Martyr btw and no its not really lunacy as it makes utter sense with rejection too Synergism, Luther was a half-baked Calvinist
I mean, sure if that's how you interpret it. That's not in the least what Calvin said though. He was saying that Jesus died for all those who believe in him, regardless of race or location etc. I.E. Jesus died for all the peoples of the world, not every individual human being. If you believe that he died for every individual human being then why does anyone go to hell? His blood is certainly able to cleanse everyone regardless of sin. It's a theological dissagreement that I think you can disagree on respectfully, but I do not like people trying to seriously claim we don't believe that Jesus died for all the world; we do believe that, we just disagree on what "dying for all the world" means. It's extremely arrogant and self-righteous to say that because someone has a different interpretation of a verse they are denying the verse altogether. No one has everything right about the bible, including Cavlanists, including Lutherans, it's important to note and understand that having a perfect understanding of the bible isn't what makes you a Christian. That's not to say you shouldn't try to understand the bible to the best of your ability, but merely to say that people are going to disagree on the meaning of certain things and THAT'S OKAY. Lutherans and Calvanists agree on more than we disagree on. I don't have a problem with this video, as it's Lutheran Satire and just making fun of people. I think its fine to poke fun at Calvanism, Lutheranism etc. and I find it hillarious even though it's not accurate.
Haha "Ecclesiastical Brexit" nice one! Though Cranmer (or Tyndale even) would of been the better choice over Henry the VIII. The other thing is this big man approach to the reformation leaves out so many of the other factors at work in the church at the time. Particularly glossing over the English reformation as purely the result of Henry the VIII wanting a divorce and becoming purely 'protestant' as a result most Anglicans of the reformation would dispute. Still, given you've only got a few minutes you can only go so far with something like this. Nice video!
I'm a Protestant and I don't believe in the real presence either, but not because I think it's cannibalism. I just think it's clear from context that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said "this is my body."
Always good to see pivotal thinkers of critical epochs, whose thinking changed the very fabric of Western civilization, influencing everything from family life to our views of epistemology, characterized as buffoons. Interfaith dialogue just doesn't get any better than this.
As a pretty much Baptist I was trying to figure out what was the big difference between Baptist theology and Lutheran theology and then I saw this video and I remember why. I still love your stuff and support you guys, even tho this video fully disagrees with what I believe.
There is a substantial theological divide between confessional Lutheranism and Baptist theology. Confessional Lutherans are sacramental and liturgical. Lutherans never abolished the Mass, we adhere to a minimal of three sacraments; Holy baptism (baptismal regeneration), private confession & Holy absolution, the real corporeal present of the body and blood in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins, etc.
@@brajon70 Just because we Catholics find it funny doesn't mean we agree with sola fide, or that we don't realize that it was really the Catholic Church that was very patient in trying to show Luther that he was wrong, and only excommunicated him when there was no reasonable hope of him returning.
This probably wouldn’t be a good time to mention that Luther, in the last years of his life, when he saw Calvin’s work on the Lord’s Supper stated that he agreed and “entrusted to him the whole matter.”
@@Mygoalwogel I saw another comment mention this with a bit more detail, giving an actual quote said to be from Luther. The best source I could find is: www.google.com/books/edition/_/tQtIAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA355&dq=%22Christopher+Pezel%22+%22This+is+certainly+a+learned+and+pious+man%22 It notes that we don't at that time have any direct writings from Luther, but that it is probably true, and they note various reasons why in the footnote and in the follow up text. And it is from a Lutheran source, so if there was good reason to doubt the quote, I'd think they would reject it.
@@oracleoftroy This Calvinist blogger explains why the source of that quote is unreliable. beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/01/luther-and-calvin-friends-or-enemies.html?m=1
The Waldensians formed in the 1170s; the Hussites formed in 1415, associating closely with Wycliff and the English Lollards. Both groups were inspirational in the Reformation(s).
Very funny and well done (speaking as a Reformed guy)! One minor point of clarity here, though, aside from the comedy. Calvin did not deny the "real presence" in the Lord's Supper. Both Calvinists (in the historical sense, not the modern sense) and Lutherans believed that Christians truly receive Christ's body in the Supper, but they disagreed on how. Luther taught that Christ's body must be physically present (very similar to the Catholic view, but the bread and wine did not cease to be those. Rather, Christ's body was joined "in, with, and under" the bread). Calvin believed that Christ's body is not physically present in the bread (he wrote several treatises in which he examined the scripture and drew out several exegetical reasons why local presence did not make sense), but Christians truly feast on Christ's body through faith and the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit. Again, great video, I share the Lutheran dislike of Zwingli and Henry VIII, but it is a somewhat unfair presentation of Calvin (though I will concede that there is a growing number in modern Reformed circles who are closer to Zwingli than Calvin). "I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth." -John Calvin, "Institutes of the Christian Religion", Book 4, Chapter 17, Section 7
Lutherans see Calvinist as just Zwinglian Sacramentarians. Read the Book of Concord: The Formula of Concord: Epitome, art. VII if you want to see what Lutherans think of Zwinglians and Calvinist. Lutherans have zero appreciation for either one of those characters.
@@Paul-el4zd I understand that Lutherans don't think highly of Calvin and the Reformed. My only point is that this painting of the Reformed isn't accurate to what Calvin and the Reformed believed.
@@josephwolcott2544 It is was totally accurate (not to mention the heresy of “once saved always saved, also know as the preservation of the saints, and heresy of double predestination). Formula of Concord: Epitome, art. VII The Teaching of the Sacramentarians on This Article [2] In the Holy Supper are the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ truly and essentially present, distributed with the bread and wine, and received by mouth by all those who avail themselves of the sacrament-whether they are worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believers or unbelievers-to bring believers comfort and life and to bring judgment upon unbelievers? [3] The sacramentarians say no; we say yes. To explain this controversy, it must first of all be noted that there are two kinds of sacramentarians. There are the crude sacramentarians (***Zwinglians***), who state in plain language what they believe in their hearts: that in the Holy Supper there is nothing more than bread and wine present, nothing more distributed and received with the mouth. [4] Then there are the cunning sacramentarians (***Calvinist***), the most dangerous kind, who in part appear to use our language and who pretend that they also believe in a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this takes place spiritually, through faith. Yet, under the guise of such plausible words, they retain the former, crude opinion, that nothing more than bread and wine is present in the Holy Supper and received there by mouth. [5] For “spiritually” means to them nothing other than “the spirit of Christ” that is present, or “the power of the absent body of Christ and his merit.” The body of Christ, according to this opinion, is, however, in no way or form present, but it is only up there in the highest heaven; to this body we lift ourselves into heaven through the thoughts of our faith. There we should seek his body and blood, but never in the bread and wine of the Supper …
@@Paul-el4zd (1) You can say it's accurate all you like, but that doesn't make it so. All that you have proven is the point I already conceded, that Lutherans really don't like the Reformed. I would encourage you to read what Calvin, Vermigli, and others wrote to know what they actually believed as opposed to taking the summary of a critic to be absolute truth. (2) Perseverance of the saints and double predestination are not heresies. You don't have to agree with them. You may think they're an inaccurate interpretation of Scripture but they are not contrary to orthodox doctrine. Furthermore, we should be careful not to reduce the definition of "heresy" to "things I disagree with" (as you seem to be effectively doing).
@@josephwolcott2544 Yes, “once saved always saved” and double predestination are heresies. I’ve read John Calvins. It reads as if a lawyer wrote it. I don’t spend a lot of time reading material of the heterodox. Institution of Christian Religion: Chapter XXI of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction. What a great great chapter. 🥴 In reality, there’s not much difference between Zwingli and Calvin. John Calvin wordsmith his heterodoxy to appear as if they don’t reject the real presence. All theology is Christology. Calvin and Zwingli used human reason to trump sacred scripture. All Zwingli and Calvin did was split the church further into a plethora of competing doctrines. I’m pretty sure that was not Luther’s intention. Calvinist love to claim Luther as their hero- Thanks, Luther; ra, ra, ra! Hail Dr. Martin Luther, for freeing us from the shackle of Rome for we can bushwhack our own doctrine! The irony, John Calvin sola Scriptura … as long as it’s my version of sola Scriptura. I haven’t even hit on the “office of the keys” and Calvinist and Zwingli’s rejection of the sacrament of absolution (e.g. Private confession and general confession). Just imagine, going your whole life without going to private confession (to be fair, a lot of Lutherans don’t always practice private confession like they should) as if they don’t have anything to confess.
Carl Peterson jeez when a Catholic like me defends Luther on something you know things are messed up anyway Luther was talking about the religion not the Jews themselves they do reject our Lord Jesus Christ after all, and any faith that does ranges from abomination to heresy.
@@berwynkandoll1701 Oh yeah? So you would prefer people buying papers from catholic 'priests' to 'save' their loved ones from 'purgatory'? a place that doesnt even exist? The reason why Luther translated the Bible and wrote his thesis was the corruption of the catholic 'church'. You should really educate yourself man.
@@silverwriter6739 That was the Pope's slander. Theodoret and the Syrian Church knew the poor guy was just mouthy, not a heretic. He didn't like the language, Mother of God, because he feared idolatry. He was right. The Assyrian Church of the East is the One Holy Catholic Church.
I usually enjoy LutheranSatire and though there were some disagreements I had with this video, I still enjoyed it and had a good chuckle. That being said, Luther didn't have perfect theology, as I don't, and also as no one else on earth does. Labeling anything other than what Luther believed as false doctrine is itself false doctrine. I'm very thankful that God used him as an instrument to return the Church to its original roots from the RCC corruption, which is what we know as the 5 Solas, but we must know the Church is ever reforming. We won't know perfect theology for now we see in a mirror dimly, but soon face to face. Happy Reformation Day, brethren! Let's not bicker over secondary and tertiary doctrine, and rejoice in God's work through Martin Luther!
+kalizari - "Luther didn't have perfect theology, as I don't, and also as no one else on earth does." Have you heard of the BookOfConcord, the lutheran confessions ? Check it out. Pure 100% Gospel: bookofconcord.org/
+kalizari - you said "Let's not bicker over secondary and tertiary doctrine" Do you consider the Sacraments, God's visible Means of Grace secondary or even tertiary. The Means of Grace: Word & Sacrament is what God gave to the Church and we should treasure it as we find Life, Forgiveness and Salvation in these. holy Baptism = Jesus, holy Communion = Jesus, spoken & read Word are all about JESUS (OT & NT). A 5 solas Lutheran.
RomGabe The Book of Concord may be great for confessions, but I wouldn't say the theology is perfect. I believe the Westminster Confession is great and the London Baptist Confession is great too, but I won't say any of those have perfect theology. I see it would be a problem to exalt man made (though biblically inspired and based no doubt) creations.
RomGabe I do not see those as primary doctrinal beliefs, mainly because if I don't believe in them the say way you do, it doesn't automatically disqualify me as a Christian. I believe in predestination, but an Arminian isn't automatically a heretic. Now if I denied grace alone through faith alone, then that would be a primary doctrinal issue. Like I said. No one has perfect theology. We'll know everything 100% thoroughly on the other side of the veil. Have a great day!
+kalizari ... Nobody said you are not a Christian. But when you deny holy Baptism to a certain age group, when you deny Christs words of Institution, you are in fact, in a pragmatic way denying Sola Gratia. Because holy Baptism and holy Communion is pure Grace, God's Means of Grace for us sinner. They are something that gives forgiveness of sins ... as Holy Writ clearly states "baptized for the forgiveness of sins ... for you and your children" (Acts 2:38-39), "This is my body ... my blood ... for your ... for the forgiveness of sin". Blessings as you trust in God's gifts given thru Word & Sacrament. A 5 Solas lutheran
Technically Henry didn’t start the Anglican Church. With him as king they were still 100% Papist, but without the Pope; the only difference was that Henry was now head of the church. When Edward took the throne, he teamed up with some Lutherans to reform the English Church.
Even as a Catholic, I love Lutheran Satire but that Luther quote about 'scripture-twisting Pope rage' is what I think to be unintended irony on a scale that even Leo X wouldn't have thought possible.....
It is quite interesting how many of us Catholics watch LutheranSatire
exactly lmao
Catholic here, this stuff is priceless
Good to know I'm not alone.
Jesus Christ is God incarnate who came to earth to be born and live a perfect life, a sinless life. He then gave Himself up to be crucified and died to pay for the sins of the whole world. My sin, your sin, the sins of everybody. 3 days later He was resurrected. He now offers all who will turn from their sin and trust Him to save them from eternity in hell. He paid our debts so that we don't have to, but we have to trust Him to do it. I cannot add anything to what He has done. I cannot do enough good to take even a year off of my death sentence in hell. The sentence is a never ending one, because I have sinned against an eternal God. But Jesus took my punishment, He saved me, and offers that same salvation to you. I am praying for you.
It makes sense though, Lutherans are just Catholics who have been pissed off for 500 years.
"The point of the Reformation is to be faithful to God's word, not to just be as uncatholic as possible."
I really wish that more evangelicals would realize this
And being Roman Catholic is being faithful to God's Word? I seriously missed that memo...
And I always thought Luther believed in consubstantiation, not transubstantiation. Personally, I'm most in line with Calvin's view because the problem with transubstantiation is that it contradicts Hebrews 11 in the idea that Christ is continuously being crucified. I'm willing to admit that it is a mystery, but a literal transformation of the substance of the elements in the meal also forgets that Jesus gave the elements to his disciples before he was crucified. That's why Zwingli belived in memoralism. He believed it was more important to focus on communion as a means of remembering and proclaiming the Lord's death, rather than focusing on the particular spiritual significance of the elements in question.
@@mixandmatch44 "For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated." - Wittenberg Concord of 1536
Lutherans aren't transubstaintianists, far as I can tell, but something far closer Consubstantiation than transubstantiation. That is to say, it's self evident that the bread does not become physical flesh and the wine physical blood by mere observation (and remember, we are told the truth of divinity is revealed through nature as well as through revelations), and assuming the bible is True, one can not then interpreted that the transformation is 100% literal. That is to say, that something certainly is happening, but that it is not the transformation of gluten to flesh and of juice to blood.
@@mixandmatch44 Did not Augustin believe in the real presence?
Missed out Melancthon, conflated Calvin and Henry? Sad, bit if a blind spot?
Transubstantiation and consubstantiation are excessively high views of the Lord's supper (to the point of idolatry) and Zwingli's memorialism is too low a view of the Lord's supper. Calvin's spiritualism is the balance between the extremes. There is a "real presence" in the Lord's supper.
"Little halfway papist sissy baby". Best. Line. Ever.
And “half married pigfaced Spanish Bride of mine.”
@@leifewald5117 That's "half- *barren* "
I also enjoy "scripture-twisting Pope-rage".
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And “Ecclesiastical Brexit”
"ecclesiastical brexit"... lolz
A great line!
More like Rexit. Rome + Exit = Rexit
He threw in the last part to include the Traditional Catholics which are often left out of the list of Protestant groups. How thoughtful.
I'm an Anglican but I find this satire on King Henry VIII to be hilarious.
Serious question, how can you be Anglican knowing the origin of it?
@@matthewandrous Any Christian who isn’t Orthodox who has studied the entire history of the church and then doesn’t convert does so because they are unable to challenge their foundational presuppositions in light of new information and prefer what they are familiar with and what they grew up with. I am a convert from Protestantism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Both Catholic and Orthodox are the true Church of Christ and they only split for meaningless differences, but things like Anglicanism are so obviously man-made that I find it hard to understand how people stay in them after knowing their origins.
@@matthewandrous
Probably because Henry really didn’t start Anglicanism. When he separated from Rome, he really didn’t change anything other than which corrupt person was in charge. It wasn’t until Edward came to the throne that the Church of England (with the help of some Lutheran folks) became what it is today.
@@hullie7529
Anglicanism wasn’t really anything other than English Romanism in the time of Henry. He didn’t change much other than which corrupt person was in charge. It wasn’t until Edward and some Lutherans reformed the Church of England that it became what it is today.
What's with these ancient Egyptian accents?
I was extremely confused about how you could claim the accents are ancient Egyptian... until I remembered Horus.
I know right. Their accents are soooo bad
XD
ayayayayaaaa
More like swiss accents. 😊
“If you believe in the Real Presence, we’ll call you cannibals but then get mad when you won’t commune us.”
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Looks like someone didn't read their catechism
laughing too hard, because I have heard that one directly from a friend
Priceless haha love being Lutheran and having communion with the body and blodd of Christ (1 Cor 10:16-17)
It’s cannibalism tho
@@jule8280It's Deity-balism. Get it straight.
I think the most underappreciated and self-aware joke in this whole video is that this historically monumental “NAILING OF THE THESES” in reality was just a casual morning before breakfast 😂 the power of retelling
Not only that, posting one's theses publically like Luther did wasn't uncommon. He wasn't making a statement, he was doing what academics did at the time.
Having grown up protestant, I definitely took notice of many things lacking in our church service that seemed to be missing just because catholics did it.
I think there's an anti-charismatic discomfort with the Holy Spirit in a lot of Protestant churches, too. He's acknowledged, but mostly not talked about. Sometimes we humans like to distance ourselves from what we are not and lose a bit of what we are in the process.
In Orthodoxy, (among converts from Protestantism), this is often called "Romophobia" 😉 🙏🕯️☦️
@@angiebee2225
Quite the oppesite
It's Catholics 8 n9tice wuth the discomfort with the holy spirit
@@tuck-brainwks-eutent-hidva1098 As a catholic, I am glad you have found your way to the orthodox church sister, a church that atleast have valid sacraments and apostolic succession.
How much religious tradition and doctrine is necessary to salvation and how much is just unnecessary puffery?
Thank you for singing that song with us Martin Luthor.
I SANG NOSSING!
As a Protestant I approve this message
I a old.
That shot of all of Henry's wives was PRICELESS 🤣🤣
Where was that?
🎶Welcome to the show to the historemix, switching up the flow as we add the prefix, everybody knows that we used to be six wives.🎶
“I just don’t want to abandon the sacraments because if your scripture-twisting Pope rage!” 🤣
I agree. Just because Catholics believe or do something doesn't automatically make it unscriptural, just as it doesn't automatically make it scriptural either.
"Ecclesiastical Brexit" best line of the clip
I prefer "half-way papist sissy baby", but yeah that was great
"Halfway papist sissy baby" -That is too rich 😂😂
The thing with the Popes at the end is hysterical
Meaning more than hilarious or over-the-top and misguided?
John Baugh I disagree as a Catholic its pretty painful that the bishop of Rome has become part of the Church of nice.
As a Lutheran, it makes me realize how much worse the Catholic church is now than it even was back then while also being funny.
@@dekuparadox5972
Uh... no. No it is not. We have a pope who is unhelpfully ambiguous on many issues, not the same as the Borgias popes and all of their chicanery.
@Chase Moore
A. He did not. He was, at worst, a moral coward.
B. Still not as bad as the Borgias.
"Soon all zeh world will confess zhat Jesus didn't die for all zeh world!"
I DIED LOL
Edit: guys stop arguing and just laugh at the video plz
As someone who holds to the Doctrines of Grace, I did too.
@@scottleary8468 It's ironic how the "all means all" crowd falsely pretending to be Biblical conveniently avoids what Jesus himself said in Mat 20:28|Mar 10:45 where though he could have said "all" he rather said "many," what God means by "all" i.e. without distinction, not without exception, as his pattern of redemption has always been to save those FROM a group rather than all, but the dark, unbiblical emotions emitting mere heat without light prevail.
🤣🤣
@Jake “what if GOD, desiring to show His wrath and make known His power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory.”
@Jake actually it could not be more clear
In Luther's last year, commenting on some of Calvin's writing, he wrote: “This is certainly a learned and pious man - I could have, at the beginning, entrusted to him the whole affair in this debate. For myself I recognize that if the opposing party had done the same, we could have soon come to an agreement, for if Zwingli had so expressed himself at the beginning, we would never have arrived at such a long dispute.”
Just putting it out there...
Interesting, where did you find that quote? I am trying to find it but I am unable too.
Bing… Bing! Finally, someone who understands.
@@oracleoftroy thank you for this. Care to substantiate the claim that Reformed Baptists follow Zwingli rather than Calvin?
Lovely comment.
@@oracleoftroy As far as I can see from the German Wikipedia page, Pezel was first a kryptocalvinist and later reformed. Calling him a "Lutheran" is. therefore questionable. And since your source doesn't relate when he said this, ,we can't say how accurate it is.
Henry VIII remained a theological Catholic until his death. He rejected all Protestant doctrine. It was under his son Edward VI that Reformed thought entered the Church of England. It would have been more relevant to have had Edward or Elizabeth or Archbishop Cranmer representing the English Reformation, but I guess Henry VIII is too iconic.
The characters are meant to be representations of their theological traditions. It's also not historically accurate that Zwingli, Calvin, and Henry were all in Wittenberg in October 31, 1517:-)
LutheranSatire Really???
Well, I'd argue that simply decreeing that the king was a higher authority than the Pope in Church affairs was enough to warrant a "Protestant" label. Regardless of personal theology, refusing to accept Papal Primacy is a heresy.
Apparently all the bishops that gathered at the Council of Nicea were also heretics since they also had no concept of papacy.
Daniel Sarmas who called the council?
When Jean Calvin talks all I see is the French Soldier taunting Arthur and his Knights from MP&The Holy Grail :D
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"
You little English Knnnnnnnights
"soon the whole world will confess that Jesus didn't die for the whole world."
“Soon all the world will confess that Jesus did not die for all the world” 🤣🤣🤣
Well, not all of us are going to believe that particular doctrine Mr. Calvin.
@@haroldgamarra7175*particular*
I’m a calvinist and my grandfather is a Baptist preacher and this just may be the best video on TH-cam
Even as a Catholic I find this funny and well done.
As long as your born again like it says in john 3:3 it's good
@@Skipadyboi Since he's Catholic, he was baptised and has God's immutable mark of the Holy Spirit on his soul. He has been born again.
@mineben256 Under who's authority do you have to say that God does not leave His immutable mark upon the person baptized?
@mineben256 th-cam.com/video/CNrJVzAef9o/w-d-xo.html
@Particular Psalmody We Orthodox are always left out. Hey…hey guys…? We are here….Hello?….anyone?
I'm a Calvinist, and this is hilarious 😂😂😂😂
Same.
calvin real name cohen?
Same
I used to be. (Now Eastern Orthodox) And yes. It is hilarious.
I'm a Catholic and this is hilarious 😂
Thank you! The conversation between Pope Francis and Leo X is hysterical! :-)
That's the best part, besides Luther's line about the point of the Reformation being to stick to Scripture instead of being un-Catholic.
I played this for my 10th grade medieval history class to finish out the year and it was a huge hit.
John Lollard: You kids have fun.
Jan Hus: I wonder how long their break away will last hahaha
Bogomil: I give it twenty years, tops.
"Oh hayyy Tzvinglee" gets me every time.
"I say Imma gonna cutta offa hissa head. Why you ask?"
"Oh...no reason."
Was not that thick of an Italian accent 😂😂😂
"God is sovereign indeed! Soon all the world will confess that Jesus did not die for all the world!" lol That line killed me! Great video!
"Ecclesiastical Brexit" I'm laughing so hard
Me too
Thank you for portraying Jean Calvin as French, which is accurate.
The ending is an underrated gem
As a Calvinist, I found this hilarious.
Even though im a calvinist and have some pet peeves with some points in this vids i still find it pretty funny. keep up the work!
Same lol
Same
Ah, my brethren calvinists. Kudos to y’all for keeping it respectful. We can have our disagreements but still believe in the gospel!
Its tounge in cheek. Don't take things so seriously.
Same!
"Scripture twisting pope rage" Love it!
You crack me up! My confirmation class will love this! We're studying the reformers this week. I feel sorry for middle school students - we will cram into their brains, in one hour, that which theologians have been arguing about for over 500 years. Sigh.
Sounds like an hour-long history lesson is about proportionate! Full disclosure: Orthodox here. 😉🙏🕯️☦️
despite our differences I can appreciate the humor in this satirical presentation.
"Ecclesiastical Brexit"
"Ecclesiastical Brexit" -ha! Genius!
"There! Time to get my morning schnitzel" Me every time I do some morning reading
The dialogue between the Lutheran and the Reformed (specifically Calvin's contemporaries) over the Lord's Supper was never about WHETHER OR NOT we partake of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, but rather HOW we partake of it. Calvin held that it was not in the "corporeal" or bloody sense, yet truly made present to the faith of the believer. Luther held that it was physical. Please don't lump all Calvinists in with the Zwinglians. Zacharias Ursinus, the chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism, studied under both Luther and Calvin. Lutherans and confessional Calvinists have much more in common than some of us may like to think.
But that would require an accurate understanding of their interlocutor. That's too much to ask. It's far easier to simply attack an image of our own imaginings rather than deal with an opponent fairly. Arrogance. Astounding...
Thank you! When I started learning about Lutheran theology, I was surprised that the gap between it and Reformed Theology is as wide as it is given that both Lutherans and Calvinists hold Luther in high regard, but I was even more surprised how much wider Lutherans think the divide really is. Every Lutheran seems to think Calvinists are Zwinglists and refuse to listen when you correct them. Coming from a continental reformed Three Forms of Unity background and now in a Westminster Confession holding Presbyterian denomination, when I read Book of Concord, I find I disagree with the wording far more often than the actual theology being taught.
I'm a Calvinist but have listened to a lot of Luther's teachings
I've been reading the comments concerning the meaning of Jesus's words at the Last Supper and reading some of the early documents from the "fathers of the church." It is apparent, that for 1,500 years, until the reformation, if you were Christian you believed that the bread and wine were really the Body and Blood of Christ, just not a symbol. That is still the teaching of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches which are the original churches. End of discussion!
True. Minor correction: there are no "Churches", there is only one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there are Eastern churches in schism, which call themselves "Orthodox" but really aren't. God bless.
standev1 ...he said, while being part of a church that changed the Creed despite accepting a Council that said they're not supposed to.
So the squirrel of the Roman Catholic Church didn’t lose one acorn.
Signed, a Lutheran
Thank you for these hilarious and creative videos. I'm a Southern Baptist who values honest theological discussion. Your videos do a great service because they offer clear theological statements and historical background for the face in a way that is entertaining. Keep up the great work.
"Scripture twisting pope rage" Hahahahahahaha I'm going to use that in a conversation sometime :)
"Stop trying to steal my reformation!"
I'm Anglican but I think Lutheran Satire is great!
TH-cam Lutherans, man. Doing the Catholic apologetics that Catholics can't be bothered to do.
Lutherans, man, the true catholics.
Has Rome changed those false teachings? No, but they have added more...
Catholics worship the saints and Mary! That's so bizarre. I've never met a Catholic that worships the saints and Mary. How do you know this information Garrett Stock? You must be profoundly educated. You wouldn't be gnostic, would you (or is that Calvinist... same thing, really)?
Jon Visser Are you sure you are responding to the right person?
OatmealBlonde - Do you even know what an indulgence is? Do you tithe? Do you give money to missionaries as part of that tithe? That, in its original form, is the indulgence. So given the original intension of the indulgence, you give indulgences too, don't you?
So what's the problem? Oh, I know. Since a minority of Catholics during the Protestant reformation abused and took advantage of people using indulgences as a means to gain money means that indulgences and all Catholics are corrupt for all time. Thanks for helping understand your logic. I'll never trust any protestant either since a minority few have used the same tactics to increase personal wealth.
"Depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
The funniest thing I've seen all day! "Soon the world will confess that Jesus did not die for all the world" 🤣😂 Sums up the lunacy of Calvinism.
Indeed it does.
Limited Atonement is in St Justin Martyr btw and no its not really lunacy as it makes utter sense with rejection too Synergism, Luther was a half-baked Calvinist
@@pink_kino 1 misquote of Justin VS all of scriptures and tradition. Peak Calvinist apologetics.
I mean, sure if that's how you interpret it. That's not in the least what Calvin said though. He was saying that Jesus died for all those who believe in him, regardless of race or location etc. I.E. Jesus died for all the peoples of the world, not every individual human being. If you believe that he died for every individual human being then why does anyone go to hell? His blood is certainly able to cleanse everyone regardless of sin. It's a theological dissagreement that I think you can disagree on respectfully, but I do not like people trying to seriously claim we don't believe that Jesus died for all the world; we do believe that, we just disagree on what "dying for all the world" means. It's extremely arrogant and self-righteous to say that because someone has a different interpretation of a verse they are denying the verse altogether.
No one has everything right about the bible, including Cavlanists, including Lutherans, it's important to note and understand that having a perfect understanding of the bible isn't what makes you a Christian. That's not to say you shouldn't try to understand the bible to the best of your ability, but merely to say that people are going to disagree on the meaning of certain things and THAT'S OKAY. Lutherans and Calvanists agree on more than we disagree on. I don't have a problem with this video, as it's Lutheran Satire and just making fun of people. I think its fine to poke fun at Calvanism, Lutheranism etc. and I find it hillarious even though it's not accurate.
Died for all the world or for all of the souls? 😂
_"...for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?"_
These accents make me want to split from ze, how you say, hugh-mon race. *laughs in French*
"Soon, the whole world will know that Jesus Christ did not die for the whole world."
That's just the best. I laughed out loud. Brilliant.
Luther doesn't sound angry enough.
Well, he was a bit of a melancholic guy, too....
Ecclesiastical brexit!! 😂😂😂😂😂 this is gold thank you! ❤️️❤️️❤️️
Haha "Ecclesiastical Brexit" nice one! Though Cranmer (or Tyndale even) would of been the better choice over Henry the VIII.
The other thing is this big man approach to the reformation leaves out so many of the other factors at work in the church at the time. Particularly glossing over the English reformation as purely the result of Henry the VIII wanting a divorce and becoming purely 'protestant' as a result most Anglicans of the reformation would dispute. Still, given you've only got a few minutes you can only go so far with something like this. Nice video!
As a Protestant I thoroughly enjoyed this. Sorry for calling y'all cannibals, lol!
I'm a Protestant and I don't believe in the real presence either, but not because I think it's cannibalism. I just think it's clear from context that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said "this is my body."
@Philomaeus It is how metaphors work. Surely Koine Greek has them.
No Christian denied the real presence until he 12th century.
I love how the song Luther is singing at the beginning is Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, a song Luther wrote himself.
I feel bad for Luther, he never got to have his morning schnizel.
Always good to see pivotal thinkers of critical epochs, whose thinking changed the very fabric of Western civilization, influencing everything from family life to our views of epistemology, characterized as buffoons.
Interfaith dialogue just doesn't get any better than this.
As a pretty much Baptist I was trying to figure out what was the big difference between Baptist theology and Lutheran theology and then I saw this video and I remember why. I still love your stuff and support you guys, even tho this video fully disagrees with what I believe.
There is a substantial theological divide between confessional Lutheranism and Baptist theology. Confessional Lutherans are sacramental and liturgical. Lutherans never abolished the Mass, we adhere to a minimal of three sacraments; Holy baptism (baptismal regeneration), private confession & Holy absolution, the real corporeal present of the body and blood in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins, etc.
I quite honestly love this channel
Bro these are so funny and such a comical relief while I go through bible college (with God’s help!)
hilarious... even to me as a Papist....
The only way to make it better would be to have Horus come in at the end to knock their heads together.
Yes!!! Needs more HORUS! :D
oldtimefreedom
Likewise! I'm a Traditional Catholic and I thought the whole thing was funny!
You should just become a Lutheran...
@@brajon70
Just because we Catholics find it funny doesn't mean we agree with sola fide, or that we don't realize that it was really the Catholic Church that was very patient in trying to show Luther that he was wrong, and only excommunicated him when there was no reasonable hope of him returning.
I'm not a Lutheran but this was HILARIOUS. LOL
This probably wouldn’t be a good time to mention that Luther, in the last years of his life, when he saw Calvin’s work on the Lord’s Supper stated that he agreed and “entrusted to him the whole matter.”
As it has been said on another comment on this video, It's a good thing it's Sola Scriptura and not Sola Luther.
Source?
@@Mygoalwogel I saw another comment mention this with a bit more detail, giving an actual quote said to be from Luther. The best source I could find is:
www.google.com/books/edition/_/tQtIAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA355&dq=%22Christopher+Pezel%22+%22This+is+certainly+a+learned+and+pious+man%22
It notes that we don't at that time have any direct writings from Luther, but that it is probably true, and they note various reasons why in the footnote and in the follow up text. And it is from a Lutheran source, so if there was good reason to doubt the quote, I'd think they would reject it.
@@oracleoftroy This Calvinist blogger explains why the source of that quote is unreliable. beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/01/luther-and-calvin-friends-or-enemies.html?m=1
The Waldensians formed in the 1170s; the Hussites formed in 1415, associating closely with Wycliff and the English Lollards. Both groups were inspirational in the Reformation(s).
The Waldensians and all the other reformers of that century were genocided tho
@@paulsoldner9500Not technically genocide, as they were killed for ideas, not genetics. Massacred, maybe.
Historians agree that this is 100% accurate
Glad I'm not the only Calvinst who found this hilarious 😂😂😂
Very funny and well done (speaking as a Reformed guy)! One minor point of clarity here, though, aside from the comedy. Calvin did not deny the "real presence" in the Lord's Supper. Both Calvinists (in the historical sense, not the modern sense) and Lutherans believed that Christians truly receive Christ's body in the Supper, but they disagreed on how. Luther taught that Christ's body must be physically present (very similar to the Catholic view, but the bread and wine did not cease to be those. Rather, Christ's body was joined "in, with, and under" the bread). Calvin believed that Christ's body is not physically present in the bread (he wrote several treatises in which he examined the scripture and drew out several exegetical reasons why local presence did not make sense), but Christians truly feast on Christ's body through faith and the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit. Again, great video, I share the Lutheran dislike of Zwingli and Henry VIII, but it is a somewhat unfair presentation of Calvin (though I will concede that there is a growing number in modern Reformed circles who are closer to Zwingli than Calvin).
"I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth." -John Calvin, "Institutes of the Christian Religion", Book 4, Chapter 17, Section 7
Lutherans see Calvinist as just Zwinglian Sacramentarians.
Read the Book of Concord: The Formula of Concord: Epitome, art. VII if you want to see what Lutherans think of Zwinglians and Calvinist. Lutherans have zero appreciation for either one of those characters.
@@Paul-el4zd I understand that Lutherans don't think highly of Calvin and the Reformed. My only point is that this painting of the Reformed isn't accurate to what Calvin and the Reformed believed.
@@josephwolcott2544 It is was totally accurate (not to mention the heresy of “once saved always saved, also know as the preservation of the saints, and heresy of double predestination).
Formula of Concord: Epitome, art. VII The Teaching of the Sacramentarians on This Article
[2] In the Holy Supper are the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ truly and essentially present, distributed with the bread and wine, and received by mouth by all those who avail themselves of the sacrament-whether they are worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believers or unbelievers-to bring believers comfort and life and to bring judgment upon unbelievers?
[3] The sacramentarians say no; we say yes.
To explain this controversy, it must first of all be noted that there are two kinds of sacramentarians. There are the crude sacramentarians (***Zwinglians***), who state in plain language what they believe in their hearts: that in the Holy Supper there is nothing more than bread and wine present, nothing more distributed and received with the mouth. [4] Then there are the cunning sacramentarians (***Calvinist***), the most dangerous kind, who in part appear to use our language and who pretend that they also believe in a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this takes place spiritually, through faith. Yet, under the guise of such plausible words, they retain the former, crude opinion, that nothing more than bread and wine is present in the Holy Supper and received there by mouth.
[5] For “spiritually” means to them nothing other than “the spirit of Christ” that is present, or “the power of the absent body of Christ and his merit.” The body of Christ, according to this opinion, is, however, in no way or form present, but it is only up there in the highest heaven; to this body we lift ourselves into heaven through the thoughts of our faith. There we should seek his body and blood, but never in the bread and wine of the Supper …
@@Paul-el4zd (1) You can say it's accurate all you like, but that doesn't make it so. All that you have proven is the point I already conceded, that Lutherans really don't like the Reformed. I would encourage you to read what Calvin, Vermigli, and others wrote to know what they actually believed as opposed to taking the summary of a critic to be absolute truth. (2) Perseverance of the saints and double predestination are not heresies. You don't have to agree with them. You may think they're an inaccurate interpretation of Scripture but they are not contrary to orthodox doctrine. Furthermore, we should be careful not to reduce the definition of "heresy" to "things I disagree with" (as you seem to be effectively doing).
@@josephwolcott2544 Yes, “once saved always saved” and double predestination are heresies.
I’ve read John Calvins. It reads as if a lawyer wrote it. I don’t spend a lot of time reading material of the heterodox.
Institution of Christian Religion: Chapter XXI
of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction. What a great great chapter. 🥴
In reality, there’s not much difference between Zwingli and Calvin. John Calvin wordsmith his heterodoxy to appear as if they don’t reject the real presence. All theology is Christology. Calvin and Zwingli used human reason to trump sacred scripture.
All Zwingli and Calvin did was split the church further into a plethora of competing doctrines. I’m pretty sure that was not Luther’s intention.
Calvinist love to claim Luther as their hero- Thanks, Luther; ra, ra, ra! Hail Dr. Martin Luther, for freeing us from the shackle of Rome for we can bushwhack our own doctrine!
The irony, John Calvin sola Scriptura … as long as it’s my version of sola Scriptura.
I haven’t even hit on the “office of the keys” and Calvinist and Zwingli’s rejection of the sacrament of absolution (e.g. Private confession and general confession). Just imagine, going your whole life without going to private confession (to be fair, a lot of Lutherans don’t always practice private confession like they should) as if they don’t have anything to confess.
I am glad the reformation believed in Sola Scriptura and not Sola Luther. He did have some interesting views on the Jews.
Carl Peterson jeez when a Catholic like me defends Luther on something you know things are messed up anyway Luther was talking about the religion not the Jews themselves they do reject our Lord Jesus Christ after all, and any faith that does ranges from abomination to heresy.
Yeah there's one problem: the Bible is clearly against Sola Scriptura, which makes Sola Scriptura self-contradictory.
The "Reformation" was nothing but a big mistake.
@@berwynkandoll1701 I can't help but read that in a Trump voice: "The Reformation was a big, fat, mistake."
@@berwynkandoll1701
Oh yeah? So you would prefer people buying papers from catholic 'priests' to 'save' their loved ones from 'purgatory'? a place that doesnt even exist?
The reason why Luther translated the Bible and wrote his thesis was the corruption of the catholic 'church'. You should really educate yourself man.
I think they need to work on their German accent, because for some reason it always comes off as Egyptian. 😉
These always crack me up!
I am so glad I came across this channel 😂😂
"the finite is not capable of the infinite" isn't that a denial of the incarnation all together?
It's literally the argument Nestorius used to deny that the baby in Mary's womb was the Son of God.
@@silverwriter6739 That was the Pope's slander. Theodoret and the Syrian Church knew the poor guy was just mouthy, not a heretic.
He didn't like the language, Mother of God, because he feared idolatry.
He was right. The Assyrian Church of the East is the One Holy Catholic Church.
Does this mean Mary’s body is the Finite, which cannot hold the Logos (the Infinite), because God couldn’t make her do it? ???
I usually enjoy LutheranSatire and though there were some disagreements I had with this video, I still enjoyed it and had a good chuckle.
That being said, Luther didn't have perfect theology, as I don't, and also as no one else on earth does. Labeling anything other than what Luther believed as false doctrine is itself false doctrine. I'm very thankful that God used him as an instrument to return the Church to its original roots from the RCC corruption, which is what we know as the 5 Solas, but we must know the Church is ever reforming. We won't know perfect theology for now we see in a mirror dimly, but soon face to face.
Happy Reformation Day, brethren! Let's not bicker over secondary and tertiary doctrine, and rejoice in God's work through Martin Luther!
+kalizari - "Luther didn't have perfect theology, as I don't, and also as no one else on earth does." Have you heard of the BookOfConcord, the lutheran confessions ? Check it out. Pure 100% Gospel: bookofconcord.org/
+kalizari - you said "Let's not bicker over secondary and tertiary doctrine" Do you consider the Sacraments, God's visible Means of Grace secondary or even tertiary. The Means of Grace: Word & Sacrament is what God gave to the Church and we should treasure it as we find Life, Forgiveness and Salvation in these. holy Baptism = Jesus, holy Communion = Jesus, spoken & read Word are all about JESUS (OT & NT). A 5 solas Lutheran.
RomGabe The Book of Concord may be great for confessions, but I wouldn't say the theology is perfect. I believe the Westminster Confession is great and the London Baptist Confession is great too, but I won't say any of those have perfect theology. I see it would be a problem to exalt man made (though biblically inspired and based no doubt) creations.
RomGabe I do not see those as primary doctrinal beliefs, mainly because if I don't believe in them the say way you do, it doesn't automatically disqualify me as a Christian. I believe in predestination, but an Arminian isn't automatically a heretic. Now if I denied grace alone through faith alone, then that would be a primary doctrinal issue.
Like I said. No one has perfect theology. We'll know everything 100% thoroughly on the other side of the veil.
Have a great day!
+kalizari ... Nobody said you are not a Christian. But when you deny holy Baptism to a certain age group, when you deny Christs words of Institution, you are in fact, in a pragmatic way denying Sola Gratia. Because holy Baptism and holy Communion is pure Grace, God's Means of Grace for us sinner. They are something that gives forgiveness of sins ... as Holy Writ clearly states "baptized for the forgiveness of sins ... for you and your children" (Acts 2:38-39), "This is my body ... my blood ... for your ... for the forgiveness of sin". Blessings as you trust in God's gifts given thru Word & Sacrament. A 5 Solas lutheran
"SHUT UP yOu fILTHy reNeGaDE!" Slayed me!🤣🤣
Oh and " I say Imma gonno kot off is hEaADDD! Why U aesk?"😂😂😂
Perfekkkt!!
"Now for my morning schnitzel." lmao
As a Catholic I found this amusing. :-)
This reformed protestant schismatic laughed heartedly to this. :)
Jean Calvin speaking in a French accent is precious
Greetings from the 500th anniversary of Luther's seminal hit, "I got 95 Theses But An Indulgence Isn't One"!
I find the Luther confidence in their doctrine refreshing.
Technically Henry didn’t start the Anglican Church. With him as king they were still 100% Papist, but without the Pope; the only difference was that Henry was now head of the church. When Edward took the throne, he teamed up with some Lutherans to reform the English Church.
This is hillarious. Great stuff
It's amazing that Lutherans think Luther was the first reformer.
Even as a Catholic, I love Lutheran Satire but that Luther quote about 'scripture-twisting Pope rage' is what I think to be unintended irony on a scale that even Leo X wouldn't have thought possible.....
"I sang nothing!" Lol
What a great job of illustrating the pedantic nature of the differences between the Protestant faiths.
“DistinctiÕns” is my favorite part
Calvin is generally the funniest
Francis the hippie pope gets me everytime lol
Still has to be said: reject the papacy.
We are the Catholics. We’re on the same team as Jesus. We are the Catholics. All our rights are equally valid.
LOVE IT! I'm not and have never been Lutheran, but I love it!
Meanwhile poor ole Wycliffe didn’t even get a shout out.
Or Jan Hus :(
I wonder if John Wycliffe and Jan Huss would think Luther was a piggybacker?
Given that they both died well before Luther’s birth, they would probably not think anything.
I just realised Lither in the beginning is humming to A mighty fortress
This is all sorts of amazing