A Lutheran Response to Pastor Mike Winger on the Lord’s Supper
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- On today’s program, Pastor Matt responds to a video by Pastor Mike Winger (California pastor and featured teacher of BibleThinker) about Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper.
You can watch Pastor Mike’s full video here:
• Relearning The Last Su...
Grace Lutheran Church does not own any of the property used from Mike Winger’s channel. All content taken from Mike Winger’s TH-cam channel in this video is used for educational purposes only.
Grace Lutheran Podcast Episode 18, “Bad Arguments for a Memorialist Supper”:
• Grace Lutheran Podcast...
Mike Winger’s critique of Roman Catholicism:
• Unbiblical stuff the C...
• Unbiblical stuff the C...
Wow! We never expected our content to reach a wider audience than our small country church in Pfafftown North Carolina, thank you all so much for your comments and feedback!
We will try our best to respond to comments that offer constructive, respectful dialogue and criticism. However, we make it a policy to ignore uncharitable, disrespectful comments made toward our church or our Lutheran tradition.
If you are waiting for a response from Pastor Matt, we kindly ask that you re-edit your comment with the following Bible verses in mind:
“Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.” - Romans 12:10
“Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” - Ephesians 4:32
“Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” - Philippians 2:3
“In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” - 1 Peter 3:15
Thank you all again, and may God bless you in Christ Jesus!
We need more Lutheran perspective. What attracted me was the Lutheran concern for the troubled man. I've been a christian for 20 yrs and basically all i heard was do better and man you must be a terrible sinner. Well their probably right, but it does nothing for the conscience and only promotes a performance based life.
On top of the fact you dont ignore church history as unimportant. Many are leaving the evangelical and protestant groups to Eastern Orthodoxy because of the abundance of information. Please continue on doing what you are doing. People need to here of an alternative that won't lead them down a very painful road. Thank you.
From Evangelical Lutheran Church of PNG, thanks Grace Lutheran, God's Grace still in abundance after 500 years.
Did you contact mike winger before making this video? If not, you should have. Many times pastor mike has changed his views, especially from videos 5 or 6 years old.
Even AFTER it is blessed, it remains just bread and wine. Your heart is what is different.
Thank you for the time spent researching the topic and presenting it well. I agree with you that we should take scripture at face value, and if the correct translation uses “is” then that should be our understanding. At the same time, we should not get lost in the weeds and focus on the big picture of what it is to be a Christian and what God and Jesus have done for our salvation. While these discussions can be important but rarely productive, as with the Pharisees we should not get lost in the fine print and focus on Jesus’ saving grace.
Very nicely done video. I listen to Mike, and that’s why they suggested this video to me. I found your treatment of the topic and logic used refreshing, interesting and helpful. I really appreciate how you addressed things directly and logically without getting emotional and bent out of shape. Your explanations are clear and understandable.
Thank you for your kind words Martha! We’re so glad you found our content spiritually beneficial. We hope it continues to bless you!
~ Pastor Matt
Thank you! I had just run across that video and it made me uncomfortable. LCMS, former Roman Catholic. I appreciate the clarity you brought to this!
Thank you so much! I think being uncomfortable with memorialism is a sign of good theology ;)
~ Pastor Matt
Thank you for the insight! I was baptized in the Eastern Orthodox church which believes in something like "transubstantiation" but unlike Roman catholicism does not try to explain the process and just accepts it as a mystery. At the same time, I regularly follow pastor Mike's videos and appreciate the deep biblical research he offers on many different topics. Now that I hear the Lutheran perspective, I find it interesting too. I think the matter merits more attention and I'll be happy to hear more thoughts and perspectives on how the evangelical account of the last supper relates to John 6 (and also to 1 Corinthians 11). I'll be on the lookout for talks on this topic, thanks!
Glad to hear it! I pray your exploration on this topic is fruitful and draws you closer to Christ! 🙂
~ Pastor Matt
Hello! LCMS Lutheran from metro Detroit here. I'm grateful to find this commentary. I also like Pastor Mike, and I'm just starting his Playlist study of Mark, but I really wanted to hear a conservative Lutheran view on his views. I knew we wouldn't agree on baptism. I didn't realize we would disagree about transubstantiation(I probably butchered that spelling), so I'm glad to hear your response before I get to this episode. May God bless your ministry!
I like Pastor Mike too, but I am troubled that he simply ignored some verses that support our beliefs about Baptism. I am also troubled by his views of the Catholic church. Many Evangelicals do not think Catholics are Christians. I have stopped following Pastor Mike for now. I am mulling over whether I will follow him in the future.
I have done several of Pastor Mike's studies. He is generally Bible-based. I have to say I was very disappointed that he simply ignored many verses that would support infant Baptism.I have now stopped listening to Pastor Mike and am using more LCMS pastors on You Tube
I just saw this today and I wanted to comment. Mike Winger is an honest expositor of the Word. He does not mischaracterize other faiths. Concerning the Lord Supper and the Lutheran view, without getting too deep into what the word "is" means, if we take what happened at the Passover as more than a meal and a preparation for what was about to happen to Jesus, and make it a ritual as many understand it, then the consequences go against the book of Hebrews that teaches how the priesthood was done with because Jesus became our High priest, and through His death and resurrection, no more sacrifices are needed. Maybe this is addressed more to Catholicism than to Lutherans, however, let me ask a question? Have you Lutherans ever considered that our union with Jesus Christ is by and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and not by a physical external ritual? For many centuries people have misunderstood the importance of God's Holy Spirit in the believer. John 7:37-39 teaches that by the Spirit of God we receive the rivers of living water, not by a physical act such as taking communion. We receive everything we need from God by His Spirit. Those who are born again are connected to the Lord permanently and by His Spirit, all the power of God is available to us. Unfortunately, many have misunderstood the events of the Last Supper which was a memorial of the Jewish Passover. This Passover was filled with symbolism, and what Jesus did was gave a new meaning to the bread and the wine so that they would remember Him in the future Passover meals. Nothing miraculous happened that night.
I'm not an expert, I'm not even a believer, but I am studying Christianity deeply on an academic level, so yes when Jesus says "is" he means it literally is. Not that it represents, not that it's a symbol, not that it is in some esoteric sense. He 100% means that's exactly what it is.
It is his body and it is his blood.
Do I understand in exactly what sense? No, I really don't. However, Jesus and the apostles do something that memorabilia protestants do not, and that is consecration. Nothing happens that moves the elements from the profane and mundane space to the holy and divine space, so yeah if it's not consecrated, it's spiritually nothing. Less than nothing, it's basically a snack at church, which calls into question why Paul would admonish early Christians for treating the body and blood with disregard. He also admonished them about approaching the bread and wine in a state of unworthiness and unrepentant.
If it's just a regular old ritual meal, why would he be admonishing anyone about it? The passover sedar was NEVER treated with the same care and dedication. Break the bread, spill the mallow, drop the lamb on the floor, get smashed on wine, who cares?
The difference in approach is completely and utterly obvious here, one is considered just a memorial meal and no big deal. But the bread and wine among Christians is reverently and I dare say fearfully approached. My opinion is that because it has been consecrated and thus crossed thr spiritual divide, it is no longer of this world, but of that world. But if you're not consecrating it, then who cares? It's just a snack.
I like what you say here especially in light of the passage in John 6:48-63 where Jesus goes into detail about eating his flesh and those who eat it are in him and have eternal life. Then he ends the whole discourse with John 6:63 (WEB) " It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life."
Which seems to me to be Jesus saying: don't take the flesh and blood thing literally; it's about the spirit (especially after he lost some disciples who found his statements about eating his flesh too difficult).
@@azurephoenix9546 You make some good points about how reverent the church was to the taking of communion but I don't see that as making the elements supernaturally transformed. Had to do with a serious and sober memorial of a person they love dearly, the sacrifice his life for them. If you had a family member that had died to save you and you remembered that incident on an annual basis you wouldn't want people sitting around being sloppy rude and inconsiderate to each other during your memorial meal. And the fact that he died for our sins you wouldn't want people to be casually ignoring any sins they might need to repent of in light of that memorial. So it is an excellent time as we "do this in remembrance" (as Jesus actually told us to do - in memorial) that we consider whether we have some sin to address since that is what he died for (and what we are remembering). So yes the Passover wasn't nearly so sacred in that regard but it certainly wasn't just a regular meal either. "Why is this night different from all other nights?" That means it is consecrated. So people certainly didn't think of the Passover meal as just a fun community potluck supper either. It was their core identity as a redeemed people by Yahweh. Just because they didn't worry about spilled drink or dropped lamb doesn't mean it was a drunken brawl or a "church snack" They had to prepare diligently to scout out all the leven in the house before passover could begin. It was not just a party holiday. It was a somber memorial.
@@Butterfly-truth
No, it does not mean that it was consecrated, because someone asks the question, that's just the tradition and a child asking the question isn't going to make it consecrated.
Consecration isn't some flippant thing, it is what makes something profane into something holy.
That is why the elements in the temple had to be consecrated, so that God's presence could be held within them.
In the elements, NOT just in the temple, so the concept of God's presence being in the elements isn't new to the new testament, what was new was the idea of flesh and blood being consumed, which is why the apostles got a little nervous about this new system.
If they didn't believe that he meant that it was his flesh and blood, then why would anyone care? They have had bread and wine at every holy meal, including family meals at home, it's not like it was a new thing for them.
Additionally, Justin martyr and Ignatius of Antioch, both having written about the eucharist very early in the history of the Christian church, wrote that it was the body and blood, not in a philosophical or metaphorical sense, so this concept of the real presence of God in the elements of worship runs from the old testament, through the new testament and into the early church, and it's all been well documented.
As I am always clear to point out, I don't get it, I think it's weird, creepy and a little bit gross, but I don't try to reform the text and history to make it say what I wish it to say or to be what I want it to be.
It is what it is. If you consecrate it as outlined in the eucharistic prayer of the early church, then it's thr flesh and blood. If you don't, then it's not.
But if you don't, then you are not in concordance with the early Christian church, full stop.
@@azurephoenix9546 Jesus changed the meaning of the bread and the wine in the Sedar to be a representation of his blood and body. He said to do this as a remembrance not as a means to obtain grace or a sacrifice. The sacrifice was actually going to happen the following day. When we break bread, we remember the broken body of Jesus and the wine, is a remembrance of his shed blood. We receive the power and grace God gives by means of the Holy Spirit, see John 7:37-39, this is what we are after, the Spirit of God to enter us and unite with our spirit, that is how we are born again, and how we grow in the spirit. There is nothing that what is called the Lord’s supper gives us that is given to us by the Holy Spirit. Now, Paul never taught in any of his letter anything about the Lord’s supper except to correct what the Corinthians were doing wrong. The body Paul refers to is not the bread representing his body but the church which is the body of Christ. The point was that some ate and drank without concern for others and that was his big complaint. If the communion as it is sometimes called, was so important, why is it that Paul did not teach about it as he should have. As the Bible teaches, it is by the Spirit of God that we receive what God has promised to give us as members of the body of Jesus.
ELCA here, I believe in the true presence.
Passover was the foreshadowing of the Lord's Supper. It saved the people of Israel. God has never given meaningless rituals. The Lord's Supper saved, just as Passover saved the Jewish people. The blood on the door post did save.
You miss the point of both.....it's the blood of Jesus that saves, not rituals. They are in place to remember that exact truth. Passover was a foreshadow and that's exactly what he showed when He was eating it with His disciples. He was showing He is the passover and He fulfills all that is represented in the elements.
@stephen4384 so the Israelite could have been saved during passover without the blood and sign ??
I would suggest righteousness resulting in salvation was and is always expressing faith in God and showing that faith by acting on it.
Second time listening to this and a thought occured to me. One thing that was pointed out about the Lord's Supper by a former Lutheran Pastor of mine is that Jesus didn't institute this on Passover by accident. It was very intentional as it was meant to replace the eating of a lamb with the eating of the true Lamb, Jesus. I'm not sure how so many memorialists miss this point, as the Gospels make it a point that this was done on the eve of Passover, along with the language Jesus uses, "Take and eat, this IS my body, given for you. Take and drink, this IS my blood, shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." I've also noticed that the forgiveness part is taken out as well in the memorialist view, but that makes sense since they reject the real presence of Christ's blood in the wine. But yet when it comes to Baptism, they're quick to say, "Only the blood of Christ holds the power of salvation." Kind of ironic, if you think about it. And of course this leads to decision theology, which comes with its own major set of problems and contradictions with Scripture. Just be Lutheran! It's so easy to understand our theology! The Bible says Baptism saves, we say, "Amen!" Jesus says He is present in the bread and wine as His body and blood, we say, "Amen!" So simple! No complicated theology to explain it, we take God at His Word!
Thank you, very well and faithfully done. There seems to be a lot of conjecture from Pastor Mike about the Lord's Supper as if one's mind is made up even before one looks at the text. Listening to this my mind jumped ahead to how he might have handled the Lord's Supper texts in 1 Corinthians, because I really heard very little if anything to sway me from what Scripture clearly says.
I take Jesus at his word.
so you're Lutheran then?
@@samichjpgor anglican, or any number of orthodox groups...
Also I think about 1 Corinthians 11:28-30 where people became sick or even died when they took communion in an unworthy manner. If it has no power, this would not be possible.
Thank you a reasoned, calm, and loving response to Pastor Mike. Full disclosure: I am not LCMS, watch Lutheran Satire, and regularly view Mike Winger’s videos. His area seems to have regular interaction with the RCC than Lutherans, so him not addressing the Lutheran perspective should not be surprising. I have no doubt that he would recognize you, as would I, as a Christian brother. Any disagreement is one inside the family, as it were.
Two points I would like you to consider:
John 6 first shows conflict with the Jews (generally, Jewish religious leaders) over Christ’s statements that “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” thus making a claim to divinity. Then in John 6:52-59, Christ is driving home points about eating the Son of Man (whom the immediate audience would understand as either the Messiah or another claim to divinity) with many of the disciples finding this too hard to hear who were not of the twelve. It is not clear if the “too hard to hear” relates to the eating flesh/drinking blood, except that Jesus continues by talking about the Spirit giving life and “the flesh is no help at all” (v63). The twelve all stayed with Jesus, but in John 6, Jesus is not handing them a cup and bread and saying to partake of His flesh and blood right there, unlike the Last Supper. Paul’s criticism and direction to the Corinthian church in 1 Cor 11 often is left out of this conversation. Paul made points about the remembrance aspect (the prime support for the views of most if not all memorialists-not a phrase we use, btw), eating the Lord’s supper together, and approaching the Eucharist in an unworthy manner lacking self-examination (possibly regarding unconfessed sins or lacking a heart attitude aligned to Christ’s lordship and the brotherhood of believers).
In college, I took a class on the Reformation with a big focus on Luther. The role of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist within the Lutheran belief system confused me as I saw as a disconnect between doctrine and practice. Please correct me if I am wrong in this, but the Lord’s Supper is a Sacrament and thus a Means of Grace. Why then would I be asked when visiting a LCMS church not if I was Christian or follower of Christ, but rather an adherent (not sure if that was the exact word) of the LCMS, and if not to please not partake in the Lord’s Supper? Denying the Eucharist to someone who confesses Christ as Lord seems counter to what Lutherans believe is its intent. If I am misunderstanding that belief, please correct me.
I’m not Lutheran-I’m Anglican and we do practice open communion-but I recommend getting a copy of _Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries_ by the German Lutheran scholar Werner Elert (published in translation by the LCMS’s publishing house, CPH), which explores the practices in the early church concerning who could commune at which churches. Whether or not someone from one church could commune at another church ultimately boiled down to whether or not the two churches recognized each other as doctrinally orthodox, particularly whether or not the bishops of those churches recognized each other as orthodox. Essentially, the LCMS comes down on the side that the early Christians got this point right (save the part about there being bishops), and Anglicans come down on the side that the early Christians got this point wrong (save the part about there being bishops).
My thought is this: when Jesus says, "eat this is my body" and "drink this is my blood", well 2 things 1. Drinking actual blood was against Jewish law, 2. Jesus spoke this while He was present, so the apostles couldn't be partaking, literally, His body and blood.
There is no doubt that Jesus is present in the partaking of the Lord's Supper, much like He is present when two or more are gathered...Matt.18:20.
@Dwight Haas
Well said. Luther never understood this biblically. He couldn't get rid of this tradition. As a former Roman Catholic I can understand it a bit, especially in middle age context. They were brutally indoctrinated into this at those times...
@@luboshcamber1992no rebuttal
Why would the Jews turn away then? John 6:66 isn't a turning away due to 6:65 as many Calvies would lead one to believe. That would make 64 and prior irrelevant. One only need ask why Jesus said what He said in 6:65. Because the Jews were abhorred at Jesus talking about flesh and blood.
Evangelicals have such a gnostic view of Christianity.
What did Jesus mean in Luke 22 when He said, "“This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” I don't see how he could be saying that somehow his physical body was in or under the bread that he broke in the upper room. That would mean that he had two bodies. The body that was speaking those words and the body He was speaking about. It seems clear to me that He was speaking symbolically, as He did on so many other occasions. And on many such occasions Christ's disciples failed to discern Christ's meaning as in Matthew 16:5 "Now when His disciples had come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?-but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So what is your opinion of Evangelicals that do not believe that Christ is present? Do they still get the forgiveness of sins and a strengthening of their faith?
Mike's view of the Jewish Passover traditions is quite wrong. Passover wasn't merely a tradition, it was/is very much a religious Worship event. But that doesn't fit his narrative.
American Christianity teaches that Salvation is available for us, and applies to us once we do something, usually a personal confession of Faith. Pretty the common ideology across most of American Protestantism/Evangelicalism. Lutheranism is more about saying that Salvation applies to us, period, and we embrace/worship through how we do things, such as confession and/or how we practice Lord's Supper, etc. Which view is more like Roman Catholicism? The view that we must do something before salvation applies? Hmm... In this I believe the Lutheran position is the better reflection of the Jewish Passover celebration.
John list 9 I AM statements. Which of these are not metaphorical?
In the lords supper he is giving himself to us...for us...and that is all that matters. Christ would be slamming us around if He was here in flesh again, taking His gift of His life given which is right after the supper, seeing us fight over the supper itself and not what it was truely about, which is His defeat of death by giving his body on the cross.
Amen Kenneth! We believe the the fullness of Christ’s life and benefits are given to us in the Lord’s Supper.
While Jesus may not want us to quibble and fight within His body, we also believe Jesus wants us to uphold His Word as true, and sadly that can cause arguing within the church about what is true or false.
We pray that God gives us discernment to understand His Word and apply it to every part of our lives in Him.
~ Pastor Matt
I'm a Lutheran Convert from Roman Catholicism and I am still confused about what the Lutheran tradition really teaches about the lords supper.
I've never held Transubstantiation to be true, since I was a child I've understood it as Consubstantiation (without being able to put a name to the idea). Saying there are 4 elements present works for me, but HOW we think about those elements still confuses me. It is a divine mystery after all so I suppose I could be content with not understanding.
I think it's a little weird to say that Jesus is "Physically" dropping down to earth from Heaven on a weekly basis all across the world. By this standard has he not had his millionth coming from Heaven? When we say thing's like "Jesus is with us" we hardly mean we can reach out and touch him, his spirit or maybe even spiritual body is there, but not the body he will truly return with.
We have a material life, and an immaterial spiritual life. Christ took his material body with him to heaven and it won't come back until his second coming.
There are a few things I need to assert as true before I make my claim as to what Consubstantiation really means. By the laws of nature, consciousness requires a vessel or a body. Humans do not take their bodies with them to heaven when they die. For us to be able to face God when we die, we would need some sort of vessel (Maybe this is just our soul) to face him, a "Spiritual Body".
In my own head cannon, Christs spiritual but not physical body is present when we take the Eucharist.
we confess Sacramental Union, I recommend reading the confessions on this if you have not already, it is interestingly similar to the Eastern Church's view on the Eucharist
feels like I'm missing a lot of context here, referring to so many other videos and issues. I appreciate you linked Mikes own original video, people don't do that often enough, but you cited a bunch of others too. The biggest issue of course is, is this considered a salvation issue, or a disagreement among brothers and sisters in Christ?
Hi Adam! Thank you for your thoughtful feedback.
This channel was originally created with our small church community in mind, and we certainly never expected to reach over 1K views! Per your suggestion, I’ve edited our description to include two other videos referenced: an earlier GLP episode about memorialism, and Pastor Mike’s older video about Roman Catholicism. We hope this makes it easier for future listeners to navigate.
As to your second question, I believe Pastor Mike is a fellow believer and brother in the Lord, but like most American evangelicals, he is sorely mistaken when it comes to the Lord’s Supper. My intention was to provide Lutherans with responses to common evangelical arguments against our confessional beliefs and (God willing) help non-Lutherans understand why we disagree with Memorialism.
I hope this helps and thank you again!
~ Pastor Matt
@@gracelutheranchurch9481If believing in transubstantiation isn't a matter of salvation then why does it matter if one believes it is a memorial?
If Jesus is talking about receiving Him for salvation and one does not believe taking the elements is equivalent to receiving his literal body then are they saved?
Russian doesn’t have ‚the‘ either. But it is clearly understood
Good point!
~ Pastor Matt
Thank you. You seem to understand the Catholic view and I appreciate your respect to the differences in our views. Mike makes several broad sweeping errors in his interpretation of scripture as well as Catholic belief. He would benefit by a deep dive into the arguments that you make, as well as a reading of the early church fathers.
Lutherans forgotten? LoL quite often. When I tell people I'm Lutheran their respons is, huh?
Mike Winger would have you believe that Christ spoke in the language of cavemen. 🙄
but it's a metaphor. there are thousands of metaphors in the Bible. Why single this one out as different?
It deals with a sacrament
Also, I’m allergic to grapes so I always want to know everything I can about communion.
Thank you. In what way does the bread become Jesus’ body? Do the molecules or other elements that makes bread,”bread,” change in any way?
Why is it, when I ask this question, I rarely get a response?
Interestingly, Roman Catholics don’t think Anglican and Lutheran communion services are valid because those denominations broke away from the “one true church.”
@@JohnMark61355 I’m not a Lutheran (I’m Anglican), but I’ve read a fair amount of Lutheran theology. Though I’m not accusing you of trying to be offensive here, I would definitely note that unless it is your intention to offend Lutherans (or Anglicans), I’d clarify that transubstantiation is roundly rejected in Lutheranism (and Anglicanism). In Lutheranism’s confessional standards, they state the following regarding the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist,
“We believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine.”
(Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VII, Affirmative Thesis 1)
“We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as they read, according to the letter, so that the bread does not signify the absent body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that, on account of the sacramental union, they [the bread and wine] are truly the body and blood of Christ.”
(Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VII, Affirmative Thesis 2)
“Now, as to the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation of the minister [of the church] produces this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this is to be ascribed only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ”
(Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VII, Affirmative Thesis 3)
“Hence we hereby utterly reject and condemn the Capernaitic eating of the body of Christ, as though we taught that His flesh were rent with the teeth, and digested like other food, which the Sacramentarians, against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests, wilfully force upon us, and in this way make our doctrine odious to their hearers; and on the other hand, we maintain and believe, according to the simple words of the testament of Christ, the true, yet supernatural eating of the body of Christ, as also the drinking of His blood, which human senses and reason do not comprehend, but as in all other articles of faith our reason is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and this mystery is not apprehended otherwise than by faith alone, and revealed in the Word alone.” (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VII, Negative Thesis 21)
“We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic [mode], but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.” (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VII, Affirmative Thesis 6)
One of their greatest theologians, Johann Gerhard, stated their belief as follows,
“On account of the calumnies of the opposite party, we again call to mind that we lay down neither impanation, nor consubstantiation, nor any other physical or local presence, but we believe, teach, and confess, that according to the institution of Christ Himself, in a way known to God alone, but incomprehensible to us, the Body of Christ is truly, really, and substantially present to the Eucharistic bread as a medium appointed by God; and that in the same way the Blood of Christ, truly really and subatantially present, is joined to the Eucharistic wine: so that, in transcendent mystery, we take, eat, and drink with that bread the real Body of Christ, and with that wine the real Blood of Christ. This Presence is called Sacramental, not in the sense in which the opponents use the word, for a relative (σκειτικῇ) presence, suggestive to the mind only, but because a heavenly thing is, in this mystery, given to and set before us in this mystery through the medium of outward sacramental symbols.”
To be fair, their view is pretty consistent with the testimony of Christians writing in the decades after the death of the apostles (John is believed to have died between 95 and 100 AD), e.g. Ignatius of Antioch (~110 AD), Justin Martyr (~155 AD), Irenaeus of Lyons (~180 AD), etc.
@@augustinian2018 Thank you for your thoughtful response. Jesus is present in the Word and when two or three are gathered. Jesus can also be present in the breaking of the bread, but it does not physically change as some Christians believe.
Didn't and doesn't Israel eat the sacrificed lamb during the Passover meal? They also did so for other sacrificed animals (1 Corinthians 10:18). So, we too partake of the sacrificed lamb with our mouths now that Christ is our Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7).
I don't think that's what was meant when it says "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation". When Jesus said He is the vine and we are the branches it doesn't mean we are supposed to live in a grape vine in order to "abide in Him".
They ate the lamb but the blood on the doorposts are what saved them
@@stephen4384It is clear in scripture that we do receive the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion.
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
- 1 Corinthians 10:16
And Paul also says it is spiritual food. Remember spiritual does not mean metaphorically.
[Paul's saying that the Old Testament Church that was of sorts baptized into Moses also similarly in a way had Holy Communion] and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:3-4
* Correction Jews don't currently eat the sacrificed lamb today.
Jesus said that when two or three are gathered together in His name, He IS there among us. He IS there, spiritually, in the person of the Holy Spirit. Believing that the Lord's supper is what Jesus said it is, in memory of Him, is hardly "antichrist"; it is not denying that Jesus has come in the flesh, because He did come into the world in the flesh, lay down His life, and was resurrected, appeared to 500 people, and ascended to the Father. And will return, as they saw Him ascend. Being called an "antichrist" for what I believe about the bread and wine, was a big wake up call about the Lutheran discernment community, and I am warned by it. We have all heard that Lutherans are merging with Rome, and that means no sola scriptura, no salvation without the ministrations of priests, and other bondage that we need to firmly, completely reject. Now that RCC is getting high-pressure again, demanding that we join them, we need to be careful that we do not give in.
Not sure where you are hearing about some imminent merger of the Lutherans with Rome. That just simply is not on the table. There have been good and substantial discussions with Rome regarding the Eucharist, but Lutheran Eucharistic theology is much closer to Rome than it is to that of American Evangelicalism. It is actually almost identical to that of the Eastern Orthodox. Moreover, doing something in memory of Him does not preclude the bread and wine from being the Body and Blood. It is a both/and not an either/or.
Baptism does NOT save.
And when Jesus says He is the door?
Was he being a house ??
Any apostolic teachings ??
Christ is the only way into the kingdom...
I have a question as pentecostal?
If what Lutherans are right we should find a difrent type of blod and flesh inside of us?
If we where to disect a human or under x ray or sonogram, would we see or find any foreign substance other than wine and bread literally???
When does it unbecome the body and blood of Christ in the himan body?
@@maryaskin4757 no, im asking if we can test it. If when we eat and drink jesús, we should be able to detect another substance in our stomach that is not bread or wine
@@PastorMelquicedec Lutherans do not believe the bread and wine cease to exist but that the true body and true blood of Christ are given and received after a heavenly and sacramental manner. His body and blood are truly, substantially present, under, with, and in the bread and wine. We reject transubstantiation (that the bread and wine cease to exist), and we reject consubstantiation (that the bread and wine, and the body and blood, mix into some new substance), and pneumaticism (Christ is only symbolically/spiritually present, and is only present to the elect).
the bread and wine remain bread and wine
@@captainfordo1 got it it's a symbolism
Let's break some glass:
The last supper was not a Seder, it’s “the last supper of Yeshua''. Let’s put some logic to the subject; Yeshua cannot be the Passover lamb and eat it too for He is the lamb without blemish.
Who is the church:
All or most denominations that exist today have catholicism as their foundation. The protestant churches cleaned up the catholic beliefs, like putting the ten commands back to its original state, lost the idols in their churches, lost the elaborate and perfected masses and the confessional. But the root of their doctrines is still “catholicism” not the Hebrew root that Paul speaks of.
Removal of the Jewish Faith and culture:
The church fathers worked very hard to remove all the Jewishness from the creation of their (new) doctrine that they would teach for almost 2 thousand years. In the first century church, the Romans were killing Jews not because they were believers in Yeshua, but because they were Jews and at the time most believers were Jews, they saw the people of The Way just as just another sect of Judaism. God gave Israel seven appointed times, the Biblical Feast days: Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles. The church gave us festivals that are tied to nothing except easter which packs the three spring festivals into two celebrations. Their Feasts are: The Feast of Mary, Ascension Thursday, Assumption of Mary into heaven, All Saints’ Day, The Feast of the Immaculate Conception and Christmas the Nativity of Our Lord. I’m not going to try any logic to this because it makes no sense. The protestant took from that mess easter and Christmas so, the protestant kept the fundamental doctrine of catholicism.
Conclusion:
Who is the winner here? Of course, it’s the adversary(satin). This is what the Pharisees were doing in Yesuha’s time. They put their Halacha (oral tradition) between God and His people. The founding fathers of the church taught the people a doctrine not of God but of man, then Scripture is twisted to make it fit. To close this is the tip of the iceberg, there is so much more to learn.
How do you know
If in Yeshua, the Spirt in me is the same Spirt in you and the Spirt knows its own work. First 1 Cor:17-25
For the Messiah did not send me to immerse but to proclaim the Good News - and to do it without relying on “wisdom” that consists of mere rhetoric, so as not to rob the Messiah’s execution-stake of its power. 18 For the message about the execution-stake is nonsense to those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved it is the power of God. Indeed, the Tanakh says,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent.” (Isaiah 29:14)
Where does that leave the philosopher, the Torah-teacher, or any of today’s thinkers? Hasn’t God made this world’s wisdom look pretty foolish? For God’s wisdom ordained that the world, using its own wisdom, would not come to know him. Therefore, God decided to use the “nonsense” of what we proclaim as his means of saving those who come to trust in it. Precisely because Jews ask for signs and Greeks try to find wisdom, we go on proclaiming a Messiah executed on a stake as a criminal! To Jews this is an obstacle, and to Greeks it is nonsense; but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, this same Messiah is God’s power and God’s wisdom! For God’s “nonsense” is wiser than humanity’s “wisdom.”
Proverbs 9:10 The fear of Adonai is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of holy ones is understanding.
Psalm 51:7-8 True, I was born guilty, was a sinner from the moment my mother conceived me. Still, you want truth in the inner person; so, make me know wisdom in my inmost heart.
The point is God's wisdom is not our wisdom, to obtain God's wisdom is to seek it form God but with total trust and submission to His will. You have to check your worldly wisdom at the door.
I pray this makes sense to you.
May God bless you and give you understanding. In Yeshua's Name
Well done podcast. Thanks for referring it! (You did so on a facebook post ;) )
Anytime! ;)
~ Pastor Matt
transubstantiation is a straw man. It isn't necessary for believing in the Real Presence. BTW Jesus calls it a NEW testament.
Do you believe as Catholics do, in transubstantiation or consubstantiation as the Episcopals do, or neither?
Hi Shelly! Great question.
The short answer is neither.
While most theology books *about* Lutheranism tend to claim we believe in consubstantiation, Lutherans never used that term in our confessions, as “consubstantiation” suggests things we do not believe.
Unfortunately there isn’t a single Lutheran phrase to describe our position, but some of the most common are “Sacramental Union,” “Real Presence,” or “Sacramental Presence.” This means we believe Christ’s real body and blood are given to us in the Lord’s Supper, but unlike in transubstantiation, we also receive the elements of bread and wine.
Hope this helps!
~ Pastor Matt
@@gracelutheranchurch9481 please correct me if I’m wrong because I want to understand this as best I can. I’m getting an idea from both the video and your response that it is assumed that because Christ said that the wine and bread were his blood and body (poured out for all) that the elements ARE the blood and body? So nothing that a cleric could transubstantiate nor consubstantiate to bring about the Presence? Also, does the Lutheran church allow all believers to partake or only Lutherans? I’m trying not to interject the beliefs of other denominations but it’s more difficult than I had anticipated. My apologies.
@@gracelutheranchurch9481 re-reading the comments I might be able to ask this in one question. To be consecrated is to be holy or set apart for God’s purposes. Christ told us to be holy as He is holy. Also, where two or more are gathered He is in the midst of them. All that having been said, I am starting to think I’m in agreement with you. Do you believe that the breaking of the bread and the pouring of the wine is a holy sacrament along side the consumption of the elements to be holy in the gathering of believers because Christ is already there? That to prepare for that sacrament is to forgive others and make things right with them? That communion should be revered as a holy act for believers only?
Frankly I’m not certain as to whether or not it is the actual blood and body but out of reverence I treat it as such.
Jesus could have given them his actual body and blood, he did not. Instead, he gave them bread and wine to be a symbolic representation of his body and blood.
Do you know what symbolism is? The Disciples were distraught when they heard this but later they understood that Jesus means His body offering at His death. Jesus Is in body in heaven and only symbolically the communion can bring Jesus down for people to take into themselves. It is preposterous! Do this in memory of Me. MEMORY not for carnivorous acceptance. Disrespectful,! Unfathomable! Awful!
The problem is in the title of this video - it is a “Lutheran response” rather than a “biblical response.” It doesn’t matter what the Augsburg Confession says, the Bible is abundantly clear that the Lord’s supper remembers the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The passage repeatedly says to do it in memory of what the Lord did and once as a way to publicly proclaim his death. NEVER does it suggest the body and blood of the Lord is physically present: in fact, that contradicts the whole meaning of the Lord’s Supper as explained by Paul. If he is bodily there, how is it a memorial? Lutheranism is in this case contradicting the Word of God, and this means that the denomination is wrong.
The bread and wine are things much like the sacrifices they did to the Lord. They became wholly once Blessed. Jesus said do IS in remembrance of me. It is just bread it is just wine Until it receives the blessing. Satan is casting doubt through that question.
It seem that mostly people who are biblical ignorant are the ones that believe it the Mass and the eucharist which are not scriptural . The communion is breaking bread and drink wine to remember his death till he comes back 1 Cor. 11 : 24 ;
There are no forgiveness of sins in the lord supper or communion . There is no sacrifice in the communion , There are no priest in the New Testament Church under the New Covenant . Christ died one time for sin past , present and future . there are no more sacrifices Hebrews 10 : 12 - 18 . Mike is right in what he teaches it is biblical . when you talk about Mary . the
Mass , the eucharist , Priest , and the sacraments . it is not scriptural .
Pelagian heresy
Ah, you people are as disingenuous as the Catholics. You say we're not meant to understand it, we're meant to take God at his word. That's American Evanjellical talk. Luther himself would spill plenty of ink on this subject and debated vociferously on it, against not only Transubstantiation, which he called "sophistry," but the Zwinglian position. So your tradition has evolved too. Fine, own it and be honest. I could be wrong, so I welcome comments to the contrary.
The first quote in the video is not from the bible. This is the way many catholics, lutherans, mormons, etc do it - they quote something supposedly biblical but not from the bible itself. How do you know when Jesus took the bread & wine - blessed it - and then passed it around he wasn't saying it is my body and blood specifically for the apostles? Maybe it was his body and blood ? - but only for the apostles? You cannot prove one way or the other. So why make it a big deal? Non-lutherans used it as a time of reflection...to think about the new covenant. Lutherans and catholics focus the actual event. Remember lutherans tend to have lots of pride because they believe they are the only true Christians (read the history of lutheranism and the founder actual says this). So they really really really want to make sure they get it right. Which is fine but in the process they tend to become prideful. 2 dear lutheran friends came to my church and refused to take communion. I asked them "what would Jesus think of you denying communion based on your man-made denomination?". They were both silent. They were putting their denominations doctrine over a simple, not-required ceremony honoring Jesus and His sacrifice. Wow! The bottom line is communion to a lutheran or catholic, while trying to do it correctly, tends to push away other Christians and divide us, when protestants do communion it is welcoming of all who love Christ.
I disagree with many things Pastor Mike promotes, and I wouldn't worry about disrespecting him. He disrespects Jesus with his reform theology.
I tried to listen to this video because I was genuinely interested in the opposing view, but I have to be honest here. I’m checking out at 4:21 because there is no valid argument that I can see being made here.
The Lutheran Church is apparently Martin Luther’s church, not Christ’s. Hence the name. The first couple of references mentioned were Lutheran cannons or doctrines.
Any church not referencing their doctrines through the Bible loses all credibility in my humble opinion. This is a prototypical case of following the doctrines of men.
In full disclosure, I do listen to Mike Winger sometimes, but I don’t always adhere to his interpretations or agree with his positions. I’m not a member of his congregation, or a member of the Calvary Chapel group.
Having said that, by and large I think Mike is genuinely honest and open-hearted. I am willing to listen and/or debate him. I’m not open to listening to a Lutheran minister cite man-made Lutheran doctrine to me. That authority holds ZERO weight in Christianity. It only holds weight with Lutherans.
I would encourage everyone regardless of affiliation to study the scriptures and apply them appropriately. That is a daily mission for all of us that profess Christ.
The Evangelicals get very hung up on the name of Lutheran for our churches. Firstly, Lutheran was a term of insult by Romanists for our churches.....and it stuck. Secondly, only some of our confessional documents were written by Luther, most were written by other theologians. The name "Lutheran" is used because in Germany originally we used the German word for Evangelical. However, we really can't use Evangelical because the word has an entirely different meaning in the context of the USA where it means the the theology of Charles Finney, Wesley and Baptist thinkers. In conservative Lutheranism the only writings officially considered officially as expositions of God's Word are the Large and Small Cathecisms and the Smalcald Articles. His other writings are good stuff but not normative.
One thing I will say, both you and Mike are making pre conceived assumptions on the word "is" based in your denominational upbringings and biases, as we all do. The strongest evidence I believe we see against your argument is the fact that at this last supper took place before the disciples truly understood who Christ was completely, there is a lack of questioning, we see plenty of examples of them questioning everything that seemed to go against their Jewish theological biases. This is very absent and even in later writings of Hebrews and other letters where Jewdizers were pushing Jewish doctrine (circumcision) on the church, we never see this issue brought to head and explained. That is very strong evidence against the belief in transubstantiation. Either way you are both making an assumption on the word "is", so then you look for who has the most supporting evidence for their claim. So looking at the passover meals figurative eating and drinking in remembrance of what God did with the passover lamp, it seems very logical that Christ is telling His disciples to continue on this tradition recognizing Him as the the fulfillment of the true passover lamb and none of his disciples would have understood this as the bread and wine actually turning into blood and flesh in the context of traditions of the passover. But even though we disagree, I'll still call you my brother in Christ! Thank you for the video.
Christ doesn't dwell in a cookie ........to be killed every week /HE DIED ONCE...FOR OUR SINS
Ah, the old "the finite cannot contain the infinite" argument.
Lutherans believe Christ suffered for sins, once for all, upon the cross. At no point in this response does the Reverend claim Jesus “dwells in a cookie to be killed every week”. We do not teach a re-sacrifice of Christ: we confess that Our Lord, who suffered, died, and rose again, comes to us through the means of bread and wine, to feed and nourish our souls with His body and blood. We eat the Lamb of God and remember His atoning sacrifice every Lord’s Day.
Please, watch the video and/or read up on the Lutheran doctrine of Communion before slandering.
It’s really strange how you repeatedly designate yourself as a follower of Luther instead of Christ. You are a self proclaimed follower of Luther as your authority as a Lutheran
Hi S Cooper!
This video is called “A LUTHERAN Response” to Pastor Mike Winger on the Lord’s Supper, so I assumed listeners would be expecting to hear someone who is qualified to speak as a Lutheran. That is why I felt it was important to designate myself as a Lutheran throughout this video.
I don’t recall ever saying “I follow Luther *instead* of Christ” at any point in this video. Would you agree someone who follows Christ could also consider themselves a Lutheran, no different than a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.?
~ Pastor Matt
Because you understand nothing about Luther, the Lutheran Church, Sola scriptura etc. Being Lutheran does not mean following Luther. Luther said and that got him kicked out of the Roman church to FOLLOW only the Bible and not man made traditions of the Roman church (like clerical celibacy etc.). Luther never did eisegesis like Pastor Winger does when he tries to teach his own understanding of alcohol, baptism and communion where winger is clearly wrong. Of you listen to the whole video with an open mind your questions get answered
Secondary issue…next