Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
N.T. Wright on the Sacraments
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 лют 2008
- N.T. Wright on "Space, Time, and Sacraments" at Calvin College on January 6, 2007. For the full video and audio of this presentation, please visit worship.calvin.edu/resources/r....
I am a minister out of Pentecostal ministries, and I love this man's teachings! I'd rather read a N.T. Wright book than anyone else I know :)
NT Wright, for an evangelical, is a genius... "The Word became flesh"... exactly. Sacramentalism is absolutely necessary to a Christian life.
If someone wants to know what Reformed theology is today, Bishop Wright is the leader of what is believed. He is the main exponent of Postmodern Reformed thought.
Looking at this from a evangelical point of view, I completely concur that the Word and the word (Bible and preaching) is given such disproportionate prominence that the sacraments (or ordinances) are often all but forgotten. This is easily proven by how few even know that the sacraments are to be celebrated: "What, today is the Lord's Supper?"
Shame on us.
Promises and such are words of operative effect -- and sacraments are operations of verbal effect, in other words.
Why does it end after only 9 minutes? Where can I hear the rest of it?
@RadicalWhig
You do realise where his reasoning is coming from? Is that from evangelical/reformation teaching?
Please... it is clearly from Holy Tradition - even the reference to Matthew 25, Mother Teresa are clearly example of depth community with the Catholic Church - intended as the Apostolic Church - Orhotodox of course included.
Lol, this comment is still as misinformed and vapid as it was 8 years ago.
He told Noah how to specifically build the Ark, He told Moses how to specifically, build the tabernacle. For something so important, He would be specific and say exactly what it should be, and would not leave it up to man to do what they feel like.
1. If it is meant to be bread, then why is there so much versions ?
What is it meant to be, bread, wafer, cracker ? What is it ?
Isnt God specific ?
2. How often should it be taken ?
3. What is the recipe ?
4. What happens if you cant get hold of this bread, cracker or wafer, especially with this lockdown ?
5. Who's hands made this bread, cracker or wafer ?
6. How does it affect the spiritual man ?
Then if we are the body of Christ, then how can it be a symbol of his body, when we are now the body of Christ ? 1 Corinthians 10 vs 16: For we being many are one bread and one body. are now the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12 vs 12 - 14.
Jesus said that I am the living Bread and if you eat of me, you shall live. The word eat, means to believe.
Matthew 26 vs 29: He said He wont drink it a new, until He drinks it an new in His father's Kingdom. He was saying that He would no longer communicate or interact with them, in the literal flesh, but letting them know that He was about to be broken and offered as a sacrifice. He was also letting them know that He would come back and fellowship with His people in the Spirit. Acts 2 shows the outpouring of the spirit upon the true worshippers who waited for Him as He had instructed and promised.
John 4 vs 24: They that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.
Romans 14 vs 17: Shows clearly that the Kingdom is not natural but spiritual. The Kingdom is not in meat or drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. This makes it clear that, whatever He was teaching, it was spiritual. They that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.
Why hold on to a symbol, when Jesus Christ is the reality ?
How can we take a natural piece of bread, wafer or cracker that passes out in the toilet, to remember Him, who is Spirit ?
I believe that their is a great misunderstanding, of what Jesus was trying to teach them. I dont believe that he was instigating a literal ceremonial supper or feast, but used their common feast or practice, as he always did, in order to teach them something deeper and something spiritual, and that was the relationship and fellowship with each other and with Him.
When we have a deep spiritual relationship with Him, in submission, prayer, the word, and worship, then our relationship is enough to remind us of what He did on Calvary. Do we need a literal and natural piece of bread to remind us of Calvary?
The truth is, a piece of bread, cracker or wafer should not be the trigger, to us remembering His death, but our relationship with Him. When we got our relationship in place, then we will always remember what He has done and what he is still doing.
Please note that whatever, goes in the body, ends up in the toilet. God is greater than that.
His teaching was about relationship and fellowship
Response to entry 1: There are many thing in the bible that God leaves unclear for example the bible never uses the word trinity, and God never gives Job a specific response to why he suffered (Job 38:4-7)
Response to 1: It is not about the bread, but about who the bread hosts which is the real presence of our Lord. For example we don't care about the throne, but who sits on it.
Response to 2: There are specific instructions on how Christians are to take and distribute the blessed sacrament in (1 Corinthians 11:26-34), and in the early church father's [Justin 151 AD (describes what an early church service looked like) - First Apology 66 and the Didache 60 AD (The Didache is a document from the early church that explains the apostles teaching and specifically how church services should look - XIV and IX].
Response to 3: The bible masterful leaves out details so if it leaves out details about a recipe there is a reason. Perhaps it is because in God's eyes the recipe doesn't matter. (refer to response 1 as this point is just a continuation of point 1)
Response to 4: This is an qualifying argument and thus it is void. Take the example of a professor who allows a student to take an exam late because the students grandmother died. The tests still is to be taken on the specified date in the syllabus, but an exception is made for these special circumstances. As God is both just and merciful I assume that if the circumstances you described did take place God would make an exception. (Just as I assume God would if someone in a far off land hadn't heard the gospel.)
Response to 5: (refer to response 1 and response 3 as it is a continuation of argument 1 and 3) It is not about the hands that prepare the host, but rather about the power of the God who transforms it into himself. Just as it the knight who saves the damsel and not the person that asked the knight to her. (another more Christian example is how when a prayer is answered we don't say that we have done this, but that God has done this.
Response to 6: By the Eucharistic prayer the bread becomes our Lord's body and the wine mixed with water becomes His blood. Therefore the Eucharist is our Lord so obviously it must effect us in some way. This why it is understood in many traditions to be a mystery. We can't fully comprehend everything, but in the words of St. Augustine "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ." (Ibid. 272).
Response to entry 2: The Eucharist in my hosts his real presence.
(Notice how Christ promises not to drink from the fruit of the vine until his time is come. He doesn't finish the passover meal. He finishes it on the cross after he get wine on the cross. which after he drinks he says "it is finished.").
Response to entry 3: Your translation of the word for eat in John 6 is completely wrong. The word is "trogon" which means to chew or tear like an animal would a piece of flesh. It does not in any way mean to simply take in or believe.
Response to entry 4: Part 1-In Genesis 1 when God creates man in his own image he reflects on his recent creation by saying that "It was very Good (Gen 1:31). The material world is not bad, but by our sin we have made it bad. If all material things are in and of themselves evil then Christ would not be spotless and couldn't be the messiah. As well in Revelation 21:1-4 we see the author describes how he sees a new heaven and a new earth and how the bride (Us his people) and the groom (God) will dwell with him, a return to Eden so to say. My first argument here is that "The word became flesh" what was once untouchable for us, God has become touchable in the person of Jesus.
Part 2-Romans 14:17 is not talking about how some of the early Christians would look down upon their brothers and sisters in Christ for not following The Law of Moses (There were many laws about eating and drinking in The Law Leviticus 11:3-8, Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:21). Paul is rather talking about how it's not about following The Jewish Law, but of "faith working in love" (Galatians 5:6). Paul is asking the Romans to love one another (Romans 14:14-16). In short context is key.
Response to entry 5: Communion isn't just a symbol, it is our Lord therefore it is a reality. It has symbolic elements, but is is not just a symbol.
Response entry 6: Jesus has a body. He is fully God and fully man. By you saying that Jesus is a spirit you are denying his body and thus endorsing an early Christian heresy called Docetism. (remember Jesus ascended into heaven Act 1:9-12) Also I assume you misspoke by saying Jesus was a spirit and that's ok because while Christology is import it is very hard to get right.
Response entry to 7: I would agree with you that part of holy communion is the relationship with God and fellowship with our brothers and sisters in Christ (that's why it's called communion), but is is much more. It is our new passover meal. In the old passover you had to kill a yew lamb (note that Jesus is the lamb of God) and eat it in the passover meal (both were seen as necessary for the passover to be complete). This meal consisted of the flesh of the lamb, unleavened bread, and a cup of wine. Jesus had the last supper on the night of unleavened bread in the passover (note how most communions use unleavened bread to remember the Jewish roots). Jesus also say that he won't drink from the fruit of the vine until he drinks it new with the disciples in his Father's kingdom (Matthew 26:29). This is because for the Passover meal to be complete you had to drink a cup of wine. Jesus does this on the cross and then gives himself to the Father (Matthew 27:48-50). The eucharist is how we enter into the eternal and more then sufficient sacrifice of Christ. Again Christ is the Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) and communion is the new Passover meal.
Response to entry 8: If our relationship is enough to remember Christ sacrifice why did the apostles and the early church practice communion. I mean if it's just a cool symbolic way of remembering the cross why keep it? Also the eucharist like prayer, worship, and the word is a way in which we have relationship with God. It in fact is a great way to have relationship with him because he is really there (just like in the word, prayer, worship, the spirit, and ect...)
Response to entry 9: That is why communion is closed off to non believers. It only works if we have a relationship with him. As for me, a great sinner I go throughout my day constantly forgetting about God and what he has done for me despite the fact that I should constantly (1 Thessalonians 5:17). The Eucharist is a way that Christ dwells in us (John 6:56-57) and is how we enter into the sacrifice of the cross in a deeper way (one that is beyond our full comprehension).
Response to entry 10: The Eucharist is a Holy mystery. How exactly it nourishes us and other questions like that are in my opinion unnecessary.
Response to entry 11: I would say that his teaching was the Gospel, which is in the words of John the Baptist "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near" (Matthew 3:2). Jesus is telling us about this kingdom and how we are to live in it. The eucharist is part of this kingdom.
@@mattreser2460 Your response only shows how blind you are to the truth laid out for you. Instead of humbling yourself and accept the truth, you decided to present a response, which is nothing but unbiblical, carnal and pure confusion. Why did you only respond up to point 6? Please respond to the rest of what I have written. Maybe you cant because it was way above your carnal understanding. I rather you don't respond, for you might make more mess than what you have already made.
@@setapart3452
Firstly let me say I was foolish for expecting a good conversation from a UA-cam comment section. I don't claim to know the full truth for I am weak and my mind is feeble. I offer my retorts to your argument to challenge you as a fellow in Christ.
Secondly you only have points 1-6 numbered the rest is mostly repetition of your previous points. But I will edit each of my responses as to help with your understanding of my argument.
Thirdly what is the truth, or rather who? Is it you and your opinion? Or is it Christ our Lord.
Also to close I challenge you to read John 13:35 and meditate upon it for a while.
@@mattreser2460 Your teaching of a natural piece of bread made by natural hands becoming the body and some juice that becomes his blood is nothing g but idolatry. The Bible does not teach anything about partaking of his body through some wafer of cracker. Jesus or the Apostles did not teach it. They never taught anything on sacraments, eucharist, rosary, Mary worship, purgatory or a trinity.
If Jesus did give bread as a source of Communion, why you all eating wafer and cracker. That is changing the instruction, isn't it. When you all finish eating, then it all ends up in the toilet. You honestly think God that God would even instigate anything that is connected to worship and something passing out in the toilet ? He is wiser and bigger than that. Put away the idolatry and seek to worship him in Spirit and in truth. He was teaching and revealing something great that was about to happen.
@@mattreser2460 whwnever Jesus was revealing or teaching his disciples he would by way of metaphors. I challenge you to read John 6 and after reading it, I then challenge you to find out what is the biblical terminology of eating and drinking. Your natural understanding can never understand the spiritual things.
Not my opinion Matt, I study the word of the Lord which you need to do but just too lazy and carnal.
The irony here is that the "eucharist" is, in scripture, the symbol of the new covenant between God and Israel. It, just like the Torah, has nothing to do with these gentiles.
Slightly incorrect in this sense: Israel under the New Covenant included Jews and gentiles! Both Paul and John in Revelation teach this.
Wounded Ego number one is that in the Bible it said that everyone who has faith in Christ is now Israel. Read NT again. Number two is it’s because of people like you and comments like this is why Jews are hated around the world and this hurts me deeply because I am myself an ashkenazi Jew. It’s this ego of yours that’s done us so much harm. Please rethink your attitude and read and read NT again.
Perhaps the most frustrating speaker I have ever listened to. You’re constantly saying what does he mean by that? And if he were to explain himself, we would have a dozen more questions asking and what does he mean by that? Clear as mud!
NT Wright why aren't you a catholic priest you know deep down in your heart Catholicism is the one true church of God who Jesus gave the key to St. Peter .Join us why delay? Lena
Ha, you obviously have no idea of some of the things Wright believes. These are things he has stated out right: he doesn't believe (at all) in purgatory, doesn't view the Virgin Birth as necessary, he has a low view of the councils (especially Chalcedon), he doesn't believe in the supreme authority of the Papacy, and many other things i can't remember at this moment.
He believes in the incarnation, which means that when John says, and the Word was made flesh that the Birth stories are logically consistent with that. But does he actually say that the birth stories are not history?
We (Anglicans) regards the Roman Catholic Church as a holy, apostolic and catholic Church, but not the only one true Church of Christ. In our regard, the Anglican and Roman Catholic Church share the same root of the early church. For myself, a former Catholic, still hold the Catholic Church in high regards but this does not mean I still subscribe to many of its doctrine and dogmas. We do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation.
I can certainly see him in the future join the Anglican Ordinariate of the Catholic Church.He'd then have a valid consecration and be able to still enjoy Anglican songs,liturgical traditions,and patrimony.That is where all of the authentic Anglicans have fled to since 2009.
Go away