Ulrich Zwingli: The most misunderstood Reformer? (w/ Dr. Bruce Gordon)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- This video is sponsored by Faithful Counseling. For 10% off your first month, use the link, www.faithfulcounseling.com/gos...
Ulrich Zwingli, born January 1, 1484 in Switzerland, would go on to become a leading figure of the Reformation. However, just as quick was his rise to prominence as his fall from grace. After dying in battle, many of his contemporaries distanced themselves from him, and despite being contemporary with Luther, he receives only a small fraction of the attention other Reformers do in current studies of the Reformation.
Dr. Bruce Gordon, Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University, joins me in this episode to discuss the life and legacy of Ulrich Zwingli, which he outlines in more detail in his groundbreaking work God's Armed Prophet. Together, we explore the myriad ways Zwingli has been misunderstood, as well as why he continues to be a figure that defies easy characterization.
Dr. Bruce Gordon's book: amzn.to/49BgI0L
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/gospelsimplicity
Merch: shop.gospelsimplicity.com
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a UA-cam channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Hey! My name is Austin, and I'm a 24 year old guy who’s passionate about the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel. I believe that the gospel, the good news about Jesus, is really good news, and I’m out to explore, unpack, and share that good news with as many people as possible. I'm a full blown Bible and Church History nerd that loves getting to dialogue with others about this, learning as much as I can, and then teaching whatever I can. I grew up around Frederick, MD where I eventually ended up working my first job at a church. They made the mistake of letting me try my hand at teaching, and instantly I fell in love. That set me on a path for further education, and I'm currently a student at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, IL, studying theology. On any given day you can find me with my nose in a book or a guitar in my hands. Want to get to know me more? Follow me and say hi on Instagram at: @austin.suggs
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
YODRSIYIVB5B6QPM
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
Chapters:
00:00 - Teaser
01:03 - Why study Zwingli?
06:07 - Zwingli as humanist
17:27 - Moving toward Reform
31:16 - Internal critique or revolution?
37:20 - Zwingli and the Eucharist
48:40 - Iconoclasm and caring for the poor
54:23 - Controversial death
01:03:45 - His legacy
OERNFF59LU4GEU5K
HHQQFUFIBM8K6UIK - Розваги
Although I still reject his theology I now have a much more nuanced view of him and can see how he came to the conclusions that he did. Thanks a ton!
This comment is the perfect expression of what I want to come out of videos like this
Excellent discussion. Erasmus had a massive impact on many current views in reformed churches. Recently I have been reading Fr Josiah Trenham’s critique of Zwingli in his book Rock and Sand (also as an interview on UA-cam). It is clear Zwingli was a brilliant man in many ways but his shift was too radical. Personally I have come to a more Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist and Church polity, after having been a Protestant for 50 years.
I’m enjoying Dr Gordon’s presentation. Since I was raised on what resulted from Zwinglian reform (I’ll apply what Gordon 44:02 presents here & not completely lay it at Zwingli’s feet), I’m having difficulty not listening defensively & apologetically. Dr Gordon’s gentle, descriptive manner is helping. I have to trust his scholarship that he is not merely trying to rehabilitate Zwingli, since the rather spiritual-as-internal approach is clearly unpopular in wider Christianity save in the world of MacArthur. Clearly, a higher-but-different approach to the sacraments didn’t really win the day in the long run. And the ruins of Protestantism and of Protestantized Catholicism lie heavy enough around us to show that. Thank-you for this latest substantial contribution to intra-Christian dialogue & understanding.
I’ve been reading Zwingli every now and again for a while now, so I’m really glad you finally had a Zwingli scholar on to talk about his views. Great video!
Dr. Gordon's book is worth reading.
I greatly enjoyed it
A superb introduction to a giant figure mostly reviled or neglected.
If you think of communion, not like a memory of the mind, but a beautiful memory relived in music, like a song that transports us to a beautiful and all important moment. It takes us back and transforms our present state into where and who we were in that moment. It is spiritually transforming us in all aspects of ourselves through the special work of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, as we do ‘this’ in memory of Christ. The spiritual substance and life of Christ who has redeemed us and is continually sanctifying us .
I really appreciated the interview!
One thing I want to look up is what sort of conversations there were concerning his claim that "the flesh profiteth nothing". It seems to me such an obvious problem to interpret that passage as saying that Jesus' Flesh profits nothing; it had to have been dealt with, and Zwingli must have responded to those concerns.
Obrigado pela entrevista. A maior oarte do evangelicalismo brasileiro (na América do sul) é influência pura do entendimento sobre A Ceia do Senhor do Zwinglio
This talk is helpful in understanding Zwingli’s doctrine of the Lord’s supper, is it possible that it is much closer to that of Calvin’s doctrine of the supper than some are willing to grant?
Austin, I want to ask you to get in contact with Everett Ferguson, I don’t know if you’re familiar with his work, but it would represent something very important to me to get to see him in this channel. Why? because you’re a very honest protestant and I’ve been highly edified with your content together with your irenic mind. I love how you approach topics with such genuineness concerning the path after truth. Ferguson is associated with the “Church of Christ” or “the churches of Christ”. Yet, he is also a very prominent person concerning patristics specifically and other historical fields of the Church. I’m not too sure how old he is right now, but, if it possible that you could contact him and giving us an interview about any topic you consider worthy, it would truly be a blessing to me and to others also. God be with you as you seek the truth.
Oh, that’d be interesting.
Very informative presentation on Zwingli. What I think Dr Gordon does well is articulate Zwingli s “reformed” understanding of the Eucharist- as he apparently did not think spirit and matter can mix. This of course is at variance the the Catholic understanding and in the final analysis- a denial in the incarnation itself since the incarnation is exactly the mixing of spirit and matter - so to speak. Seems also that Zwingli - or his followers - did not know understand that the Mass IS NOT that the sacrifice of the cross had to be presented over and over again. That s a complete mis understanding. The Catholic and Orthodox Christians understanding is that the liturgy is a a PRESENTATION of the ONE sacrifice given to us in time.
It is how the one sacrifice of the cross is communicated through time (the fulfillment of the prophecy found in Malachi).
I found myself also wondering about Zwingli s illegitimate children? Martin Luther also broke his vow of celibacy. I forget who said it it it seems true - “ heresy often begins below the belt”
Any way just a few thoughts - thanks again Austin for your continued interesting pod casts!
This was very informative. I'm no Zwingli expert by any means, but it seems like hes understating Zwingli's ideas about violence especially late in his life. This is no "perhaps maybe violence is nessisary" aspect to the end of his life. He seems pretty darn committed to violence being the solution, to the point the that he provoked the conflict he died in...
Uh no. Whenever he went into battle or proposed a plan of attack, he was pretty adamant that there should be no bloodshed
Excellent! Thank you.
You are welcome!
The *human* flesh profits nothing. But Jesus said the his flesh was the living bread come down from heaven. He said whoever eats this bread will never hunger. He also said that he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. At the Last Supper, he said "This *is* my body. this *is* my blood.", not this is a symbol of my body, of my blood. He told the apostles "*Do this* in memory of me". If he didn't change bread and wine into his body and blood, what did he do? To the frail human senses, it appears to be bread and wine, but the substance has indeed changed. Our human senses are feeble. Animals hear, see and smell things we can't. You can't rationalize God. Jesus told Thomas that "You believe because you have seen Happy are those who have not see, yet still believe." We can't see gravity, but we believe it's there. We can't see air, but we know it's there. If we believe that Jesus is also God, he can do anything, including changing bread and wine into his body and blood. In Luke 1:37 the Angel Gabriel tells Mary "...for nothing will be impossible for God."
I suspect there is a little of Zwingli in each of us.
Yes, true, but that's not a compliment to Zwingli.
I’m not sure I understand. Clarify, if you would. Thanks.
I just can't get past the issue that Scripture states the Holy Spirit would lead The Church in all Truth, yet we are expected to believe The Church had it all wrong for 1500 years until these few men came along and supposedly set in on the correct course. And of course from that course have sprung thousands of denominations who all embrace somewhat opposing doctrine/dogma, and of course each one thinks THEY are correct.
The reformers were like "We dont like a single individual being able to make universal theological pronoucements. (the Pope.)" Also the reformers: "Allow me to make these universal theological pronoucements."
There are lots of protestant responses to this. This is simply a misrepresentation.
The (Hussite 15th century) reformers were also pushing back against the Eucharist not being taken enough and not being taken of bread and wine and many times the lay people not taking it at all but rather observing…the Catholic Church has changed that now in their practice since Trent and Constance…. Was truth present at that time period within the RCC? Obviously not because they practice it differently now.
You said this all succinctly. These are my thoughts exactly. I’m very impressed with your comments. Well done.
The belief isn’t that you had it wrong for 1500 years but that things(like the rosary or chot-key) developed over the course of 1500 years and those few men supposedly returned to the beginning years before anything was developed.
I'd like to read Zwingli's writings on the Eucharist,which,as described by Dr. Gordon here sound Gnostic.
I was also struck by how often Erasmus & Erasmian were mentioned. Not surprised, but telling. Also, “new” and “exciting.”
I am reading Bruce Gordon's book and it is fascinating. Zwingli has not had the attention that later figures have because, in my humble opinion, his conflicting impulses seem to separate him into parts, rather than act as signs of progression and coherence. His theology did develop with coherency however and his understanding of scripture was deeper than anyone of his time.
He saw through the deceptive manipulation of the RC church, the dire implications of their teaching and called them out. In his time this demonstrated immense conviction and courage.
Zwingli is not the foundational figure in the Reformation, as the author claims, but he was used of God in powerful ways to return the people to the truth of the Bible. He was not a shepherd but he was a passionate biblical academic and teacher. His contribution was not so much in changing the lives of individuals as it was changing structures that benefited individuals. Perhaps this is why he is not remembered as others were such as William Tyndale, a brilliant thinker, whose heart was for people, or Calvin, equally brilliant but ultimately a shepherd who died with the humility in which he had lived.
I think also that it is hard to get past that he died while attempting to kill others.
His death does not erase the immense good he did nor his conviction for the truth, but nonetheless it was his final epitaph.
I think it is an unwinnable argument to maintain that Zwingli is the main author of the Reformation.
Though standing against Luther, he was unquestionably the man with more integrity, commitment and understanding.
This is a great book and I am glad I understand this man of God better than I once did.
Eating Christs body and drinking his blood is simply, Genuinely, believing the Spiritual reality of the Gospel. The Lords Supper is a memorial of this. But Christ is Present in the Spiritual reality(duh). So Communion, Eucharist, Lords Supper is the reflection of the higher Spiritual Reality of belief in the Gospel. Not the original source of the grace. Its a physical road sign to the Spiritual truth.
I don’t believe Zwingli was misinformed he was just a reformer without a prayer life. He was a major jerk with lots of vendictive issues.
What makes you think he didn't pray?
Hmm. And who might you be referring to besides Zwingli? I'll just say that I had to be willing to remove the log from my own eye before I could see clearly to remove the speck from someone else's eye. Then something strange happened. I became much more reluctant to point out the speck. We're all on a journey, my friend.
@@GospelSimplicity: I met ordained RC priests just like Zwingli. They lost their faith and were vindictive against the Holy Eucharist and hated the church. Just like Zwingli. These jerks spent efforts at mass laughing at us fools who believed. Gee. I still gag thinking of these guys.
@@richardbenitez1282taking the (supposed) lack of faith in others personally is tricky business. Maybe I’ll have it licked by the time I’m 100!
New political force? E. Michael Jones wrote that every Protestant ‘church’ is a front for a political movement.
How are the Roman and Eastern Communions *not* forces for political movements?
Protestant pastors are known to endorse political candidates publicly and that’s huge for a campaign when they can instantly get 10’s of thousands of votes. Popes might stand for a photo op and great politicians but have never publicly endorsed a candidate.
@@dmarie7714 AFAIK, only in 1983 have Catholic clergymen been banned from running as political candidates themselves. In many countries outside of the Anglosphere, there are often explicitly pro-Catholic parties (although some ,like the CSU/CDU in Germany, may not really endorse all the Catholic doctrines).
Separation of Church and state is a relatively new theological and political innovation, and it came to be basically simultaneously in both Catholicism and Protestantism.
It is also pretty obvious that in a country where some sort of Protestantism is the default, anyone claiming to be Protestant would have a potential political advantage.
Close your eyes and pretend he’s John Malkovich
Unfortunately Zwingli did not fully understand the Eucharist, or he seemed to have some things backwards. Yes God cannot be trapped in the bread, and no one ever taught that. We see in the Sermon on the Plain, the people go up and Jesus comes down signifying the meeting of the divine and human, Jesus sits and his disciples gather at his feet as He teaches the people, this happens at every mass in the liturgy of the word. Jesus sees this great hungry crowd and ask His disciples what do they have, and they bring Jesus small pittance of bread and fish, Jesus then multiplies this to feed the giant crowd, this too takes place at the Mass in the liturgy of the Eucharist. Jesus wants to teach us but more profoundly He wants to feed us with the pittance we have to offer by multiplying it and elevating it to the spiritual feeding of all. We see in John 6:27 Jesus says "Do not work for the food that parishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you." Man should hunger for the bread of life which has come down from heaven which is Jesus Himself. Then in John 6:35 Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty, and he continues in John 6:51 where He states, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Eucharist is both divine and human, both spiritual and physical. Jesus is not trapped in the bread, by His own will He offers the gift of Himself to us as real food, and real drink, elevating these elements to an infinite level, which brings us to eternal life. Zwingli's view is not biblical and is not what has been passed down through Sacred Tradition. Jesus is both human and divine, Zwingli seems to not find Jesus's humanity important.
This came to me this week. I'm not sure why it wasn't obvious before. Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. The Eucharist is 100% bread and wine while at the same time being 100% Christ. It's the incarnation.
@@OrthodoxInquirer exactly, and this is a theme repeated over and over throughout the Bible. Understanding the incarnation is the key to understanding scripture.
@@OrthodoxInquirer As a Catholic I’d say this would be most certainly a heretical affirmation to Eastern Orthodoxy’s standards (to say the Eucharist is 100% bread and wine and 100% body and blood of Our Lord). Actually the Most Holy Sacrament is 100% bread and wine prior to the consecration (for EO, it happens in the moment of the ‘Epiklesis’) and 100% body and blood of Our Lord after it through the changing of the essences. The Incarnation is indeed the central mystery that leads to Christ Jesus truly giving his body and his blood as “real food” and as “real drink”, but I think mayve you are conflating the mystery of the hypostatic union - correlated to the Incarnation - with Eucharistic sacramentology. Only in the unity of the hypostasis (of the Son) can the two natures of humanity and divinity, without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, come together. ‘Au contrarie’, the very formula of the Divine Liturgy of St Basil uses the word “change" (μεταβολή) (metavolí) to describe the modification of the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus, only made present again (re-presented) in a sacramental manner, knowing for a fact that those are not changed in the perceptible/ material form in any possible Neoplatonic sense, more fitting to the Cappadocian Fathers: they change precisely in the essence of its being.
You seem to defend more or less the Lutheran “consubstantiation”. This would be heretical according to the “Longer Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow” (1830) and to the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of 1672, just to name two instances. More so, the Eastern Patriarchs (Chrysanthos of Jerusalem, Jeremiah III of Constantinople and Athanasios III of Antioch) put forward agreement with a document explicitly condemning “consubstantiation” as a necessary condition for achieving unity with the Anglican bishops during dialogues in the 1700s (for details on the correspondence and the texts themselves, see: Williams, G., The Orthodox Church of the East in the 18th century, which is the Correspondence between the Eastern Patriarchs and wicked bishops (London 1868). Other issues were put on the way and the dialogue got impossible.
@@masterchief8179 I will, of course, discuss it with my priest. I believe that we think it's a mystery and we don't try to define it like transubstantiation. I looked up the St. Philaret description of the Eucharist as you suggested. "In this, that the believer, under the form of bread communes of the very Body of Christ, and under the form of wine of the very Blood of Christ." I believe we think it is both bread and wine and Christ. Some people have had visions when they doubted the Eucharist but that doesn't mean that every Eucharist the bread and wine material disappears and switches to entirely to only His precious body and blood with no bread and wine still present.
I believe that MasterChef is technically correct. However, I've heard it discussed in Orthodox circles so as to leave one questioning.
His views on the Eucharist were adopted by Cranmer and incorporated in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer
But personally this does not at all substitute for the Sacrifice of the Mass
I actually have extensively refuted that claim on my channel, and I have a paper under review arguing as such. I'd love your thoughts from my channel's video on this!
@@anglicanaesthetics it was the thesis of Diarmaid Maccullogh among others
That's interesting. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to comment on it.
@@briandelaney9710 I'm aware--I'm firmly convinced he's wrong, but we'll see if my article gets published or not lol